Washington Wolf politics

[Special T]

Wacoyote thanyou for that study summery.. I remember hearing about that wolf  on the news... I could understand why a biologist would not want to enter the lions den on this subject... However, merely supplying the information and only answering relevant/ polite questions would go a long way to diffusing the situation.. Does that mean that i will agree or not be em passioned, NO... But if we are sold a bill of goods i believe it is our duty to know what we are getting into... I also believe it is the GOV duty to be transparent in what is being done on this subject.... Lack of transparency is what fuels vehement disagreement and hatred on this subject...

[bearpaw]

Frankly I think that one or several of you management proponents should create a well written web log and detail encounters and evidence in Washington as well as provide a space to share thoughtful and intelligent opinion. It should probably be sprinkled with ideas and reasoning for wolf management. The wolf info pages are a big step in that direction.

Good Idea, I have talked about doing this in the past to my wolf info site, not quite sure how to add a blog/log or whatever to allow people to add comments, info, etc. But I would like to do it.

[Little Dave]

I discussed this with a WDFW employee, her reply was that all wolf packs have to be DNA tested in order to confirm and WDFW does no have the man power to chase down wolf packs on someones say so.

Private citizens can capture probable wolves and collect specimens for testing.  This is arranged through the "scientific permit."  The permit is issued by WDFW.  Presumably, during capture, if the animal is determined by a credible biologist to be a hybrid, it could be dispatched as provided by law.

We don't have to wait for the state to do any of this.  We can do this... and I have some experience working with the state in this capacity.

[Little Dave]

While the science is just one part of the politics, public opinion is a key component.  I spoke to some good friends today that returned from a trip to Yellowstone last month.

They loved seeing the wolves there.  It was May, so there weren't hordes of tourists along the road yet, but they saw bison, they did see elk, they saw wolves eating elk, pulling an elk's carcass out of the Madison River.  A bald eagle eating scraps off of it the next day.  Lots of bison, a few close encounters that they were thrilled about.  They noted that the park ranger there said that one whole pack of wolves died off this last year, the original "Druid" pack.  The ranger cited the cause was mange and other diseases spread to the wolves by an unauthorized release of domestic dogs containing these diseases. 

My friends don't hunt but they say that they don't have any problem with hunting particularly when the hunter uses the whole animal.  Their opinion on wolves is that wolves are a great way of bringing a natural balance back to nature.  They percieve human attempts to balance animal populations as unsuccessful suggesting that we've been at this for 200 years, and it isn't working.

They seemed a bit surprised when I described the natural setting 100 years ago as a wasteland and nothing that we would recognize today.  What we see and have become accustomed to seeing the product of a century of restoration sustained by the personal investment of sportsmen.

In other words, we need to re-teach the story with a few key points:
100 years ago, the woods were silent.
We did it, we restored it to what you see today.
It cannot stay this way on its own.

You have to know this story and tell it to everybody you know.  You also have to re-tell the story to people every five years.

[jackelope]

I know that the people who object to WB rants on this subject have provided few facts/studies that run counter to his argument...

I assume that I am lumped into this group. I think I should try to make it clear where at least I stand on this. I don't know where the rest of this "group" lies but here's where I stand.

I don't object to what Wolfbait says. I respect what he says and appreciate all the info he posts...really I do...he's right smack in the middle of ground zero wolf country. The problem that I have with all of this is the processes kind of...If you watch what people say on here regarding wolf sightings, most go un-reported. We need to report them, regardless of how we feel the WDFW or the Feds are going to handle it. This is the only way we will move towards delisting and management at a state level. The more we get reported and the more we get confirmed, the sooner we will be able to manage them on a state level. I know it's not the popular route, but at this point it's the only route. This is what I try to push...if folks see a wolf, report it. If nothing gets done about it, keep track of who you spoke to and go over their head if you don't get any follow up from it.

I agree with you jack everyone should report wolf sightings regardless of what they do with the info. My question is why do the wolves need to be DNA confirmed now and they didn't have to be in the 80's and 90's? After all wolves inter breed with coyotes etc. Is the DNA testing to prove that these wolves are Canadian wolves? Should it matter where the wolves came from? Does the wolf recovery have to have Canadian wolves in order for it to be a recovery? Surely the wolves back in the 80's and 90's must have been wolves.

The photo's that have been posted on here from Wacoyotehunter should provide you with more than enough reason to understand why DNA is now used to verify wolves.
We've had threads on here before about wolf sightings in Maple Valley....
This one's a great reason alone for requiring DNA:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,38112.0.html

[wolfbait]

I know that the people who object to WB rants on this subject have provided few facts/studies that run counter to his argument...

I assume that I am lumped into this group. I think I should try to make it clear where at least I stand on this. I don't know where the rest of this "group" lies but here's where I stand.

I don't object to what Wolfbait says. I respect what he says and appreciate all the info he posts...really I do...he's right smack in the middle of ground zero wolf country. The problem that I have with all of this is the processes kind of...If you watch what people say on here regarding wolf sightings, most go un-reported. We need to report them, regardless of how we feel the WDFW or the Feds are going to handle it. This is the only way we will move towards delisting and management at a state level. The more we get reported and the more we get confirmed, the sooner we will be able to manage them on a state level. I know it's not the popular route, but at this point it's the only route. This is what I try to push...if folks see a wolf, report it. If nothing gets done about it, keep track of who you spoke to and go over their head if you don't get any follow up from it.

I agree with you jack everyone should report wolf sightings regardless of what they do with the info. My question is why do the wolves need to be DNA confirmed now and they didn't have to be in the 80's and 90's? After all wolves inter breed with coyotes etc. Is the DNA testing to prove that these wolves are Canadian wolves? Should it matter where the wolves came from? Does the wolf recovery have to have Canadian wolves in order for it to be a recovery? Surely the wolves back in the 80's and 90's must have been wolves.

The photo's that have been posted on here from Wacoyotehunter should provide you with more than enough reason to understand why DNA is now used to verify wolves.
We've had threads on here before about wolf sightings in Maple Valley....
This one's a great reason alone for requiring DNA:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,38112.0.html

I guess for me that is not a good enough reason, maybe if the public was doing the confirming of wolves then I could understand. But the WDFW are supposed to be able to recognize the difference between wolves and dogs. I don't have the training that a biologist has, but I have seen many wolves and knew without a doubt that it wasn't someone's Malamute. In my opinion DNA testing has good scientific value, but when it is used as an excuse for questionable or illegal behavior it detracts from the value intended. As you know, wolves do not always remain purebreds as they tend over time to mate with coyotes and dogs, hence the black and red-legged wolf. In my opinion the DNA testing to confirm is just another way to move the goal post in confirming wolves and the packs.

[wolfbait]

I discussed this with a WDFW employee, her reply was that all wolf packs have to be DNA tested in order to confirm and WDFW does no have the man power to chase down wolf packs on someones say so.

Private citizens can capture probable wolves and collect specimens for testing.  This is arranged through the "scientific permit."  The permit is issued by WDFW.  Presumably, during capture, if the animal is determined by a credible biologist to be a hybrid, it could be dispatched as provided by law.

We don't have to wait for the state to do any of this.  We can do this... and I have some experience working with the state in this capacity.

Dave, how hard would it be to get one of those permits?

[haus]

While the science is just one part of the politics, public opinion is a key component.  I spoke to some good friends today that returned from a trip to Yellowstone last month.

They loved seeing the wolves there.  It was May, so there weren't hordes of tourists along the road yet, but they saw bison, they did see elk, they saw wolves eating elk, pulling an elk's carcass out of the Madison River.  A bald eagle eating scraps off of it the next day.  Lots of bison, a few close encounters that they were thrilled about.  They noted that the park ranger there said that one whole pack of wolves died off this last year, the original "Druid" pack.  The ranger cited the cause was mange and other diseases spread to the wolves by an unauthorized release of domestic dogs containing these diseases. 

My friends don't hunt but they say that they don't have any problem with hunting particularly when the hunter uses the whole animal.  Their opinion on wolves is that wolves are a great way of bringing a natural balance back to nature.  They percieve human attempts to balance animal populations as unsuccessful suggesting that we've been at this for 200 years, and it isn't working.

They seemed a bit surprised when I described the natural setting 100 years ago as a wasteland and nothing that we would recognize today.  What we see and have become accustomed to seeing the product of a century of restoration sustained by the personal investment of sportsmen.

In other words, we need to re-teach the story with a few key points:
100 years ago, the woods were silent.
We did it, we restored it to what you see today.
It cannot stay this way on its own.

You have to know this story and tell it to everybody you know.  You also have to re-tell the story to people every five years.

people seem to forget this lands been hunted for +15,000 years. Might one assume that several million hunter gatherers were providing balance to the environment? Nature is not in balance without our influence, how would we know that it would be? Do we have any evidence to support such a claim of balance? Only our influence balances nature. 'Natural Balance' is bambi nonsense. I believed in the 'balance' pipedream for most of my life until I finally asked the question.....if there were several million natives here before us, then has this land ever gone without hunting by humans for one reason or another? So if we want balance the land must be hunted, therefore "I hunt because someone has to" 

I'm thinking the natives consumed what they needed until supplies ran scarce then moved to another area, rinse repeat. Based on stories from settlers I'd say there is plenty of evidence to support this.

[haus]

Can you imagine calling yourself a wildlife biologist but only presenting preferencial facts to the public? You'd get laughed out of the room. Are you going to tell us that a majority percentage of the biologists studying these wolves are being entirely neutral and withholding any of their social or economic views from their reports? 

Without speaking for the biologists that are working on the wolves in WA, I would guess that they are tired of being flamed (generally irrational rants) by the public for something they have no real control over.  They didn't put the wolves here, they're just trying to do their job and learn what they can about them.  Maybe there is bias, i suppose it would be easy to form...but I think the people (at least the field staff) are trying to do their best with the situation.

I guess the stuff I've seen from the agencies has been pretty accurate.  Without going into ridiculous conspiracy theories, what have they said that was untrue?  What evidence does anyone here have to refute their biology?   

The whole documentation thing is a challenge.  The agency can't really produce a news release about a wolf sighting...they needed to gather REAL information and document reproduction before they could 'go public'.  I'm doubtful that they ever denied having some wolves in the state.  Instead they were wary about making a claim of a pack when it wasn't reproducing.  I think they were right to err on the side of caution.   

So whats your opinion of the wolf information on the NPS page? I believe the links been provided several times.

Contradictory reports have been coming out for a long time, I've yet to see unanimous reporting, so the question is, who's accurate? Some biologists are stating massive losses in ungulate populations due to wolf predation while some studies are blaming hunters or bad winters, and they're studying the same locations. So who's accurate? This is in reference to ID and MT. Those studies are important because the WWG's wolf proposal keeps citing these studies and using said data from some of the wolf studies in those states to make assumptions about wolves in our state. It looks like cherry picking to me.

back to my original question, if these wolves in the Methow are showing signs of different physical characteristics and social behavior as compared to wolves that were transplanted, then why is the possibility of these wolves being from a different subspecies not being discussed?

[WAcoyotehunter]

The subspecies should be discussed.  That is one of the problems with translocating (not introducing to the state, but moving within) wolves from Eastern Wa to the Cascades...some people lump some people split...in this case we should probably think about it before wolves are moved from here to there.  It might not be appropriate for the wolves in PO county to be in the cascades, but there is little evdidence to tell us what was where... 

[haus]

The subspecies should be discussed.  That is one of the problems with translocating (not introducing to the state, but moving within) wolves from Eastern Wa to the Cascades...some people lump some people split...in this case we should probably think about it before wolves are moved from here to there.  It might not be appropriate for the wolves in PO county to be in the cascades, but there is little evdidence to tell us what was where... 

why wasn't this part of the conversation and why hasn't it been mentioned in the WWG proposals then? why would the WWG ramrod legislation that ignores such information and leaves out any window of opportunity for it to be discussed? If such possibilities are even remotely true then why is it being ignored by our states biologists? Why would it not be mentioned by them? You know a simple "hang on guys we see there are possibly some fundamental differences between the two packs, its possible the ecological impact could differ between the two if placed in western wa" why is that so hard to say?

[bearpaw]

The subspecies should be discussed.  That is one of the problems with translocating (not introducing to the state, but moving within) wolves from Eastern Wa to the Cascades...some people lump some people split...in this case we should probably think about it before wolves are moved from here to there.  It might not be appropriate for the wolves in PO county to be in the cascades, but there is little evdidence to tell us what was where... 

I agree and will add:

It's not right to hold up management in one part of the state for wolves to recover in another part of the state (olympics) as the state is requiring in the DEIS. Even the USFWS has delisted in the eastern 1/3 of Washington.

(of course Mallloy begins hearings tomorrow and may put wolves back as listed)

[WAcoyotehunter]

The subspecies should be discussed.  That is one of the problems with translocating (not introducing to the state, but moving within) wolves from Eastern Wa to the Cascades...some people lump some people split...in this case we should probably think about it before wolves are moved from here to there.  It might not be appropriate for the wolves in PO county to be in the cascades, but there is little evdidence to tell us what was where... 

I agree and will add:

It's not right to hold up management in one part of the state for wolves to recover in another part of the state (olympics) as the state is requiring in the DEIS. Even the USFWS has delisted in the eastern 1/3 of Washington.

(of course Mallloy begins hearings tomorrow and may put wolves back as listed)

I agree.

[haus]

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,38112.0.html

I think its safe to say that was a joke  I didn't realize anyone took that post seriously.

[jackelope]

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,38112.0.html

I think its safe to say that was a joke  I didn't realize anyone took that post seriously.

I think the dude that posted it took it seriously.  Once Kain explained the invisible fence collars(that apparently don't work..) he never came back.