Wolf Verification - Help Needed

[Idabooner]

In about 1992 I sat in a WDFW Commission meeting and listened to the WDFW testify to the commission that we had wolves in the Pasayten and they wanted to close coyote hunting to prevent accidental wolf shootings.

THEY KNEW THEY WERE HERE IN WASHINGTON THEN!

I was packing for an outfitter then, and they did close coyotes in the Pasayten and Sawtooth during deer season for a few years. Several times  while we were packing the mules at daylight at the trail head, the WDFW and USFS would come talk to the hunters telling them to not shoot any coyotes.

[DOUBLELUNG]

This is not reasonable:

"We don't know at this point whether the den where the pup was born was in Washington or British Columbia," Allen said. "We plan to monitor the pack next spring to determine the den location. If the den is in Washington, the pack can be considered a Washington pack; if the den is in British Columbia, it is a Canadian pack. Our Canadian colleagues are aware of wolf activity in that area, and will assist with monitoring on their side of the border."

 

A successful breeding wolf pack is documented by locating a breeding pair of adults with two or more pups that survive until Dec. 31, Allen said.

 So we don't count a cross-border pack as a Washington pack, unless the den is located in Washington?  That is ludicrous.  If a pack territory includes land in Washington, it is a Washington pack.  A den is a small hole in the ground within a territory; the area used by the pack should be the determining criteria.  This isn't like establishing citizenship, for f***'s sake!

Following this logic, only animals born in WA would be under the jurisdiction of WDFW.  Wildlife is the property of the citizens of the state in which it is found, at the time it is found.  I am flabbergasted that WDFW would not "count" a pack if it establishes a den outside the border.

[Little Dave]

This is not reasonable:

"We don't know at this point whether the den where the pup was born was in Washington or British Columbia," Allen said. "We plan to monitor the pack next spring to determine the den location. If the den is in Washington, the pack can be considered a Washington pack; if the den is in British Columbia, it is a Canadian pack. Our Canadian colleagues are aware of wolf activity in that area, and will assist with monitoring on their side of the border."

It makes sense when the animals are thought of in the sense of huggable puppies and fluffy bunnies.  If these were thought of as pests (apple maggot, pine beetle, so forth) they would be counted in Washington.  It would take a powerful lobby behind the concern, and motivating action.  They would be managed promptly.  We will have no lobby like that until the wolves reach the city.  I figure we'll have all wolves removed in about twenty years, followed by another cycle of stupidity about a century from now.

[bearpaw]

Dave I think that is a fairly reliable prediction...

[denali]

This is not reasonable:

"We don't know at this point whether the den where the pup was born was in Washington or British Columbia," Allen said. "We plan to monitor the pack next spring to determine the den location. If the den is in Washington, the pack can be considered a Washington pack; if the den is in British Columbia, it is a Canadian pack. Our Canadian colleagues are aware of wolf activity in that area, and will assist with monitoring on their side of the border."

 

A successful breeding wolf pack is documented by locating a breeding pair of adults with two or more pups that survive until Dec. 31, Allen said.

 So we don't count a cross-border pack as a Washington pack, unless the den is located in Washington?  That is ludicrous.  If a pack territory includes land in Washington, it is a Washington pack.  A den is a small hole in the ground within a territory; the area used by the pack should be the determining criteria.  This isn't like establishing citizenship, for f***'s sake!

Following this logic, only animals born in WA would be under the jurisdiction of WDFW.  Wildlife is the property of the citizens of the state in which it is found, at the time it is found.  I am flabbergasted that WDFW would not "count" a pack if it establishes a den outside the border.

Crap by that standard the only place that will have "TRUE Washington wolves" will be Aberdeen and Moses Lake.  We are bordered by 2 states and a Provence with significant wolf populations or soon will have, what a joke     

[whacker1]

This is not reasonable:

"We don't know at this point whether the den where the pup was born was in Washington or British Columbia," Allen said. "We plan to monitor the pack next spring to determine the den location. If the den is in Washington, the pack can be considered a Washington pack; if the den is in British Columbia, it is a Canadian pack. Our Canadian colleagues are aware of wolf activity in that area, and will assist with monitoring on their side of the border."

 

A successful breeding wolf pack is documented by locating a breeding pair of adults with two or more pups that survive until Dec. 31, Allen said.

 So we don't count a cross-border pack as a Washington pack, unless the den is located in Washington?  That is ludicrous.  If a pack territory includes land in Washington, it is a Washington pack.  A den is a small hole in the ground within a territory; the area used by the pack should be the determining criteria.  This isn't like establishing citizenship, for f***'s sake!

Following this logic, only animals born in WA would be under the jurisdiction of WDFW.  Wildlife is the property of the citizens of the state in which it is found, at the time it is found.  I am flabbergasted that WDFW would not "count" a pack if it establishes a den outside the border.

I am sure this would apply to Den's in Idaho as well, which would make the Diamond Pack questionable from year to year depending on whether they are using the same Den each year.  I am not saying that I know where they are denned up, but more along the lines that these animals cover a lot of geography, and it wouldn't surprise me if they denned in WA one year and ID the next and so on. 

Same issue applies in the Blue Mountains in relationship to both Oregon and Idaho.

[jackelope]

We are bordered by 2 states and a Provence with significant wolf populations or soon will have, what a joke     

That is the simplest explanation I have ever heard as to how the wolves came to be in Washington.
I think we have a winner.

[WAcoyotehunter]

I think the den site makes a good determining factor for wolf pack "location".  Much of the season will be spent near there with the rendevous sites in the vicinity.  The Diamond pack spends significant time in Idaho, we call them a WA pack becuase they denned on this side of the border. 

I suppose a collared packs location (state) could be determined with some formula figuring time spent in each state...but the standard seems to be based on reproduction.

We are bordered by 2 states and a Provence with significant wolf populations or soon will have, what a joke     

That is the simplest explanation I have ever heard as to how the wolves came to be in Washington.
I think we have a winner.

  I agree.

[NWBREW]

So does this mean all the bucks I've killed that walked across the border are canadian deer?  If a pack roams between Washington and Idaho.....dens in Idaho and roams mostly in Washington or vise versa it is a region thing...not state. MANGAGE THE PACK.
What if there are 15 wolves in washington area up there and 15 in the Idaho area up there. That's 30 wolves.....but it's only 15 in each state......still 30 wolves. Just look at how big the lolo pack has gotten and what has happened to the game in that area.

If a wolf comes across the U.S. border illegally....it should be treated as an attack and dealt with appropriatly. 

I do believe there are places wolves would be ok to live but there are many places they should not be. This is not the day of old. The population of the states have grown and there is less wilderness area in the states that can support a predator like the wolf. The N.W.T is a prime example of a region that can and does support a healthy population of wolves. Here in the states I believe our human population is too high and our wilderness area is too small to support wolves and let them be wolves. It's unfair to the wolves......send them all to Canada so they can live happy. 

[WAcoyotehunter]

I tend to agree that the populations Should be managed with disregard for state boundaries.  Clearly the wolves don't know the difference.  The problem with that approach is evident with the whole wyoming management debacle.  Those animals are being managed as a population (within the region) and idaho and montana are being screwed by wyomings plan (or lack of).

[grundy53]

I tend to agree that the populations Should be managed with disregard for state boundaries.  Clearly the wolves don't know the difference.  The problem with that approach is evident with the whole wyoming management debacle.  Those animals are being managed as a population (within the region) and idaho and montana are being screwed by wyomings plan (or lack of).

i think all of the states should adopt wyomings plan.

[NWBREW]

I tend to agree that the populations Should be managed with disregard for state boundaries.  Clearly the wolves don't know the difference.  The problem with that approach is evident with the whole wyoming management debacle.  Those animals are being managed as a population (within the region) and idaho and montana are being screwed by wyomings plan (or lack of).

You're right. Get the fed. goverment involved and everything gets F'ed up.

[Little Dave]

Part of Washington is in the same region and there is no plan.  No plan at all is worse than Montana or Idaho. 

In a free society, is an insult to common sense to expect many different legislative bodies to arrive at the same conclusion.  That is something we might have expected out of the former Iraq.  It reminds me of when Sadaam Hussein was re-elected to office.  Apparently all provinces conformed and agreed that he was the right choice.  Because we are free to choose, if some want to manage wolves in a manner different than others.  Let them.  It is not as though the species is about to become extinct.

[bearpaw]

I tend to agree that the populations Should be managed with disregard for state boundaries.  Clearly the wolves don't know the difference.  The problem with that approach is evident with the whole wyoming management debacle.  Those animals are being managed as a population (within the region) and idaho and montana are being screwed by wyomings plan (or lack of).

I disagree with this rationale. I think Wyoming has it right and they are being screwed by MT and Idaho. Just my opinion, that's all.

But at this point, the best thing to do is for everyone to support HB6028 to remove wolves from the ESA altogether. I will start a thread on this bill if there isn't one already.

[grundy53]

Part of Washington is in the same region and there is no plan.  No plan at all is worse than Montana or Idaho. 

In a free society, is an insult to common sense to expect many different legislative bodies to arrive at the same conclusion.  That is something we might have expected out of the former Iraq.  It reminds me of when Sadaam Hussein was re-elected to office.  Apparently all provinces conformed and agreed that he was the right choice.  Because we are free to choose, if some want to manage wolves in a manner different than others.  Let them.  It is not as though the species is about to become extinct.

Well said