Post by: saylean on July 16, 2012, 11:08:41 PM
Northwest Stevens co.
Post by: washelkhunter on July 17, 2012, 12:47:11 AM
Post by: bearpaw on July 17, 2012, 01:29:11 AM
SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) — Washington Fish and Wildlife officials say they've confirmed an eighth wolf pack in the state.
An adult wolf believed to be the pack's alpha male and a pup were caught Monday in northwestern Stevens County near the Canadian border. The adult got a monitoring collar and the pup got an ear tag.
Wildlife officials say this is being called the "Wedge" pack, named for the wedge-shaped part of Stevens County between the Kettle River and the Columbia River.
Just last month, officials said the agency had confirmed a seventh Washington wolf pack, this one in southern Stevens County, north of the Spokane Indian Reservation. They're calling that one the Huckleberry pack.
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Wash-wildlife-officials-8th-wolf-pack-confirmed-3711603.php#ixzz20rmaUZtO (http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Wash-wildlife-officials-8th-wolf-pack-confirmed-3711603.php#ixzz20rmaUZtO)
Post by: bearpaw on July 17, 2012, 01:43:28 AM
Is this really any surprise, those of us who live here and spend time in the woods have been telling everyone that we have a lot of wolves. Look at the documented sightings here on H-W: http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=79244.0 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=79244.0)
Honestly, WDFW only has about half of the packs confirmed. I know that may be hard for some to beleive but we have photos of a second wedge pack in GMU 105, we have numerous reports and photos of a second and possibly a third pack in GMU 111 where they have only confirmed the 1 smackout pack thus far. We have photos of wolves in GMU 108, they have not confirmed any there yet, and we have many reports of more wolves in GMU 121 Huckleberry suggesting 2 or 3 packs in that GMU and they have only confirmed 1 pack.
I stated on this forum last year, "There are nearly enough packs in NE Washington to delist." Now perhaps more of you will beleive this.
Here's what is happening right now, these packs are all raising pups, within 2 or 3 years we will be so overrun with wolves in NE Washington that some wolves will be forced to move to other parts of the state. So stay tuned, the rest of Washington will soon be as overrun with wolves as NE Washington and Idaho. :twocents:
Post by: NWBREW on July 17, 2012, 02:35:55 AM
Post by: bearpaw on July 17, 2012, 03:00:44 AM
GMU 101 - Malo Pack (sightings and photo)
GMU 101 - Barstow Pack (WDFW admitted, photo)
GMU 101 - Sherman Pack (photos and sightings)
GMU 101 - San Poil Pack (sightings)
GMU 105 - Wedge Pack (WDFW confirmed)
GMU 105 - East Wedge Pack (photos and sightings)
GMU 108 - Douglas Pack (photos and sightings)
GMU 111 - Smackout Pack (WDFW confirmed)
GMU 111 - Dominion Pack (sightings and photos of tracks)
GMU 111 - Ione/Metaline Pack (sightings)
GMU 113 - Diamond Pack (WDFW confirmed)
GMU 113 - Salmo Pack (WDFW confirmed)
GMU 117 - Ruby Pack (WDFW admitted, may or may not be the same wolves that were on Chewelah Creek)
GMU 121 - Huckleberry Pack (WDFW confirmed)
GMU 121 - Huckleberry Pack (sightings all over the unit suggest at least two packs, possibly 3 packs)
Post by: Mtn.Ghost on July 17, 2012, 03:54:16 AM
Based on photos and sightings, I firmly believe there are currently at least 15 wolf packs in NE WA. Please keep in mind that this will increase each year. http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=79244.0 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=79244.0)
GMU 101 - Malo Pack (sightings and photo)
GMU 101 - Barstow Pack (WDFW admitted, photo)
GMU 101 - Sherman Pack (photos and sightings)
GMU 101 - San Poil Pack (sightings)
GMU 105 - Wedge Pack (WDFW confirmed)
GMU 105 - East Wedge Pack (photos and sightings)
GMU 108 - Douglas Pack (photos and sightings)
GMU 111 - Smackout Pack (WDFW confirmed)
GMU 111 - Dominion Pack (sightings and photos of tracks)
GMU 111 - Ione/Metaline Pack (sightings)
GMU 113 - Diamond Pack (WDFW confirmed)
GMU 113 - Salmo Pack (WDFW confirmed)
GMU 117 - Ruby Pack (WDFW admitted, may or may not be the same wolves that were on Chewelah Creek)
GMU 121 - Huckleberry Pack (WDFW confirmed)
GMU 121 - Huckleberry Pack (sightings all over the unit suggest at least two packs, possibly 3 packs)
bearpaw, I believe it!! These are solid facts in the NE portion of the state not to mention the facts on the packs in the North Central part like the Pasayten wilderness, the Okanogan, Methow Valley, Twisp River and the Sawtooth Range which at some point I heard the state actually has been in denial about reintroducing them in some of these areas. :dunno: :bdid: I have personally seen these wolfs in the Rendezvous pass and wolf creek areas in the Methow Valley, the first time was 20 yrs ago and many times since and currently. :hunter:
Post by: boneaddict on July 17, 2012, 07:05:19 AM
Someone is monitoring the wolves on Red Top (North fork Teanaway). I found $hit one day (full of elk hair by the way) and the next day came through and it was marked with ribbon. I saw a bunch more ribbon and checked it out and sure enough a bunch of tracks in the mud.
Sign up Timberwolf also....I need to go put that into that thread. The elk are acting way different TOO. Anyone worth their salt in the woods would know their behavior demonstrates that they are being hounded by a predator.
Post by: D-Rock425 on July 17, 2012, 07:12:08 AM
Post by: Huntbear on July 17, 2012, 07:17:42 AM
How long before we get some tags :mgun: :mgun:
Not until we get 15 breeding pairs that are in ALL THE REGIONS OF THE STATE for 3 YEARS!!! You guys really need to read the states plan for this...
There has to be packs established in every region (see SW Washingtong and the Penninsula) with 3 consecutive years of pups being born and raised before they will even CONSIDER letting us have tags... This could go on for 10-15 more years before it is said and done.. Eastern Washington will become a dead zone for deer and elk in that amount of time.... When I was at the meeting at CWU, they made it very clear that this was the plan they were using and there was NO deviation from it.....
Post by: D-Rock425 on July 17, 2012, 07:31:53 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on July 17, 2012, 08:00:07 AM
Capture confirms presence of a new Washington wolf pack
by GARY CHITTIM / KING 5 News
Bio | Email | Follow: @gchittimK5
Posted on July 16, 2012 at 2:08 PM
Updated yesterday at 11:53 PM
Gallery
See all 5 photos »
NEAR KETTLE FALLS, Wash. -- Rancher Bill McIrvin and his hands are on constant alert after recent attacks left two calves dead and other cows wounded or missing.
He said he wants the state to take action against a wolf pack -- seen, but never confirmed -- in the Colville National Forest where McIrvin has a lease to graze his cattle.
Last week the state took action, and on Monday a WDFW biologist captured, collared and released what tracker Paul Frame said is the alpha male of the pack. Then Frame captured what the state had been waiting for -- a pup.
A WDFW spokesperson said the pup's presence is enough to declare the wolves here an official Washington State pack and count them toward the state's tally needed to remove wolves from its endangered species list.
The Wedge Pack becomes the eighth confirmed pack in the state. If that number grows to 15, and adult pairs continue to mate in three designated areas of the state, the wolf will be removed the Washington State Endangered Species List. That would allow ranchers and others greater freedom to protect their property from wolves.
King 5 had exclusive access to Monday's capture. Tune in Monday night at 10 and 11 to learn more.
Post by: boneaddict on July 17, 2012, 09:08:17 AM
They discussed other means to increase the harvest which fell short %25 EVEN AFTER extending it.
Introductions of electronic calls, multiple harvest, and trapping are ideas they have thought to introduce for this year.
Post by: 75johndeere on July 17, 2012, 09:10:49 AM
The fact that MONTANA had a season THIS YEAR, and the wolf population still grew %15 should tell you something. If interested in the whole article, I can post it. Its froma biological approach too, not a hunters perspective.I thought trapping was already a done deal they can trap up to 3 wolf's per year
They discussed other means to increase the harvest which fell short %25 EVEN AFTER extending it.
Introductions of electronic calls, multiple harvest, and trapping are ideas they have thought to introduce for this year.
Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2
Post by: rasbo on July 17, 2012, 09:16:05 AM
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on July 17, 2012, 09:20:48 AM
Post by: bearpaw on July 17, 2012, 09:29:15 AM
There is no doubt enough packs in Washington to totally delist, it's important for us to keep the pressure on WDFW by posting every wolf sighting and especially pictures of tracks or wolves here on H-W and report it to the state.
The state will use the wolf reports to determine new areas to confirm wolves. By also posting on H-W we can keep the WDFW accountable for all the sightings and wolf pack locations.
Post by: Northway on July 17, 2012, 09:37:08 AM
after we reach 15 breeding pairs{confirmed}could be 20 breeding pairs at least I'm sure.But then the battle will start.money will pour in to halt a hunt,or delisting for yrs..as we seen elsewhere.The state will blow more money on this battle in court....Hoping we have some folks in office by then,a stretch, I know, to put the kibosh on it..
That is my concern. It's frustrating that even if hunting/non-consumptive pro-wolf groups here in the state could come to an understanding on how to jointly lobby for delisting/alterations to the wolf management plan, some group like HSUS, DFW, or the CBD could come over the top and lobby/file lawsuits to derail things. In my opinion, things elevated to a new level of ugliness in the NRM when Molloy ruled in favor of pro-wolf groups who contended that it was a violation of the ESA to delist in Montana & Idaho, but not in Wyoming, which ended the wolf hunts until the delisting rider was attached to a bill.
Most of the large environmental groups are poorly led, lack real vision, and have little concept of effective strategies at the local level. They do send out nice donation letters with pictures of wolf puppies and polar bears though......
Post by: Huntbear on July 17, 2012, 09:51:23 AM
Don't forget, wildlife commissioner Douvia managed to get it in the wolf plan that once 18 packs are confirmed management can begin regardless of which regions the packs are in. :tup:
There is no doubt enough packs in Washington to totally delist, it's important for us to keep the pressure on WDFW by posting every wolf sighting and especially pictures of tracks or wolves here on H-W and report it to the state.
The state will use the wolf reports to determine new areas to confirm wolves. By also posting on H-W we can keep the WDFW accountable for all the sightings and wolf pack locations.
Bearpaw, that is not how they presented it at the meeting in Eburg... What they presented is there has to be 15 confirmed packs with every region having their quota (breeding pairs raising pups) for 3 consecutive years, before delisting/hunting/the legal battles begin... including the Olympic Peninsula and SW Washington to include the Klickitat...
If that is just dis information from the WDFW, then that is just more lies we need to nail them to the wall for..
Post by: Northway on July 17, 2012, 10:11:00 AM
"If, during the 3-year period, a year occurred where there were 18 successful breeding pairs of wolves
and the distribution criteria for delisting were met, then WDFW could begin the process to write a
status review to prepare a delisting recommendation at that time, rather than wait for the 3-year
period to conclude. However, wolves would not be proposed for delisting until they had achieved
the delisting objectives for 3 consecutive years."
Post by: baldopepper on July 17, 2012, 10:15:35 AM
Post by: Special T on July 17, 2012, 10:21:54 AM
Post by: Northway on July 17, 2012, 11:03:32 AM
Northway-you underestimate these groups-they have very good leadership for what they want to accomplish, and they have no intention of trying to be effective on a local level (they know that "local level" is always trumped by the Federal level). If we as hunting groups can't band together on a national level we are nothing more than a flea on their rear end. Those "cute" pictures they send out rake in literally millons of dollars a year, much of it from people whose encounters with wildlife are confined to occasional visits to the local zoo. I don't pretend to have any quick answers to the wolf controversy, but I would not for a minute underestimate those groups that are "pro wolf". They've been pretty damn effective at getting their way thus far.
As a disclaimer, environmental issues (especially at the local level) have been important me for most of my life. My perspective isn't that of a true hunter, because I've only recently taken an interest in hunting. In trying to determine where I stand personally, over the last few years I've followed a number of groups at the national and local level that are represented mostly either by consumptive or non-consumptive outdoor recreationists.
I guess it boils down to what you consider an effective environmental non-profit. If the benchmark is lots of donations and lobbying power, then I agree with you that they are well-led. From a perspective of accomplishing constructive and long-lasting conservation goals however, how can one claim that WDFW, CBD, or HSUS is well led when they bungled the NRM wolf issue so badly? Not only did they get wolves relisted when it was completely unecessary, at the last minute they tried to withdraw from the lawsuit when they saw the writing on the wall - effectively emboldening their opponents. Arguably, there are many other issues national environmental organizations are currently dropping the ball on besides wolves.
We'll see if they learn anything from the past when it comes to how they react to the inevitable delisting in Washington State. I'm not overly optimistic about it at this point.......
Post by: Huntbear on July 17, 2012, 11:09:00 AM
Here's what I pulled from page 69 of the Final Draft Wolf Management Plan:
"If, during the 3-year period, a year occurred where there were 18 successful breeding pairs of wolves
and the distribution criteria for delisting were met, then WDFW could begin the process to write a
status review to prepare a delisting recommendation at that time, rather than wait for the 3-year
period to conclude. However, wolves would not be proposed for delisting until they had achieved
the delisting objectives for 3 consecutive years."
The way I read this,,
There still has to have been met the Criteria for the Wolf plan... so verified breeding packs in every region they want them in.. HOWEVER, if 18 confirmed packs are found, then they MIGHT waive the 3 consecutive years... So we are still screwed until SW Washington and the Olympic peninsula have verified packs...
Post by: Northway on July 17, 2012, 11:29:23 AM
"Although wolves historically occurred throughout Washington, they do not need to reoccupy all of
their former range to meet the recovery objectives of this plan. The northern and southern Cascade
Mountains contain much of the “significant portion of the historical range” that would ensure the
long-term survival of the population. However, despite the presence of considerable high quality habitat for wolves on the Olympic Peninsula and in southwestern Washington (Figure 10), wolves
would not need to occupy these areas to achieve recovery if they were present in both halves of the
Cascades and eastern Washington in sufficient numbers to satisfy the recovery objectives for each of
the three recovery regions. Eastern Washington is currently being recolonized from adjacent
populations in neighboring states and British Columbia, whereas the Olympic Peninsula and
southwestern Washington are distant from colonizing sources and separated by additional potential
barriers inhibiting natural dispersal. Recovery is therefore likely to happen more quickly through the
reoccupation of eastern Washington than waiting for wolves to reach far western Washington."
I think any pack south of I-90 will help fill the quota of the Sourthern Cascades and Northwest Coast zone, regardless of how they are dispersed. I'm not completely clear on what the definite meaning of the paragraph on delisting in the event of 18 confirmed packs is........
Post by: Special T on July 17, 2012, 11:58:08 AM
Northway-you underestimate these groups-they have very good leadership for what they want to accomplish, and they have no intention of trying to be effective on a local level (they know that "local level" is always trumped by the Federal level). If we as hunting groups can't band together on a national level we are nothing more than a flea on their rear end. Those "cute" pictures they send out rake in literally millons of dollars a year, much of it from people whose encounters with wildlife are confined to occasional visits to the local zoo. I don't pretend to have any quick answers to the wolf controversy, but I would not for a minute underestimate those groups that are "pro wolf". They've been pretty damn effective at getting their way thus far.
As a disclaimer, environmental issues (especially at the local level) have been important me for most of my life. My perspective isn't that of a true hunter, because I've only recently taken an interest in hunting. In trying to determine where I stand personally, over the last few years I've followed a number of groups at the national and local level that are represented mostly either by consumptive or non-consumptive outdoor recreationists.
I guess it boils down to what you consider an effective environmental non-profit. If the benchmark is lots of donations and lobbying power, then I agree with you that they are well-led. From a perspective of accomplishing constructive and long-lasting conservation goals however, how can one claim that WDFW, CBD, or HSUS is well led when they bungled the NRM wolf issue so badly? Not only did they get wolves relisted when it was completely unecessary, at the last minute they tried to withdraw from the lawsuit when they saw the writing on the wall - effectively emboldening their opponents. Arguably, there are many other issues national environmental organizations are currently dropping the ball on besides wolves.
We'll see if they learn anything from the past when it comes to how they react to the inevitable delisting in Washington State. I'm not overly optimistic about it at this point.......
Hunters and anglers have raised more $$$ than ANY other group by self inflicting a tax on sporting gear. Unfortunatly these funds are being raided by our suposed managers the WDFW and Us Fish and Wildlife. Mainly by being sued by NGO's like the ones you mentioned and by not pushing for the maximization of opportunites that they are mandated to do...
Post by: baldopepper on July 17, 2012, 12:22:31 PM
Post by: Northway on July 17, 2012, 01:25:16 PM
Northway-I don't mean to bend this thread, but what you are facing is the clash of idealism and reality that is the one of the real issues here. Environmental groups do a very good job of playing to the idealism that nature is fuzzy wolf pups, white baby seals and polar bear cubs playing in the snow. Hunting groups play to the idealism that we are all true sportsman who consistently play by the rules, hunt only to manage the species and live by the "fair play" credo. As we all know, somewhere in between is the truth. The wolf issue is very similar to the "Save the Whale" issue that was the soup de jour of environmentalists a few years back ( still is to a point). The sad truth is that these issues stay alive partly because there are those involved who make a living by keeping the issue alive and baiting those of us who are idealistically pursuing what we beleive is correct. (on both sides of the issue) Non profit does not mean that directors and employees of these organizations are not paid. I took an opposite path from you, was born into a hunting family and grew up beleiving that to go into the woods without a gun was a waste of time. I've mellowed somewhat and lost the "blood lust"- still love to hunt, but can appreciate nature from, as you put it, a non-cosumptive point of view. Not really sure where I actually stand on the wolf issue to be honest, but I do beleive that as hunters we do need better national representation. Ducks Unlimited, RMEf, etc. are specific in their goals and , quite frankly appeal to non hunters as well as hunters-hence the reluctance to jump into something like the wolf issue. It's to bad that the reality is that raising money and hiring lobbyists and lawyers is necesaary to acheive our goals-but again another clash of reality and idealism. I admire your tenacity in pursuing this issue, good to see a few idealists still standing up for what they believe.
You make a lot of good points. I get what you mean about bending the thread and will limit my response to the subjet of the RMEF: I think it's foolish for any non-consumptive conservationist to turn their nose up to the RMEF. I'm well aware that they have protected or impacted 6 million acres of habitat and counting. With the projected population growth in western states, I think that habitat preservation will be the most important issue facing conservationists of any kind over the next 30 years.
Post by: bearpaw on July 17, 2012, 01:54:46 PM
Post by: boneaddict on July 17, 2012, 01:57:03 PM
Post by: boneaddict on July 17, 2012, 02:01:10 PM
Post by: Sumpnneedskillin on July 17, 2012, 06:39:18 PM
Post by: Northway on July 18, 2012, 03:49:31 PM
http://www.king5.com/news/environment/Wolf-numbers-on-the-rise-in-Washington-162930426.html (http://www.king5.com/news/environment/Wolf-numbers-on-the-rise-in-Washington-162930426.html)
This kind of relates to this thread in it's emphasis of growing wolf numbers. Included in the story are pictures of the captured Teanaway Pack alpha female. I wish they had stated her weight..........