Post by: Ridgeratt on October 02, 2012, 05:23:46 AM
WILDLIFE – Washington Wildlife officials this week wouldn’t estimate costs of the effort to stop wolves from attacking cattle in northern Stevens County this summer and fall.
When other tactics failed, six Wedge Pack wolves were killed in four days of costly helicopter gunning near Laurier.
Washington Fish and Wildlife Department officials in the field were not talking to reporters, but information obtained from the agency indicated:
• Officers, biologists and supervisors worked sometimes day and night for nearly three months of hazing and lethal removal.
• At least one biologist was redirected full time on wolves rather than doing big-game surveys.
• Some staffers have so much overtime they’re not likely to recoup it all.
Dave Ware, Game Division manager, said a total of seven Wedge wolves were killed since Aug. 7 and a pup was found dead of undetermined causes.
“Could there be other wolves out there? Yes,” he said. “If we get tracks or howling a couple of months from now, it may not be a member of this pack. It could be more wolves dispersing from Canada. We’d approach that case differently. Wolves are going to come back to the wedge sooner or later. It’s good habitat.”
Ware said the agency continues to monitor for wolves and will work with ranchers to develop non-lethal methods of preventing attacks.
Post by: boneaddict on October 02, 2012, 05:49:29 AM
Post by: bearpaw on October 02, 2012, 06:09:25 AM
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/licenses/?getPage=75 (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/licenses/?getPage=75)
Nonresident Deer and Elk Tag Quotas
As of: September 28, 2012
2012 DEER TAGS
Regular/White-tailed Deer
Quota......Available
12,015.......9,965
White-tailed Deer
Quota......Available
1,500........1,500
2012 ZONE ELK TAGS
Zone Elk A & B Tag
Quota......Available
10,415.....6,672
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 02, 2012, 06:30:43 AM
Post by: boneaddict on October 02, 2012, 06:34:57 AM
Post by: TheHunt on October 02, 2012, 06:53:54 AM
I know of one place that locals have killed wolves and grizzly because of the predation of deer and elk. The locals live off the deer and elk so they kill both of them. No SSS just shoot and leave. At the gas stations and diners there are signs and rewards but no one says anything...
Like it or not, legal or illegal, this is how one community works it all out.
Post by: jackmaster on October 02, 2012, 07:02:35 AM
Post by: Killmore on October 02, 2012, 08:05:17 AM
Post by: bearpaw on October 02, 2012, 09:14:30 AM
Yep, you can buy an elk tag most any time now...
I know of one place that locals have killed wolves and grizzly because of the predation of deer and elk. The locals live off the deer and elk so they kill both of them. No SSS just shoot and leave. At the gas stations and diners there are signs and rewards but no one says anything...
Like it or not, legal or illegal, this is how one community works it all out.
We travel through all parts of Idaho every year, for about 3 years, since Judge Malloy shut down wolf hunting the first time, this is how almost the entire state is working out their wolf problem. Malloy did more damage to wolves than any other single person. Collectively, the wolf groups are now the wolf's worst enemy with all their extremism.
Post by: Bob33 on October 02, 2012, 09:46:37 AM
The problem is that wildlife agencies have been infiltrated by anti-hunters who do not support hunting. Managers and Biologists are looking for ways to limit hunting. The wolf plan and the new study out on cougar are prime examples.Yep, you can buy an elk tag most any time now...
I know of one place that locals have killed wolves and grizzly because of the predation of deer and elk. The locals live off the deer and elk so they kill both of them. No SSS just shoot and leave. At the gas stations and diners there are signs and rewards but no one says anything...
Like it or not, legal or illegal, this is how one community works it all out.
We travel through all parts of Idaho every year, for about 3 years, since Judge Malloy shut down wolf hunting the first time, this is how almost the entire state is working out their wolf problem. Malloy did more damage to wolves than any other single person. Collectively, the wolf groups are now the wolf's worst enemy with all their extremism.
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/ifwis/huntplanner/stats.aspx#elk (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/ifwis/huntplanner/stats.aspx#elk)
[smg id=11692]
Post by: bearpaw on October 02, 2012, 09:50:26 AM
Remember, there are most likely some anti-hunting WDFW employees hoping for this result. Those are the employees that need weeded out so the agency can function as a F&G agency rather than an environmentalist agency.
Post by: jackmaster on October 02, 2012, 09:57:14 AM
That is the future for Washington unless wolf numbers are controlled. :twocents:bearpaw, is there a way for us to vote them out or are they appointed by the higher ups?
Remember, there are most likely some anti-hunting WDFW employees hoping for this result. Those are the employees that need weeded out so the agency can function as a F&G agency rather than an environmentalist agency.
Post by: Slenk on October 02, 2012, 10:15:04 AM
It's not about saving the wolves . It's about stopping our hunting of Deer ,Elk, etc.. :twocents:
Post by: ribka on October 02, 2012, 10:29:19 AM
Unintended consequences of good intentions by *censored*s/wolf huggers. I guess wildlife mgt purely by emotions and feelings does not work
Wedge Pack gone; more coming soon
WILDLIFE – Washington Wildlife officials this week wouldn’t estimate costs of the effort to stop wolves from attacking cattle in northern Stevens County this summer and fall.
When other tactics failed, six Wedge Pack wolves were killed in four days of costly helicopter gunning near Laurier.
Washington Fish and Wildlife Department officials in the field were not talking to reporters, but information obtained from the agency indicated:
• Officers, biologists and supervisors worked sometimes day and night for nearly three months of hazing and lethal removal.
• At least one biologist was redirected full time on wolves rather than doing big-game surveys.
• Some staffers have so much overtime they’re not likely to recoup it all.
Dave Ware, Game Division manager, said a total of seven Wedge wolves were killed since Aug. 7 and a pup was found dead of undetermined causes.
“Could there be other wolves out there? Yes,” he said. “If we get tracks or howling a couple of months from now, it may not be a member of this pack. It could be more wolves dispersing from Canada. We’d approach that case differently. Wolves are going to come back to the wedge sooner or later. It’s good habitat.”
Ware said the agency continues to monitor for wolves and will work with ranchers to develop non-lethal methods of preventing attacks.
Post by: bearpaw on October 02, 2012, 10:44:00 AM
That is the future for Washington unless wolf numbers are controlled. :twocents:bearpaw, is there a way for us to vote them out or are they appointed by the higher ups?
Remember, there are most likely some anti-hunting WDFW employees hoping for this result. Those are the employees that need weeded out so the agency can function as a F&G agency rather than an environmentalist agency.
The Commission hires the director, but others in the WDFW are probably hired by managers and are usually career hires, very hard to get rid of. Others on the forum probably know more than I do how it works.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 02, 2012, 11:19:56 AM
The problem is that wildlife agencies have been infiltrated by anti-hunters who do not support hunting. Managers and Biologists are looking for ways to limit hunting. The wolf plan and the new study out on cougar are prime examples.
It's easy to throw out vague accusations and innuendos to fire people up. But seriously, name some anti-hunters who have infiltrated Washington's Dept of Fish and Game.
And of course Biologists look for ways to limit hunting. Sometimes that's the best management strategy. That's why there are drawing hunts for moose, sheep and goats. Because game populations can't support a full fledged open hunt, yet the department still wants to allow some opportunity.
I might point out that you yourself not only supported but pushed for limiting hunting for deer by supporting the 4 point or better rule and calling for less doe hunting.
The biggest loss of hunting opportunity comes from private timberlands being locked up or switched to lease only hunting.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 02, 2012, 11:40:49 AM
Post by: FSTaxidermy on October 02, 2012, 12:17:48 PM
What have wolves done to Idaho?
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/licenses/?getPage=75 (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/licenses/?getPage=75)
Nonresident Deer and Elk Tag Quotas
As of: September 28, 2012
2012 DEER TAGS
Regular/White-tailed Deer
Quota......Available
12,015.......9,965
White-tailed Deer
Quota......Available
1,500........1,500
2012 ZONE ELK TAGS
Zone Elk A & B Tag
Quota......Available
10,415.....6,672
We hunted elk in Idaho for 15 years straight. When the quality of the hunt left, we stopped going. Looks like thousands of others are sending the same message! From what I understand their game department is financially
upside down and their scrambling to fix the problem. No easy answers, hope they can do something drastic to control the wolves, I know that I won't be sending them a dollar until they get it resolved.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 02, 2012, 12:22:42 PM
According to you graph in 2000 there were about 25,000 elk taken in Idaho. IFG says there were 20,259.
Your graph shows in 2001 about 28,000 elk taken While IFG shows 19,292
In 2005 your graph shows about 37,500 elk taken while IFG shows 17,085
2009 you show 26,000 elk taken and IFG shpws 11,796
So we have some major discrepancies here.
Now you're both trying to show the same thing, that wolves are ruining/causing the end of hunting. But if either your numbers or theirs are true, it shows no such thing.
If wolves were killing off elk herds, there would be a steady downturn in numbers but your graph and their numbers show ups and downs as is normal in a fluctuating wild herd. By their numbers, they tried to blame wolves for a 47% drop off in elk harvest between 2000 and 2009. But they casually ignore that in 2003 15,117 elk were harvested and in 2007 18769 elk were harvested. That's an improvement of 24% and that happened while the wolf population was steadily growing. That's called cherry picking your facts to support your position. That's why drawing conclusions from limited data is foolish. This also ignores all other factors that affect elk herds.
Post by: Killmore on October 02, 2012, 12:23:50 PM
Post by: jackmaster on October 02, 2012, 12:29:45 PM
Post by: Broken Arrow on October 02, 2012, 12:31:57 PM
Post by: Killmore on October 02, 2012, 12:41:23 PM
Post by: MR5x5 on October 02, 2012, 01:15:59 PM
So wolf lovers - Obvious negatives aside, what possible good can come from the reintroduction of wolves?
Let me guess - It's nature, it's beautiful... Bunch of f'n NIMBYs. I know a real nice wooded area that would be perfect for wolves with plenty of viewing opportunities. Lets drop a pack on the Evergreen State College campus right next to the law makers.
I just don't get it....
Post by: Humptulips on October 02, 2012, 08:38:50 PM
And I'd add to that, habitat change due to logging and regrowth, drouth, human population growth and associated construction (homes, roads and such) and activities, bad winters etc. It's all interrelated and as much as we'd like to be able to say "Here's the one problem, that if we fix it, hunting is going to get better", that isn't going to happen. And it isn't realistic and can actually cause more harm because it takes our eyes off the fact that there are many things we need to keep our eyes on. If we get tunnel vision on one issue, the others are going to sneak up and bite us on the rear.
You really need to wake up. Do you even go out in the woods? Maybe you just don't have enough time in the area to see the steep slide we are going down.
North of Hoquiam.
Habitat Change? Prior to the 80s the private timberlands were mostly bigger second growth which is poor habitat for deer but they were there. Now there are clearcuts but few deer.
Drouth, When was that ever a problem?
Population growth and development, Not much of that going on north of Hoquiam. In fact the few deer there are hug in close to people where the predators stay back a little.
Bad winters, We haven't had one in years.
The real problem is predators and you can trace most of the decline back to cougars and especially 1996s I-655.
It started going down hill before that. When cougar were not a game animal you saw very few cougar tracks and lots of deer. When F&W made them a game animal they went to a limited draw on cougar tags and the population of cats started increasing. It only accelerated after 655 passed.
Cougar and bear are what is limiting the deer and elk population.
Yes I hate the leased hunting closures but I know plenty of places to hunt but there is getting to be damned little to hunt.
Post by: Bob33 on October 02, 2012, 08:52:59 PM
Bob33, not sure where you came up with that graph, can't find it at that link you provided. But I don't think it's accurate for starters. Here are some numbers provided by Idaho For Wildlife an anti wolf group. http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/IDFG%20PAGE.html (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/IDFG%20PAGE.html)The graph is from the data in the link I referenced, which is Idaho's official Department of Fish and Game website. Click on the specie (wapiti = elk), click on the year and type: General or Controlled. Download the CSV spreadsheets. Look at the HARVEST column: that means the number of elk killed. Add up the numbers. In 2000 the General harvest is 16,629, and Controlled is 8,271. Find a calculator and enter the numbers. I come up with 24,900. What do you come up with?
According to you graph in 2000 there were about 25,000 elk taken in Idaho. IFG says there were 20,259.
Your graph shows in 2001 about 28,000 elk taken While IFG shows 19,292
In 2005 your graph shows about 37,500 elk taken while IFG shows 17,085
2009 you show 26,000 elk taken and IFG shpws 11,796
So we have some major discrepancies here.
Now you're both trying to show the same thing, that wolves are ruining/causing the end of hunting. But if either your numbers or theirs are true, it shows no such thing.
If wolves were killing off elk herds, there would be a steady downturn in numbers but your graph and their numbers show ups and downs as is normal in a fluctuating wild herd. By their numbers, they tried to blame wolves for a 47% drop off in elk harvest between 2000 and 2009. But they casually ignore that in 2003 15,117 elk were harvested and in 2007 18769 elk were harvested. That's an improvement of 24% and that happened while the wolf population was steadily growing. That's called cherry picking your facts to support your position. That's why drawing conclusions from limited data is foolish. This also ignores all other factors that affect elk herds.
I have no idea where other websites get their data.
As for what is shows: 2011 had the lowest harvest of the last 12 years. The graph shows a decline in elk harvest from 2005, and the steepest decline is from 2010 to 2011. Was the habitat and weather that much worse in 2011 than in all previous 11 years?
Post by: h2ofowlr on October 02, 2012, 09:16:17 PM
That is the future for Washington unless wolf numbers are controlled. :twocents:bearpaw, is there a way for us to vote them out or are they appointed by the higher ups?
Remember, there are most likely some anti-hunting WDFW employees hoping for this result. Those are the employees that need weeded out so the agency can function as a F&G agency rather than an environmentalist agency.
The Commission hires the director, but others in the WDFW are probably hired by managers and are usually career hires, very hard to get rid of. Others on the forum probably know more than I do how it works.
Wasn't a lot of this cause by the equal opportunity standards that were forced upon the state agencies. They needed "X" amount of minorities, etc. Hiring standards were lowered in many cases as they couldn't get the qualified staff needed. You start reaching to hit the required needs and you get what you get. This gal / guy is qualified, but doesn't hunt. Hired! They used to be able to pick and choose, now it's a lawsuite if someone is a whistle blower.
Post by: sakoshooter on October 02, 2012, 09:49:04 PM
Hunter $$$ pay for stocking wolves then hunter $$$ pay for eliminating them. ???
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 03, 2012, 12:27:23 AM
yeah just what i want to beleive is a idaho for wildlife and an anti wolf hunting group, i will always beleive a non wolf lover, they think a little more clearly and a hell of alot more to my liking
That site isn't anti wolf hunting, they are anti wolf, which means they don't like wolves. Just like you. So I guess you can believe them.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 03, 2012, 12:34:20 AM
The graph is from the data in the link I referenced, which is Idaho's official Department of Fish and Game website. Click on the specie (wapiti = elk), click on the year and type: General or Controlled. Download the CSV spreadsheets. Look at the HARVEST column: that means the number of elk killed. Add up the numbers. In 2000 the General harvest is 16,629, and Controlled is 8,271. Find a calculator and enter the numbers. I come up with 24,900. What do you come up with?
I have no idea where other websites get their data.
As for what is shows: 2011 had the lowest harvest of the last 12 years. The graph shows a decline in elk harvest from 2005, and the steepest decline is from 2010 to 2011. Was the habitat and weather that much worse in 2011 than in all previous 11 years?
Bob, I think you made a mistake totaling the numbers up. On some years they record the numbers differently than others. Sometimes numbers are repeated and if you aren't paying close attention, it's easy to add in a number that's already been accounted for. I know, as I've already attempted to add them up previously. I'll try to find a less confusing source.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 03, 2012, 01:14:27 AM
And I'd add to that, habitat change due to logging and regrowth, drouth, human population growth and associated construction (homes, roads and such) and activities, bad winters etc. It's all interrelated and as much as we'd like to be able to say "Here's the one problem, that if we fix it, hunting is going to get better", that isn't going to happen. And it isn't realistic and can actually cause more harm because it takes our eyes off the fact that there are many things we need to keep our eyes on. If we get tunnel vision on one issue, the others are going to sneak up and bite us on the rear.
You really need to wake up. Do you even go out in the woods? Maybe you just don't have enough time in the area to see the steep slide we are going down.
North of Hoquiam.
Habitat Change? Prior to the 80s the private timberlands were mostly bigger second growth which is poor habitat for deer but they were there. Now there are clearcuts but few deer.
Drouth, When was that ever a problem?
Population growth and development, Not much of that going on north of Hoquiam. In fact the few deer there are hug in close to people where the predators stay back a little.
Bad winters, We haven't had one in years.
The real problem is predators and you can trace most of the decline back to cougars and especially 1996s I-655.
It started going down hill before that. When cougar were not a game animal you saw very few cougar tracks and lots of deer. When F&W made them a game animal they went to a limited draw on cougar tags and the population of cats started increasing. It only accelerated after 655 passed.
Cougar and bear are what is limiting the deer and elk population.
Yes I hate the leased hunting closures but I know plenty of places to hunt but there is getting to be damned little to hunt.
Humptulips, I've hunted all over Grays Harbor County since 1964. I have plenty of time in the woods there. I know whats going on. I'll give you an example in your neck of the woods. In the 60's and early 70's I hunted deer quite a bit up the East Humptulips. The second growth there wasn't like the third growth today. It was allowed to regenerate naturally. What I mean is, they didn't use the replanting regamine like they do today. That really got going in the 60's and 70's. Whats the difference? The second growth came in unevenly and with much more diversity. There were lots of hardwoods mixed in, alder, big leaf maple, vine maple, etc. Now you should know that blacktails and elk both love alder patches. Especially in the winter. Hardwoods lose their leaves and let light onto the forest floor. That allows plants and brush to grow that deer and elk like to eat. Alder is also a nitrogen fixer. When it dies, it puts nitrogen into the soil which makes it healthier. Modern tree farms with their 6 to 7 foot planting and herbicide spraying programs create a gradually worsening environment for deer and elk. A crowded all conifer forest is not good deer and elk habitat. There's little to eat. Go into a 12 to 20 year old tree farm these days ans look at the ground. All you see are fir needles and mushrooms and some salal. It's a biological dessert with a similar lack of life. Areas with clearcuts will have a handfull of animals but as they age, the animals disappear as there is nothing to sustain them. I drive up the East Hump road now and all I see is 10 to 30 year old plantations with almost no sign of animals. There's nothing there for them. Same with the 5200 line just north of Failor Lake. In the 80's when Reagan eased the export ban, and the cutting frenzy took over, the 5200 line was prime habitat. My family and friends took a lot of deer out of there for 5 or 6 years. One year the loose group I hunted with went 12 for 12 on deer. Fast forward to now. You'd be hard pressed to find a deer there, but it wouldn't matter if you could because it's Rayonier land. Only open to lease hunting as is a major portion of unit 642.
Post by: Ridgeratt on October 03, 2012, 04:51:48 AM
Prognostications & Bumbling's from the Ratt
This was a calculated response from the WDFW to appease both sides.
By their own admission they didn't kill all the wolves in the area, but this will have a significant impact on the wedge pack. They have made an effort to control the problem which makes the anti wolf factions happy. They can also tell the pro wolf side that they didn't remove all of them but only the problem wolves.
This will allow the wedge pack to reestablish itself over the next 2-3 years. This also allows them to hopefully reach the goals of the management guide lines and then allow sportsman to start hunting them. I hope not another OIL tag fee. So everyone should be happy.
Nothing more than Damage control and Eye Candy.
I found this on the Spokesman review page this morning as well"
ENDANGERED SPECIES — Former Spokane County Commissioner (and current candidate) John Roskelley of Spokane claims the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife was not being genuine with the public in its handling of the summer wolf attacks in northern Stevens County and ultimately the elimination of the Wedge Pack. Here's Roskelley's take, as posted on my Facebook page:
The WDFW rushed this decision to exterminate the Wedge Pack to avoid having to deal with the public or legislators like Sen. Rankin. I stopped at the meeting in Colville Thursday night; the WDFW got their nose bloodied by McIrvin and other Stevens County ranchers; the agency decided on a quick and dirty fix; provided the news media with their excuses for their action; used Conservation Northwest and the Cattlemen's Association as justified supporters; pretended to hunt the wolves by foot; and then proceeded to do what they intended all along - wipe the wolves out quickly via helicopter and sharpshooters before the public woke up and some organization filed an injunction to get it stopped. The WDFW agency people had their mind made up weeks ago, but they knew better than to let the public in on something this controversial before it was a done deal.”
By their own admission they didn't kill all the wolves in the area, but this will have a significant impact on the wedge pack. They have made an effort to control the problem which makes the anti wolf factions happy. They can also tell the pro wolf side that they didn't remove all of them but only the problem wolves.
This will allow the wedge pack to reestablish itself over the next 2-3 years. This also allows them to hopefully reach the goals of the management guide lines and then allow sportsman to start hunting them. I hope not another OIL tag fee. So everyone should be happy.
Nothing more than Damage control and Eye Candy.
I found this on the Spokesman review page this morning as well"
ENDANGERED SPECIES — Former Spokane County Commissioner (and current candidate) John Roskelley of Spokane claims the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife was not being genuine with the public in its handling of the summer wolf attacks in northern Stevens County and ultimately the elimination of the Wedge Pack. Here's Roskelley's take, as posted on my Facebook page:
The WDFW rushed this decision to exterminate the Wedge Pack to avoid having to deal with the public or legislators like Sen. Rankin. I stopped at the meeting in Colville Thursday night; the WDFW got their nose bloodied by McIrvin and other Stevens County ranchers; the agency decided on a quick and dirty fix; provided the news media with their excuses for their action; used Conservation Northwest and the Cattlemen's Association as justified supporters; pretended to hunt the wolves by foot; and then proceeded to do what they intended all along - wipe the wolves out quickly via helicopter and sharpshooters before the public woke up and some organization filed an injunction to get it stopped. The WDFW agency people had their mind made up weeks ago, but they knew better than to let the public in on something this controversial before it was a done deal.”
Post by: ribka on October 03, 2012, 05:08:17 AM
So your argument is that home development, not wolves, are responsible for the deer elk and Moises populations crashing in the Yellowstone , Lolo and Clearwater areas in MT and ID? Have you ever been over and hunted and hiked in these areas?
There is no doubt at the federal level that anti hunters have infiltrated the Fish and wildlife and park services in the past 20 years. Look who was behind the original intro of Canadian grey wolves in ID, WY and MT. The former head of the USFWS.
The problem is that wildlife agencies have been infiltrated by anti-hunters who do not support hunting. Managers and Biologists are looking for ways to limit hunting. The wolf plan and the new study out on cougar are prime examples.
It's easy to throw out vague accusations and innuendos to fire people up. But seriously, name some anti-hunters who have infiltrated Washington's Dept of Fish and Game.
And of course Biologists look for ways to limit hunting. Sometimes that's the best management strategy. That's why there are drawing hunts for moose, sheep and goats. Because game populations can't support a full fledged open hunt, yet the department still wants to allow some opportunity.
I might point out that you yourself not only supported but pushed for limiting hunting for deer by supporting the 4 point or better rule and calling for less doe hunting.
The biggest loss of hunting opportunity comes from private timberlands being locked up or switched to lease only hunting.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 03, 2012, 05:43:11 AM
The problem is that wildlife agencies have been infiltrated by anti-hunters who do not support hunting. Managers and Biologists are looking for ways to limit hunting. The wolf plan and the new study out on cougar are prime examples.
It's easy to throw out vague accusations and innuendos to fire people up. But seriously, name some anti-hunters who have infiltrated Washington's Dept of Fish and Game.
And of course Biologists look for ways to limit hunting. Sometimes that's the best management strategy. That's why there are drawing hunts for moose, sheep and goats. Because game populations can't support a full fledged open hunt, yet the department still wants to allow some opportunity.
I might point out that you yourself not only supported but pushed for limiting hunting for deer by supporting the 4 point or better rule and calling for less doe hunting.
The biggest loss of hunting opportunity comes from private timberlands being locked up or switched to lease only hunting.
You're either in complete denial or just aren't paying attention. Jay Kehne is a board member of Conservation NW and has been campaigning for three years to school classes and greenie groups around the state about how good the wolves are for us. He was appointed to the Wildlife Commission two years ago.
As far as controlling hunting is concerned, The number of multi tags has doubled in this state, as opposed to opening up more seasons to the general hunting population. The DFW does limit hunting even when it isn't necessary. Many of our surrounding states allow a hunter to hunt all three seasons with one harvest. The number of multi-season tags made available would indicate that we're able to do that here but won't.
The most ridiculous part of this all is that the DFW depends on hunter dollars for the majority of their operating costs/wild game management, yet they're doing everything they can to limit hunting opportunities to the general public who can't afford the incredibly expensive options that open up more hunting for you. In addition, our money is used to fund the wolf plan which also works against the hunter in this state. They're killing themselves by taking away hunting opportunity.
Post by: jackmaster on October 03, 2012, 06:56:33 AM
Post by: stuckalot on October 03, 2012, 08:06:18 AM
Post by: bearpaw on October 03, 2012, 08:39:53 AM
The problem is that wildlife agencies have been infiltrated by anti-hunters who do not support hunting. Managers and Biologists are looking for ways to limit hunting. The wolf plan and the new study out on cougar are prime examples.
It's easy to throw out vague accusations and innuendos to fire people up. But seriously, name some anti-hunters who have infiltrated Washington's Dept of Fish and Game.
And of course Biologists look for ways to limit hunting. Sometimes that's the best management strategy. That's why there are drawing hunts for moose, sheep and goats. Because game populations can't support a full fledged open hunt, yet the department still wants to allow some opportunity.
I might point out that you yourself not only supported but pushed for limiting hunting for deer by supporting the 4 point or better rule and calling for less doe hunting.
The biggest loss of hunting opportunity comes from private timberlands being locked up or switched to lease only hunting.
FAIR ENOUGH, I will play your game.
Okanogan County has a biologist who says every wolf within 100 miles is a Lookout pack wolf. This forum has documented sightings that prove that is false. His actions are preventing WA from reaching our delisting goal and our herds in NE WA are going to suffer and as a result of his actions many hunters will lose opportunity, if that isn't an anti-hunting I don't know what you would call it? Everybody knows exactly who I am talking about, I don't even need to name him.
WDFW is now following a cougar plan developed by WSU's Wielgus under a WDFW cougar study. The WDFW is supposed to maximize hunter opportunity but is bowing to Conservation Northwest and anti-hunters and utilizing his absurd plan to reduce cougar hunting opportunity. The study should have looked at how to resolve cougar problems and how to increase hunter opportunity. By the very definition the plan is anti-hunting and every WDFW biologist or manager who agreed to implement this absurd cougar management plan is guilty of anti-hunting.
Post by: bearpaw on October 03, 2012, 08:47:06 AM
Quote
I might point out that you yourself not only supported but pushed for limiting hunting for deer by supporting the 4 point or better rule and calling for less doe hunting.
You are correct I did support the 4 pt rule and elimination of doe hunting!
I did that so that we can rebuild the herd and have more hunting opportunity in the future. By saving a few does now we will be producing many more deer in a few years. That is simply wise management to build the herd.
That is a heck of a lot different than putting too many wolves, cougars, and coyotes on the landscape and thereby preventing herds from proliferating. Then as a result reducing hunter opportunity forever.
Post by: bearpaw on October 03, 2012, 08:56:22 AM
Bob33, not sure where you came up with that graph, can't find it at that link you provided. But I don't think it's accurate for starters. Here are some numbers provided by Idaho For Wildlife an anti wolf group. http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/IDFG%20PAGE.html (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/IDFG%20PAGE.html)
According to you graph in 2000 there were about 25,000 elk taken in Idaho. IFG says there were 20,259.
Your graph shows in 2001 about 28,000 elk taken While IFG shows 19,292
In 2005 your graph shows about 37,500 elk taken while IFG shows 17,085
2009 you show 26,000 elk taken and IFG shpws 11,796
So we have some major discrepancies here.
Now you're both trying to show the same thing, that wolves are ruining/causing the end of hunting. But if either your numbers or theirs are true, it shows no such thing.
If wolves were killing off elk herds, there would be a steady downturn in numbers but your graph and their numbers show ups and downs as is normal in a fluctuating wild herd. By their numbers, they tried to blame wolves for a 47% drop off in elk harvest between 2000 and 2009. But they casually ignore that in 2003 15,117 elk were harvested and in 2007 18769 elk were harvested. That's an improvement of 24% and that happened while the wolf population was steadily growing. That's called cherry picking your facts to support your position. That's why drawing conclusions from limited data is foolish. This also ignores all other factors that affect elk herds.
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/actionLoloZone.pdf (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/actionLoloZone.pdf)
Quote
Lolo elk populations have been in decline for years, dating back to the early 1990s. Fish and
Game has conducted extensive research that indicates wolf predation is the leading cause of
death of adult cow elk and calves older than six months, while black bear and mountain lion
predation is the leading cause of death for younger elk calves.
That sounds pretty straight forward to me. Idaho has too many predators and WDFW simply has too many predators on the landscape in WA.
Post by: bearpaw on October 03, 2012, 09:05:24 AM
Getting back to the topic, the costs involved trying to accomodate the wedge pack and finally the "partial" removal costs are only the tip of the iceberg of what wolves are going to cost Washington taxpayer, sports folks, rural residents, and ranchers.
Washington voters should carefully consider whom they vote for this fall because the politicians promoting wolves are going to cost them a lot of money, a heck of a lot of money. :twocents:
Post by: Special T on October 03, 2012, 09:48:10 AM
I don't know if it has as much to do with EO rules as much as getting fed grants. The state has said that they need a new bio but only have the funds for half of one. so "half" time they spend on deer elk whatever then the other"half" they spend on the grant. The problem is that they hire a bio that is an "expert" in some ESA species like wolves then also tell them to do the normal work on deer and elk in the area... From a business stand point this makes a bunch of sense, HOWEVER it fails where the rubber meets the road. Many new bio's especially ESA specialists are greenies and have a skewed outlook on their job. The state has to hire a ESA specialist to get the grant, and then you are stuck with that person doing work on related animals. Those related animals aren't nearly as important in the bio's eyes. I think this conflict of interest does not need to be nefarious in order to be damaging. We could argue that the bios are/not doing it on purpose but i think we come up with the same outcome regardless the conclusion.That is the future for Washington unless wolf numbers are controlled. :twocents:bearpaw, is there a way for us to vote them out or are they appointed by the higher ups?
Remember, there are most likely some anti-hunting WDFW employees hoping for this result. Those are the employees that need weeded out so the agency can function as a F&G agency rather than an environmentalist agency.
The Commission hires the director, but others in the WDFW are probably hired by managers and are usually career hires, very hard to get rid of. Others on the forum probably know more than I do how it works.
Wasn't a lot of this cause by the equal opportunity standards that were forced upon the state agencies. They needed "X" amount of minorities, etc. Hiring standards were lowered in many cases as they couldn't get the qualified staff needed. You start reaching to hit the required needs and you get what you get. This gal / guy is qualified, but doesn't hunt. Hired! They used to be able to pick and choose, now it's a lawsuit if someone is a whistle blower.
Post by: elkfins on October 03, 2012, 02:22:36 PM
I LOVE HUNTN, been doing it my whole life like many here on this site, we should all ban together and refuse to hunt next year, i could give up a huntn season or 2 to get are point across, what would be 1 or 2 years for us, yeah it would suck not actually getn to hunt but it would stop a guy from killn a ton of animals with his camera, it wouldnt hurt us as much as it would the department of fish and wildlife, maybe they would have to cut back on some of the anti-hunting staff.....just a thought..... your points would still be there, when we decided to hunt again, and it would be a hell of a united message :tup: :tup:
The problem I see with this tactic is that there are plenty of other anti-hunting groups that would happily step up and help fund the WDFW... Look at what's happening in Idaho. Then, we would be left out completely.
Post by: jackmaster on October 03, 2012, 03:29:08 PM
Post by: Humptulips on October 03, 2012, 07:59:50 PM
And I'd add to that, habitat change due to logging and regrowth, drouth, human population growth and associated construction (homes, roads and such) and activities, bad winters etc. It's all interrelated and as much as we'd like to be able to say "Here's the one problem, that if we fix it, hunting is going to get better", that isn't going to happen. And it isn't realistic and can actually cause more harm because it takes our eyes off the fact that there are many things we need to keep our eyes on. If we get tunnel vision on one issue, the others are going to sneak up and bite us on the rear.
You really need to wake up. Do you even go out in the woods? Maybe you just don't have enough time in the area to see the steep slide we are going down.
North of Hoquiam.
Habitat Change? Prior to the 80s the private timberlands were mostly bigger second growth which is poor habitat for deer but they were there. Now there are clearcuts but few deer.
Drouth, When was that ever a problem?
Population growth and development, Not much of that going on north of Hoquiam. In fact the few deer there are hug in close to people where the predators stay back a little.
Bad winters, We haven't had one in years.
The real problem is predators and you can trace most of the decline back to cougars and especially 1996s I-655.
It started going down hill before that. When cougar were not a game animal you saw very few cougar tracks and lots of deer. When F&W made them a game animal they went to a limited draw on cougar tags and the population of cats started increasing. It only accelerated after 655 passed.
Cougar and bear are what is limiting the deer and elk population.
Yes I hate the leased hunting closures but I know plenty of places to hunt but there is getting to be damned little to hunt.
Humptulips, I've hunted all over Grays Harbor County since 1964. I have plenty of time in the woods there. I know whats going on. I'll give you an example in your neck of the woods. In the 60's and early 70's I hunted deer quite a bit up the East Humptulips. The second growth there wasn't like the third growth today. It was allowed to regenerate naturally. What I mean is, they didn't use the replanting regamine like they do today. That really got going in the 60's and 70's. Whats the difference? The second growth came in unevenly and with much more diversity. There were lots of hardwoods mixed in, alder, big leaf maple, vine maple, etc. Now you should know that blacktails and elk both love alder patches. Especially in the winter. Hardwoods lose their leaves and let light onto the forest floor. That allows plants and brush to grow that deer and elk like to eat. Alder is also a nitrogen fixer. When it dies, it puts nitrogen into the soil which makes it healthier. Modern tree farms with their 6 to 7 foot planting and herbicide spraying programs create a gradually worsening environment for deer and elk. A crowded all conifer forest is not good deer and elk habitat. There's little to eat. Go into a 12 to 20 year old tree farm these days ans look at the ground. All you see are fir needles and mushrooms and some salal. It's a biological dessert with a similar lack of life. Areas with clearcuts will have a handfull of animals but as they age, the animals disappear as there is nothing to sustain them. I drive up the East Hump road now and all I see is 10 to 30 year old plantations with almost no sign of animals. There's nothing there for them. Same with the 5200 line just north of Failor Lake. In the 80's when Reagan eased the export ban, and the cutting frenzy took over, the 5200 line was prime habitat. My family and friends took a lot of deer out of there for 5 or 6 years. One year the loose group I hunted with went 12 for 12 on deer. Fast forward to now. You'd be hard pressed to find a deer there, but it wouldn't matter if you could because it's Rayonier land. Only open to lease hunting as is a major portion of unit 642.
So you've been on the ground and apparently you don't care for how the timber companies manage their land. We're not going to change that. It is private land.
I hunted a lot in 642 in the late 60s and after plus I've spent many a day on the trapline there. I used to see a lot of deer and a lot of them were in around that thick second growth fir and hemlock. True they do better around clearcuts. Trouble is there's damn few of them in either place now. The Promised Land had a lot of deer before they started logging it the second time. I've spent a lot of time there. The habitat is far better now then in the 60s and 70s. Again damn few deer.
You can pretty well name an area and the deer are in decline if not at the bottom.
Not so with cougars. I see cougar scratchings everwhere. They have to be eating something and it ain't mushrooms.
On a parrallel the beaver population north of Hoquiam has been in steep decline in the last 12 years at a time when trapping them had virtually stopped. I do see cougar tracks around every beaver pond that is left.
They are hungry. Cougar used to bypass every bait set prior to the 90s. Not so now. They are in every cat cage I set. Not big enough cages to fit them but they are in there stealing the bait.
So what has changed? Not sure how you get to the reforestation being the problem. FYI, all the timber companies have been reforesting since in the 50s. Yea deer do better without the reforestation but that wasn't killing the hunting in the 60s through the 90s. What has changed is I-655 and a maxed out cougar and bear population. Less so the bear because of the spring depredation hunts.
And by the way there is a lot of land in the 5200 area not owned by Rayonier. You have to know how to access it though and it's a long walk.
About a month ago I hiked in to look things over. It is a cross country trek and I finally broke out onto an old road and set down to take a break. There were 5 cougar scratchings in a 20 foot circle where I sat down. Didn't see a single deer.
Post by: SpringerFan on October 03, 2012, 08:22:38 PM
And I'd add to that, habitat change due to logging and regrowth, drouth, human population growth and associated construction (homes, roads and such) and activities, bad winters etc. It's all interrelated and as much as we'd like to be able to say "Here's the one problem, that if we fix it, hunting is going to get better", that isn't going to happen. And it isn't realistic and can actually cause more harm because it takes our eyes off the fact that there are many things we need to keep our eyes on. If we get tunnel vision on one issue, the others are going to sneak up and bite us on the rear.
You really need to wake up. Do you even go out in the woods? Maybe you just don't have enough time in the area to see the steep slide we are going down.
North of Hoquiam.
Habitat Change? Prior to the 80s the private timberlands were mostly bigger second growth which is poor habitat for deer but they were there. Now there are clearcuts but few deer.
Drouth, When was that ever a problem?
Population growth and development, Not much of that going on north of Hoquiam. In fact the few deer there are hug in close to people where the predators stay back a little.
Bad winters, We haven't had one in years.
The real problem is predators and you can trace most of the decline back to cougars and especially 1996s I-655.
It started going down hill before that. When cougar were not a game animal you saw very few cougar tracks and lots of deer. When F&W made them a game animal they went to a limited draw on cougar tags and the population of cats started increasing. It only accelerated after 655 passed.
Cougar and bear are what is limiting the deer and elk population.
Yes I hate the leased hunting closures but I know plenty of places to hunt but there is getting to be damned little to hunt.
Humptulips, I've hunted all over Grays Harbor County since 1964. I have plenty of time in the woods there. I know whats going on. I'll give you an example in your neck of the woods. In the 60's and early 70's I hunted deer quite a bit up the East Humptulips. The second growth there wasn't like the third growth today. It was allowed to regenerate naturally. What I mean is, they didn't use the replanting regamine like they do today. That really got going in the 60's and 70's. Whats the difference? The second growth came in unevenly and with much more diversity. There were lots of hardwoods mixed in, alder, big leaf maple, vine maple, etc. Now you should know that blacktails and elk both love alder patches. Especially in the winter. Hardwoods lose their leaves and let light onto the forest floor. That allows plants and brush to grow that deer and elk like to eat. Alder is also a nitrogen fixer. When it dies, it puts nitrogen into the soil which makes it healthier. Modern tree farms with their 6 to 7 foot planting and herbicide spraying programs create a gradually worsening environment for deer and elk. A crowded all conifer forest is not good deer and elk habitat. There's little to eat. Go into a 12 to 20 year old tree farm these days ans look at the ground. All you see are fir needles and mushrooms and some salal. It's a biological dessert with a similar lack of life. Areas with clearcuts will have a handfull of animals but as they age, the animals disappear as there is nothing to sustain them. I drive up the East Hump road now and all I see is 10 to 30 year old plantations with almost no sign of animals. There's nothing there for them. Same with the 5200 line just north of Failor Lake. In the 80's when Reagan eased the export ban, and the cutting frenzy took over, the 5200 line was prime habitat. My family and friends took a lot of deer out of there for 5 or 6 years. One year the loose group I hunted with went 12 for 12 on deer. Fast forward to now. You'd be hard pressed to find a deer there, but it wouldn't matter if you could because it's Rayonier land. Only open to lease hunting as is a major portion of unit 642.
Thought this wolf hugger was banned.......Dale....you let him back in?
Post by: GrousePointer on October 03, 2012, 09:06:59 PM
Post by: huntnphool on October 03, 2012, 09:47:33 PM
Still waiting for that less confusing source, the one that doesn't repeat numbers or record them differently from year to year. :chuckle:Quote from: link=topic=106496.msg1391056#msg1391056 date=1349236379
Bob, I think you made a mistake totaling the numbers up. On some years they record the numbers differently than others. Sometimes numbers are repeated and if you aren't paying close attention, it's easy to add in a number that's already been accounted for. I know, as I've already attempted to add them up previously. I'll try to find a less confusing source.
Post by: Bob33 on October 03, 2012, 09:50:47 PM
It's coming and will show elk harvests flat, except in wolf areas where they're up 20%. ;)Still waiting for that less confusing source, the one that doesn't repeat numbers or record them differently from year to year. :chuckle:Quote from: link=topic=106496.msg1391056#msg1391056 date=1349236379
Bob, I think you made a mistake totaling the numbers up. On some years they record the numbers differently than others. Sometimes numbers are repeated and if you aren't paying close attention, it's easy to add in a number that's already been accounted for. I know, as I've already attempted to add them up previously. I'll try to find a less confusing source.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 04, 2012, 12:35:39 AM
Still waiting for that less confusing source, the one that doesn't repeat numbers or record them differently from year to year. :chuckle:
All right chuckling phool. Is this a good enough source for you? It's the official Idaho Department of Fish and Game elk report.
If you and anybody else take the time to read it, you can educate yourself and be an educated phool. It's very informative and enlightening.
https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/Wildlife%20Technical%20Reports/Elk%20Statewide%20PR10.pdf
Go to page 4. On it you will see a graph on the left that has the actual number of elk harvested by year. On the right is another graph in traditional graph form. Now if you add the cows taken and the bulls taken for each year, you will soon see the numbers Bob33 used on his graph were wrong. For starters, there isn't one year approaching 25,000 elk taken, let alone 35,000. In fact there is only one year with a harvest over 20,000 and that was 2005 with a total harvest of about 20,600. So now would be a good time to admit I was right and you were wrong and we can continue on our discussion in a respectful way with correct "facts". If you can't do that, there is no point continuing, because if you won't accept facts because they don't agree with your viewpoint It's a waste of my time pointing them out to you. In that case, all I can say is "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 04, 2012, 12:58:40 AM
So your argument is that home development, not wolves, are responsible for the deer elk and Moises populations crashing in the Yellowstone , Lolo and Clearwater areas in MT and ID? Have you ever been over and hunted and hiked in these areas?
Close, but not quite so simplistic. I believe "human activity" would sum it up better. Again from the Idaho elk report........
https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/Wildlife%20Technical%20Reports/Elk%20Statewide%20PR10.pdf
Go to page 1 Statewide summary and you'll find this.........
"Elk populations increased over the last 50 years; however, total pressure on the resource has dramatically increased. Human development has reduced available habitat on winter ranges and increased access into elk habitat"
and this..........
"Access into elk habitat is a primary problem facing wildlife managers today. Roads and motorized trails built into elk habitat for timber management and other activities increase hunter access and often increase elk vulnerability to harvest."
and this...............
"Although the trade-offs associated with road and motorized trail construction may vary with each individual situation, the increase in numbers of people associated with increased access is almost universally detrimental to elk. Elk move away from human disturbance when harassed, and elk that remain in logged and roaded areas are subject to more hunters over a longer period of time than elk that live in more secluded habitats."
In 1990 Idaho had a population of just over 900,000. Today it is over 1,500,000. If you think that extra 600,000 people and their activities doesn't have an affect on game animals, you need to think again.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 04, 2012, 01:02:50 AM
It's coming and will show elk harvests flat, except in wolf areas where they're up 20%. ;)Still waiting for that less confusing source, the one that doesn't repeat numbers or record them differently from year to year. :chuckle:Quote from: link=topic=106496.msg1391056#msg1391056 date=1349236379
Bob, I think you made a mistake totaling the numbers up. On some years they record the numbers differently than others. Sometimes numbers are repeated and if you aren't paying close attention, it's easy to add in a number that's already been accounted for. I know, as I've already attempted to add them up previously. I'll try to find a less confusing source.
Sorry I couldn't get right on it. I'm driving the Alaska Highway and don't have a lot of time for looking stuff up.
https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/Wildlife%20Technical%20Reports/Elk%20Statewide%20PR10.pdf
page 4.
Post by: jackmaster on October 04, 2012, 06:54:41 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 04, 2012, 07:03:34 AM
Damn sitka and grousepointer you guys really love these damn wolves dont ya? well can you guys make and keep a promise? never leave this site and when these wolves decimate the deer and elk and are camped out at feedn stations killn the hell out of these animals, then you guys be man enough to come back on here and eat crow, it gets a little redundant when you guys keep spewing all these numbers and wanna be facts, well here is an idea, look at it from a SPORTSMANS point of view, and please dont try to claim that you are sportman when we all know you are wolves in sheeps clothing........ :tup:
Good luck with that, Jack. People of this mindset will be fine with the loss of our hunting privileges if it comes down to a choice between hunters and wolves. It's a sad commentary on how people forget who made hunting possible for future generations - us hunters. It turns out that what conservationist hunters have been doing for 100+ years is building up the pantry for predators, and not the human ones.
Post by: GrousePointer on October 04, 2012, 07:13:50 AM
http://www.ruffedgrousesociety.org/UserFiles/File/Upland%20Almanac%20Winter%20MDZSm.pdf (http://www.ruffedgrousesociety.org/UserFiles/File/Upland%20Almanac%20Winter%20MDZSm.pdf)
I mean this in the most respectful way possible, you guys need to educate yourselves about wildlife habitat and how to improve it if you want to keep successfully hunting in the future. You can kill every predator out there and still won't solve the problem without better habitat maintenance. You can fight that all you want, but you can also bet that the Sierra Club et al doesn't have a clue about it yet they are dictating habitat policy, or trying to, to you.
Think about it.
Post by: GrousePointer on October 04, 2012, 07:22:52 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 04, 2012, 07:23:39 AM
Post by: boneaddict on October 04, 2012, 08:10:48 AM
Quote
you guys need to educate yourselves about wildlife habitat
Post by: GrousePointer on October 04, 2012, 08:31:51 AM
no nothing about it :chuckle:Quoteyou guys need to educate yourselves about wildlife habitat
Sadly a lot of guys don't.
I hear this same argument in reference to coyotes and pheasant all of the time. Guys blame yotes for a lack of birds and just like the wolf and big game, there is a grain of truth to that. But there are places where the pheasant lives in high numbers and coyotes are everywhere. What's the difference? Habitat.
The wolf issue is a big distraction that is taking attention away from a much bigger problem that will have longer term consequences. Speaking for the west side, we don't log like we used to, if you don't think that has made a difference to big game you would be wrong.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 04, 2012, 08:36:44 AM
no nothing about it :chuckle:Quoteyou guys need to educate yourselves about wildlife habitat
Sadly a lot of guys don't.
I hear this same argument in reference to coyotes and pheasant all of the time. Guys blame yotes for a lack of birds and just like the wolf and big game, there is a grain of truth to that. But there are places where the pheasant lives in high numbers and coyotes are everywhere. What's the difference? Habitat.
The wolf issue is a big distraction that is taking attention away from a much bigger problem that will have longer term consequences. Speaking for the west side, we don't log like we used to, if you don't think that has made a difference to big game you would be wrong.
Yes, the decreased logging is another symptom of people who live in the city making country decisions. This combined with a full plate of predators is the greenie double play against our game opportunities. Couldn't agree more.
Post by: boneaddict on October 04, 2012, 08:40:58 AM
Housing on the winterrange(here in washington), gas exploration etc elsewhere have taken their tolls on Muledeer. Problem that concerns me is that wolves are like putting the bullet between the eyes to the herds, and its something we can control. Its like dumping a sex predator in the middle of a class of 14 year old girls and see what happens. Folks can declare its the natural order of things, but its not something that is needed for a healthy system at this point.
Logging is INDEED needed, and its unfortunate that so many green groups have put a halt to it. The Gore/Clinton agenda is still being felt. He didn't inhale.....well if he was in the neighborhood now, he'd be inhaling.
Post by: GrousePointer on October 04, 2012, 08:46:57 AM
Farming practices have been more detrimental to pheasants than coyotes.
Housing on the winterrange(here in washington), gas exploration etc elsewhere have taken their tolls on Muledeer. Problem that concerns me is that wolves are like putting the bullet between the eyes to the herds, and its something we can control. Its like dumping a sex predator in the middle of a class of 14 year old girls and see what happens. Folks can declare its the natural order of things, but its not something that is needed for a healthy system at this point.
Logging is INDEED needed, and its unfortunate that so many green groups have put a halt to it. The Gore/Clinton agenda is still being felt. He didn't inhale.....well if he was in the neighborhood now, he'd be inhaling.
Agreed.
The issue as I see it is the wolf is just speeding up something that may well occur anyhow if we can't get a handle on the habitat problem. Hunting them all down might well be like putting a band aid on an infected cut. It covers up the problem for a while, but the infection still spreads.
Post by: huntnphool on October 04, 2012, 09:34:56 AM
Thanks Sitka, I read the report both statewide overview and region by region. There is a underlying theme when you go through the regional reports and the statewide report sums it up rather nicely, and I will quote the IDFG,Still waiting for that less confusing source, the one that doesn't repeat numbers or record them differently from year to year. :chuckle:
All right chuckling phool. Is this a good enough source for you? It's the official Idaho Department of Fish and Game elk report.
If you and anybody else take the time to read it, you can educate yourself and be an educated phool. It's very informative and enlightening.
https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/Wildlife%20Technical%20Reports/Elk%20Statewide%20PR10.pdf
Go to page 4. On it you will see a graph on the left that has the actual number of elk harvested by year. On the right is another graph in traditional graph form. Now if you add the cows taken and the bulls taken for each year, you will soon see the numbers Bob33 used on his graph were wrong. For starters, there isn't one year approaching 25,000 elk taken, let alone 35,000. In fact there is only one year with a harvest over 20,000 and that was 2005 with a total harvest of about 20,600. So now would be a good time to admit I was right and you were wrong and we can continue on our discussion in a respectful way with correct "facts". If you can't do that, there is no point continuing, because if you won't accept facts because they don't agree with your viewpoint It's a waste of my time pointing them out to you. In that case, all I can say is "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
Quote
Wolf predation is the leading cause of mortality.Enough said!!!
Post by: Northway on October 04, 2012, 10:09:52 AM
No one's going to kill all of the predators, especially with no hounds or bait. Cougars are at full carrying capacity everywhere in the state. Wolves are going nuts and the state is just beginning to realize the impact of their foolish plan. Bears are also at full carrying capacity. Coyotes are in downtown Seattle. Not only is the demise of predators not even possible at this point, it's so far from the truth as to be fairy tale. If every wolf were eliminated from the state today, we still have huge management problems that don't account for man as an apex predator. The greenies who spend no time in the woods have dictated predator policy now for 17 years and with the addition of the wolf, the hunting in this state is going to collapse.
How would you manage cougars, bears, and wolves in this state if you could be wildlife management dictator? Predator management will have to be an important part of any plan that includes maintaining decent hunter opportunity, but at what levels?
I feel that this subject gets lost in the mix with all the other hotly debated issues surrounding wolves.
I know a lot of non-hunting conservations who feel that predators are oppressed, but only a very few seem to have a grasp on what specific levels a majority of the hunting community think they should be managed to.
Post by: boneaddict on October 04, 2012, 10:15:58 AM
Hounds and baiting period.
One thing that many overlook is that those two methods allow serious hunters to be selective on their prey. population goals are easier met. There will be less spent on problem animals and displacement of predators.
hounds and wolves don't work.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 04, 2012, 10:17:28 AM
No one's going to kill all of the predators, especially with no hounds or bait. Cougars are at full carrying capacity everywhere in the state. Wolves are going nuts and the state is just beginning to realize the impact of their foolish plan. Bears are also at full carrying capacity. Coyotes are in downtown Seattle. Not only is the demise of predators not even possible at this point, it's so far from the truth as to be fairy tale. If every wolf were eliminated from the state today, we still have huge management problems that don't account for man as an apex predator. The greenies who spend no time in the woods have dictated predator policy now for 17 years and with the addition of the wolf, the hunting in this state is going to collapse.
How would you manage cougars, bears, and wolves in this state if you could be wildlife management dictator? Predator management will have to be an important part of any plan that includes maintaining decent hunter opportunity, but at what levels?
I feel that this subject gets lost in the mix with all the other hotly debated issues surrounding wolves.
I know a lot of non-hunting conservations who feel that predators are oppressed, but only a very few seem to have a grasp on what specific levels a majority of the hunting community think they should be managed to.
I would have started managing in 1996 and informed the general public on what a ban on baiting and hounds would do to our cougar and bear populations for the future. Regardless of the reasons, our DFW was silent when this debate was waged and out-of-state groups paid millions to support the ban, resulting in it's passing. This is the primary step that would have meant more meaningful management. In lieu of that, I would now open the season on cougars, be very liberal (don't get excited conservatives) on handing out hound-use/baiting damage permits for both cougars and bears, make a second permit free, and increase the bear season on each end by a month. I would not require a hunting license for coyote shooting and would exempt hunters from penalties on the waste of meat with regards to all three of these animals. Wolves would also be open season immediately. Without trapping and poisoning, there's no way wolves would get hunted to extinction, but they'd certainly be encouraged to disappear into thicker woods and remote wilderness habitat.
Post by: boneaddict on October 04, 2012, 10:23:14 AM
Quote
and would exempt hunters from penalties on the waste of meat with regards to all three of these animalexplain
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 04, 2012, 10:29:44 AM
Quoteand would exempt hunters from penalties on the waste of meat with regards to all three of these animalexplain
According to the current definitions and penalties for wasted game in WA, predator hunters have a liability if they waste the meat. It's a technicality that basically exposes us to penalties if we didn't want to eat cougar meat and left it in the field, penalties that could be pushed by anti-hunters to further harass us. I think that predators should be exempted from any kind of waste penalties and regulations, with the possible exception of bear meat and hides.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 04, 2012, 10:31:40 AM
Post by: jackmaster on October 04, 2012, 02:02:36 PM
If you don't like my word for it or wildlife agencies word for it, how about a non-profit funded and supported by hunters?yeah think about it, when you leaf lickers stopped logging because of the spotted owl, wow dude that would have been alot more habitat for deer and elk.... dont even try to say that logging does nothing.....it creates habitat and alot of it.... :tup:
http://www.ruffedgrousesociety.org/UserFiles/File/Upland%20Almanac%20Winter%20MDZSm.pdf (http://www.ruffedgrousesociety.org/UserFiles/File/Upland%20Almanac%20Winter%20MDZSm.pdf)
I mean this in the most respectful way possible, you guys need to educate yourselves about wildlife habitat and how to improve it if you want to keep successfully hunting in the future. You can kill every predator out there and still won't solve the problem without better habitat maintenance. You can fight that all you want, but you can also bet that the Sierra Club et al doesn't have a clue about it yet they are dictating habitat policy, or trying to, to you.
Think about it.
Post by: Kola16 on October 04, 2012, 02:11:55 PM
If you don't like my word for it or wildlife agencies word for it, how about a non-profit funded and supported by hunters?
http://www.ruffedgrousesociety.org/UserFiles/File/Upland%20Almanac%20Winter%20MDZSm.pdf (http://www.ruffedgrousesociety.org/UserFiles/File/Upland%20Almanac%20Winter%20MDZSm.pdf)
I mean this in the most respectful way possible, you guys need to educate yourselves about wildlife habitat and how to improve it if you want to keep successfully hunting in the future. You can kill every predator out there and still won't solve the problem without better habitat maintenance. You can fight that all you want, but you can also bet that the Sierra Club et al doesn't have a clue about it yet they are dictating habitat policy, or trying to, to you.
Think about it.
When is the last time a greenie actually thought about something besides their stupid wolves?
Post by: Bob33 on October 04, 2012, 02:45:45 PM
If you don't like my word for it or wildlife agencies word for it, how about a non-profit funded and supported by hunters?Wouldn't that mean I'd be associating with some evil "rich" hunters? Goodness, there might be a doctor or lawyer in that group, and what then? Could I even bear the possibility that one might use an outfitter at some low point in his life?
http://www.ruffedgrousesociety.org/UserFiles/File/Upland%20Almanac%20Winter%20MDZSm.pdf (http://www.ruffedgrousesociety.org/UserFiles/File/Upland%20Almanac%20Winter%20MDZSm.pdf)
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 04, 2012, 03:01:00 PM
If you don't like my word for it or wildlife agencies word for it, how about a non-profit funded and supported by hunters?
http://www.ruffedgrousesociety.org/UserFiles/File/Upland%20Almanac%20Winter%20MDZSm.pdf (http://www.ruffedgrousesociety.org/UserFiles/File/Upland%20Almanac%20Winter%20MDZSm.pdf)
I mean this in the most respectful way possible, you guys need to educate yourselves about wildlife habitat and how to improve it if you want to keep successfully hunting in the future. You can kill every predator out there and still won't solve the problem without better habitat maintenance. You can fight that all you want, but you can also bet that the Sierra Club et al doesn't have a clue about it yet they are dictating habitat policy, or trying to, to you.
Think about it.
When is the last time a greenie actually thought about something besides their stupid wolves?
When they were coming up with other ideas to end hunting. Lead ban anyone?
Post by: Bob33 on October 04, 2012, 03:12:06 PM
Since Al Gore got discredited and went into hiding, they had to come up with something besides global warming. "Hey - let's do wolves!"
Post by: GrousePointer on October 04, 2012, 03:25:16 PM
If you don't like my word for it or wildlife agencies word for it, how about a non-profit funded and supported by hunters?
http://www.ruffedgrousesociety.org/UserFiles/File/Upland%20Almanac%20Winter%20MDZSm.pdf (http://www.ruffedgrousesociety.org/UserFiles/File/Upland%20Almanac%20Winter%20MDZSm.pdf)
Wouldn't that mean I'd be associating with some evil "rich" hunters? Goodness, there might be a doctor or lawyer in that group, and what then? Could I even bear the possibility that one might use an outfitter at some low point in his life?
Well Bob, some of us are hunters and others of us are "hunters." To each his own but when Outfitters' business starts to cut into the hunting public's access to land and game I have a problem with that. I-161 in Montana didn't happen for nothing. Maybe you should research that one a little.
I hang out with bird dog people, by virtue of that I've associated with some who have money since field trials are an expensive game to play and some guys like to travel out of state with their dogs. Some of those people choose to use outfitters, so your point is apt. I also know people who sit in an office all year and pack up their gear and have it shipped to an outfitter and they go "hunting" for a week. No scouting done by them, no boot leather worn, no gas burned. Excuse me if i find the idea of blowing away a wolf or two so some desk jocky "hunter" can be guided to a location to shoot an elk a little offensive.
That said, sometimes you have to break bread with those you have differences with and work on the areas you have common ground.
Post by: Bob33 on October 04, 2012, 03:33:18 PM
That said, sometimes you have to break bread with those you have differences with and work on the areas you have common ground.Fair enough. Does that cut both ways? Are you willing to respect and break bread with outfitters and with hunters that despise wolves?
Post by: GrousePointer on October 04, 2012, 04:41:27 PM
That said, sometimes you have to break bread with those you have differences with and work on the areas you have common ground.Fair enough. Does that cut both ways? Are you willing to respect and break bread with outfitters and with hunters that despise wolves?
Yes
Post by: Humptulips on October 04, 2012, 07:34:39 PM
And true habitat is important but tell us what you propose to do about habitat. Don't just tell us to forget about predators because they do need management.
Post by: boneaddict on October 05, 2012, 05:18:17 AM
Post by: villageidiot on October 05, 2012, 08:29:36 AM
Post by: GrousePointer on October 05, 2012, 02:55:33 PM
When they decide to start controlling the predators they need to include ravens and hawks. Raven's have increased 300% over the past 80 yrs according to a report I recently read and are the primary cause of sharp tailed grouse decline. Just this summer I raised 80 chuckars and did not release till they were full grown. The red tailed hawks moved in and killed all but 21 then the chuckars got smart but then a smaller hawk family moved in and got all but about 10. Hawks are protected because they are a migratory bird. I use to have dozens of grouse on my place and now I might see a brood once every 10 yrs. but I see hawks every single day. This is the first year I did not see one single brood of quail. I saw several new hatchling hawks. Not sure what they are eating now since they have everything killed off. The wild turkeys here lose most of their chicks to ravens and the rainey weather gets a bunch more. If we are going to harvest any game we have to eliminate our competition or at least reduce it. WDFW is funded 75% by selling hunting and fishing licenses. When there is no game to hunt, how will they be supported?
The primary reason for the sharpies decline is habitat, or rather the degradation or loss of it. Habitat provides the cover to hide from ravens, hawks, and land predators. There has been study after study about this from state and federal agencies to non-profits like Pheasants Forever and they all say the same thing. If you want birds to thrive, they need habitat for nesting, food, and protection from predators and weather.
Again, sharpies and pheasant thrive in predator infested parts of the country. But those places have prime habitat for them. Show me a declining upland bird species and I'll show you habitat that is disappearing or gone.
Pen raised birds, be it pheasant or chukar, have a HIGH mortality rate even in the best of circumstances. They are not like their wild counterparts.
Big game has a similar problem in many places. It's just not as pronounced...yet.
Post by: jackmaster on October 05, 2012, 03:29:14 PM
Post by: Kola16 on October 05, 2012, 03:41:21 PM
your insane grousepointer, dude you wouldnt realize the obvious if it bit you in the ass, so tell why the ruff grouse are in serious decline....? we create some of the best habitat known to man by logging well the owl took that away.....when are you leaf lickers gonna wake up and see the real world through real world eyes, damn all you guys live in some fantasy land.....predators are on the incline and prey is on a drastic decline, it aint the habitat, its leaf lickers and politicians that keep people from doing what needs to be done to balance everything out.....have a good weekend all.... be safe.......except for leaflickers... go pet a wild wolf why dont ya..... :tup:
:yeah: :yeah:
Post by: GrousePointer on October 05, 2012, 04:00:00 PM
your insane grousepointer, dude you wouldnt realize the obvious if it bit you in the ass, so tell why the ruff grouse are in serious decline....? we create some of the best habitat known to man by logging well the owl took that away.....when are you leaf lickers gonna wake up and see the real world through real world eyes, damn all you guys live in some fantasy land.....predators are on the incline and prey is on a drastic decline, it aint the habitat, its leaf lickers and politicians that keep people from doing what needs to be done to balance everything out.....have a good weekend all.... be safe.......except for leaflickers... go pet a wild wolf why dont ya..... :tup:
The problem for ruffed grouse is the same. In areas where they have been declining their habitat has degraded or disappeared. And you're right, the radical environmental movement has played a significant role in that since they fight logging in state and national forests every chance they get.
In Michigan they shoot scads of coyotes for a number of reasons. I have one friend out there who sees hunters do a round up every year around the surrounding farms as well as hers and they pile the corpses to the tops of their truck cabs. Michigan used to be a pheasant stronghold, but it isn't anymore despite all of the coyote hunting. But there are places they occur in Michigan and thrive, I've hunted some of those, and guess what? The habitat is prime.
I'm fine with hunting wolves as long as it's done legally. I've said that repeatedly. But I hate to break it to you, it will only be a band aid even if you kill every last one of them. As hunters we are all facing a bigger problem and it's called habitat loss.
Post by: Kola16 on October 05, 2012, 04:09:54 PM
your insane grousepointer, dude you wouldnt realize the obvious if it bit you in the ass, so tell why the ruff grouse are in serious decline....? we create some of the best habitat known to man by logging well the owl took that away.....when are you leaf lickers gonna wake up and see the real world through real world eyes, damn all you guys live in some fantasy land.....predators are on the incline and prey is on a drastic decline, it aint the habitat, its leaf lickers and politicians that keep people from doing what needs to be done to balance everything out.....have a good weekend all.... be safe.......except for leaflickers... go pet a wild wolf why dont ya..... :tup:
The problem for ruffed grouse is the same. In areas where they have been declining their habitat has degraded or disappeared. And you're right, the radical environmental movement has played a significant role in that since they fight logging in state and national forests every chance they get.
Since Some loggers have logged the side of the mountain, and a few other places, at my sister's house in NE Washington, she has had a lot more grouse around. Not only around her house, but in the clearcut.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 05, 2012, 04:17:43 PM
Post by: villageidiot on October 05, 2012, 09:52:50 PM
The spotted owls habitat has been left alone now for over 20 years and the spotted owls population is still declining. You can't always blame habitat.
Post by: huntnphool on October 05, 2012, 10:04:12 PM
And scientists have now proven that it wasn't logging/loss of habitat at all, but rather the Barred Owl that has been the reason for the decline.
The spotted owls habitat has been left alone now for over 20 years and the spotted owls population is still declining.
Post by: danderson on October 06, 2012, 06:03:46 AM
Post by: Special T on October 06, 2012, 09:07:00 AM
When they decide to start controlling the predators they need to include ravens and hawks. Raven's have increased 300% over the past 80 yrs according to a report I recently read and are the primary cause of sharp tailed grouse decline. Just this summer I raised 80 chuckars and did not release till they were full grown. The red tailed hawks moved in and killed all but 21 then the chuckars got smart but then a smaller hawk family moved in and got all but about 10. Hawks are protected because they are a migratory bird. I use to have dozens of grouse on my place and now I might see a brood once every 10 yrs. but I see hawks every single day. This is the first year I did not see one single brood of quail. I saw several new hatchling hawks. Not sure what they are eating now since they have everything killed off. The wild turkeys here lose most of their chicks to ravens and the rainey weather gets a bunch more. If we are going to harvest any game we have to eliminate our competition or at least reduce it. WDFW is funded 75% by selling hunting and fishing licenses. When there is no game to hunt, how will they be supported?
The primary reason for the sharpies decline is habitat, or rather the degradation or loss of it. Habitat provides the cover to hide from ravens, hawks, and land predators. There has been study after study about this from state and federal agencies to non-profits like Pheasants Forever and they all say the same thing. If you want birds to thrive, they need habitat for nesting, food, and protection from predators and weather.
Again, sharpies and pheasant thrive in predator infested parts of the country. But those places have prime habitat for them. Show me a declining upland bird species and I'll show you habitat that is disappearing or gone.
Pen raised birds, be it pheasant or chukar, have a HIGH mortality rate even in the best of circumstances. They are not like their wild counterparts.
Big game has a similar problem in many places. It's just not as pronounced...yet.
I don't think this argument is Habitat VS Predator control. We all agree that Better habitat is good. Predator control NEEDS to happen. Part of the reason for their protection was because they were over-harvested. All predators were shoot on site, causing certain kinds of these predators to come close to extinction. Well most predators have been protected for long enough... Game management is there to control the different kinds of animals. The goal was once to maximize game, if it now to maximize the diversity AND number of game then we need to manage predators. That has been sadly lacking in this state on all predators for a long time. I believe it was the 70's when the Fed rules regarding ravens, hawks, and cormorants, and other birds were passed.. If their numbers have not rebounded it has little to do with the protection they have received over the last 30-40 years...
Post by: bearpaw on October 06, 2012, 03:00:10 PM
When they decide to start controlling the predators they need to include ravens and hawks. Raven's have increased 300% over the past 80 yrs according to a report I recently read and are the primary cause of sharp tailed grouse decline. Just this summer I raised 80 chuckars and did not release till they were full grown. The red tailed hawks moved in and killed all but 21 then the chuckars got smart but then a smaller hawk family moved in and got all but about 10. Hawks are protected because they are a migratory bird. I use to have dozens of grouse on my place and now I might see a brood once every 10 yrs. but I see hawks every single day. This is the first year I did not see one single brood of quail. I saw several new hatchling hawks. Not sure what they are eating now since they have everything killed off. The wild turkeys here lose most of their chicks to ravens and the rainey weather gets a bunch more. If we are going to harvest any game we have to eliminate our competition or at least reduce it. WDFW is funded 75% by selling hunting and fishing licenses. When there is no game to hunt, how will they be supported?
The primary reason for the sharpies decline is habitat, or rather the degradation or loss of it. Habitat provides the cover to hide from ravens, hawks, and land predators. There has been study after study about this from state and federal agencies to non-profits like Pheasants Forever and they all say the same thing. If you want birds to thrive, they need habitat for nesting, food, and protection from predators and weather.
Again, sharpies and pheasant thrive in predator infested parts of the country. But those places have prime habitat for them. Show me a declining upland bird species and I'll show you habitat that is disappearing or gone.
Pen raised birds, be it pheasant or chukar, have a HIGH mortality rate even in the best of circumstances. They are not like their wild counterparts.
Big game has a similar problem in many places. It's just not as pronounced...yet.
I call :bs:
Of course there are some areas where habitat may be an issue. But, if there is so little habitat then why are there so many predators?
It's simple, there are too many predators, they need managed just like any other wildlife. The more predators you have the heavier impact they have, the fewer predators you have the lesser the impact. This involves some simple mathmatics, shoot some ravens, hawks, coyotes, bear, cougar, and wolves and you will have more of the other animals and birds.
Post by: Kola16 on October 06, 2012, 03:04:09 PM
Post by: GrousePointer on October 07, 2012, 09:07:58 AM
When they decide to start controlling the predators they need to include ravens and hawks. Raven's have increased 300% over the past 80 yrs according to a report I recently read and are the primary cause of sharp tailed grouse decline. Just this summer I raised 80 chuckars and did not release till they were full grown. The red tailed hawks moved in and killed all but 21 then the chuckars got smart but then a smaller hawk family moved in and got all but about 10. Hawks are protected because they are a migratory bird. I use to have dozens of grouse on my place and now I might see a brood once every 10 yrs. but I see hawks every single day. This is the first year I did not see one single brood of quail. I saw several new hatchling hawks. Not sure what they are eating now since they have everything killed off. The wild turkeys here lose most of their chicks to ravens and the rainey weather gets a bunch more. If we are going to harvest any game we have to eliminate our competition or at least reduce it. WDFW is funded 75% by selling hunting and fishing licenses. When there is no game to hunt, how will they be supported?
The primary reason for the sharpies decline is habitat, or rather the degradation or loss of it. Habitat provides the cover to hide from ravens, hawks, and land predators. There has been study after study about this from state and federal agencies to non-profits like Pheasants Forever and they all say the same thing. If you want birds to thrive, they need habitat for nesting, food, and protection from predators and weather.
Again, sharpies and pheasant thrive in predator infested parts of the country. But those places have prime habitat for them. Show me a declining upland bird species and I'll show you habitat that is disappearing or gone.
Pen raised birds, be it pheasant or chukar, have a HIGH mortality rate even in the best of circumstances. They are not like their wild counterparts.
Big game has a similar problem in many places. It's just not as pronounced...yet.
I call :bs:
Of course there are some areas where habitat may be an issue. But, if there is so little habitat then why are there so many predators?
It's simple, there are too many predators, they need managed just like any other wildlife. The more predators you have the heavier impact they have, the fewer predators you have the lesser the impact. This involves some simple mathmatics, shoot some ravens, hawks, coyotes, bear, cougar, and wolves and you will have more of the other animals and birds.
:bs: BS's hotline is ringing off the hook then....
http://www.minnesotapf.org/page/1000/MN-Predators.jsp (http://www.minnesotapf.org/page/1000/MN-Predators.jsp)
Or more to the point from the article... and before you get a hard on over the first sentence, keep reading and try to understand the concept:
"Predators have historically been and will continue to be the principle decimating factor for pheasant nests and adult birds, as they are for all other small game species. This is neither unusual nor unsolvable. Through sound management we can significantly reduce the detrimental effects of predators. This can be accomplished in two ways,
•reduce the predator population (remove or exclude), or
•reduce their effectiveness (dilute).
While predator removal and exclusion methods can increase nesting success on small areas, these methods are too expensive for use on a landscape basis and do not significantly increase the number of nesting birds over the long term. Through the addition and management of habitat, we not only decrease the impact predators have on existing nests, but also increase the number of nests and population size in an area.
Increased and improved nesting habitat also provides escape cover for pheasants from avian predators while the other methods do not. Furthermore, we have increased habitat for other non-target wildlife species as well as hunting opportunities for ourselves at a fraction of the cost of predator reduction methods. Predators will continue to eat hens in winter and nests in spring, but weather and habitat conditions will drive population fluctuations.
Read between the lines. Habitat is the problem and it applies every bit as much with sharpies.
Post by: huntnphool on October 07, 2012, 09:24:31 AM
GrousePointer, are you aware that we have a section for discussing upland game bird issues? http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/board,22.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/board,22.0.html) Be careful though, I've seen wolf discussions spun into sharpie threads. :dunno:When they decide to start controlling the predators they need to include ravens and hawks. Raven's have increased 300% over the past 80 yrs according to a report I recently read and are the primary cause of sharp tailed grouse decline. Just this summer I raised 80 chuckars and did not release till they were full grown. The red tailed hawks moved in and killed all but 21 then the chuckars got smart but then a smaller hawk family moved in and got all but about 10. Hawks are protected because they are a migratory bird. I use to have dozens of grouse on my place and now I might see a brood once every 10 yrs. but I see hawks every single day. This is the first year I did not see one single brood of quail. I saw several new hatchling hawks. Not sure what they are eating now since they have everything killed off. The wild turkeys here lose most of their chicks to ravens and the rainey weather gets a bunch more. If we are going to harvest any game we have to eliminate our competition or at least reduce it. WDFW is funded 75% by selling hunting and fishing licenses. When there is no game to hunt, how will they be supported?
The primary reason for the sharpies decline is habitat, or rather the degradation or loss of it. Habitat provides the cover to hide from ravens, hawks, and land predators. There has been study after study about this from state and federal agencies to non-profits like Pheasants Forever and they all say the same thing. If you want birds to thrive, they need habitat for nesting, food, and protection from predators and weather.
Again, sharpies and pheasant thrive in predator infested parts of the country. But those places have prime habitat for them. Show me a declining upland bird species and I'll show you habitat that is disappearing or gone.
Pen raised birds, be it pheasant or chukar, have a HIGH mortality rate even in the best of circumstances. They are not like their wild counterparts.
Big game has a similar problem in many places. It's just not as pronounced...yet.
I call :bs:
Of course there are some areas where habitat may be an issue. But, if there is so little habitat then why are there so many predators?
It's simple, there are too many predators, they need managed just like any other wildlife. The more predators you have the heavier impact they have, the fewer predators you have the lesser the impact. This involves some simple mathmatics, shoot some ravens, hawks, coyotes, bear, cougar, and wolves and you will have more of the other animals and birds.
:bs: BS's hotline is ringing off the hook then....
http://www.minnesotapf.org/page/1000/MN-Predators.jsp (http://www.minnesotapf.org/page/1000/MN-Predators.jsp)
Or more to the point from the article... and before you get a hard on over the first sentence, keep reading and try to understand the concept:
"Predators have historically been and will continue to be the principle decimating factor for pheasant nests and adult birds, as they are for all other small game species. This is neither unusual nor unsolvable. Through sound management we can significantly reduce the detrimental effects of predators. This can be accomplished in two ways,
•reduce the predator population (remove or exclude), or
•reduce their effectiveness (dilute).
While predator removal and exclusion methods can increase nesting success on small areas, these methods are too expensive for use on a landscape basis and do not significantly increase the number of nesting birds over the long term. Through the addition and management of habitat, we not only decrease the impact predators have on existing nests, but also increase the number of nests and population size in an area.
Increased and improved nesting habitat also provides escape cover for pheasants from avian predators while the other methods do not. Furthermore, we have increased habitat for other non-target wildlife species as well as hunting opportunities for ourselves at a fraction of the cost of predator reduction methods. Predators will continue to eat hens in winter and nests in spring, but weather and habitat conditions will drive population fluctuations.
Read between the lines. Habitat is the problem and it applies every bit as much with sharpies.
Post by: GrousePointer on October 07, 2012, 09:31:07 AM
GrousePointer, are you aware that we have a section for discussing upland game bird issues? http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/board,22.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/board,22.0.html) Be careful though, if you start a thread about Sharpie habitat, you may see it turn into a wolf thread. :dunno:When they decide to start controlling the predators they need to include ravens and hawks. Raven's have increased 300% over the past 80 yrs according to a report I recently read and are the primary cause of sharp tailed grouse decline. Just this summer I raised 80 chuckars and did not release till they were full grown. The red tailed hawks moved in and killed all but 21 then the chuckars got smart but then a smaller hawk family moved in and got all but about 10. Hawks are protected because they are a migratory bird. I use to have dozens of grouse on my place and now I might see a brood once every 10 yrs. but I see hawks every single day. This is the first year I did not see one single brood of quail. I saw several new hatchling hawks. Not sure what they are eating now since they have everything killed off. The wild turkeys here lose most of their chicks to ravens and the rainey weather gets a bunch more. If we are going to harvest any game we have to eliminate our competition or at least reduce it. WDFW is funded 75% by selling hunting and fishing licenses. When there is no game to hunt, how will they be supported?
The primary reason for the sharpies decline is habitat, or rather the degradation or loss of it. Habitat provides the cover to hide from ravens, hawks, and land predators. There has been study after study about this from state and federal agencies to non-profits like Pheasants Forever and they all say the same thing. If you want birds to thrive, they need habitat for nesting, food, and protection from predators and weather.
Again, sharpies and pheasant thrive in predator infested parts of the country. But those places have prime habitat for them. Show me a declining upland bird species and I'll show you habitat that is disappearing or gone.
Pen raised birds, be it pheasant or chukar, have a HIGH mortality rate even in the best of circumstances. They are not like their wild counterparts.
Big game has a similar problem in many places. It's just not as pronounced...yet.
I call :bs:
Of course there are some areas where habitat may be an issue. But, if there is so little habitat then why are there so many predators?
It's simple, there are too many predators, they need managed just like any other wildlife. The more predators you have the heavier impact they have, the fewer predators you have the lesser the impact. This involves some simple mathmatics, shoot some ravens, hawks, coyotes, bear, cougar, and wolves and you will have more of the other animals and birds.
:bs: BS's hotline is ringing off the hook then....
http://www.minnesotapf.org/page/1000/MN-Predators.jsp (http://www.minnesotapf.org/page/1000/MN-Predators.jsp)
Or more to the point from the article... and before you get a hard on over the first sentence, keep reading and try to understand the concept:
"Predators have historically been and will continue to be the principle decimating factor for pheasant nests and adult birds, as they are for all other small game species. This is neither unusual nor unsolvable. Through sound management we can significantly reduce the detrimental effects of predators. This can be accomplished in two ways,
•reduce the predator population (remove or exclude), or
•reduce their effectiveness (dilute).
While predator removal and exclusion methods can increase nesting success on small areas, these methods are too expensive for use on a landscape basis and do not significantly increase the number of nesting birds over the long term. Through the addition and management of habitat, we not only decrease the impact predators have on existing nests, but also increase the number of nests and population size in an area.
Increased and improved nesting habitat also provides escape cover for pheasants from avian predators while the other methods do not. Furthermore, we have increased habitat for other non-target wildlife species as well as hunting opportunities for ourselves at a fraction of the cost of predator reduction methods. Predators will continue to eat hens in winter and nests in spring, but weather and habitat conditions will drive population fluctuations.
Read between the lines. Habitat is the problem and it applies every bit as much with sharpies.
Fair enough. I only brought into the thread because someone else here mentioned sharpies and hawks. I also focused on the matter because much earlier someone mentioned a lack of deer on the west side and another point was made that the habitat had changed enough to have an impact on deer populations...which is absolutely true as is the case with upland birds like the grouse.
Upland birds and big game like deer share something in common. They like similar habitat.
Post by: boneaddict on October 07, 2012, 09:35:47 AM
Post by: bearpaw on October 07, 2012, 02:32:00 PM
Quote
Or more to the point from the article... and before you get a hard on over the first sentence, keep reading and try to understand the concept:
GrousePointer, (or is it Grizzly Bears) this is a family site, we do not make references such as the one made by yourself!
We also do not allow wolf lovers to threadjack the wolf topics to other topics as they alsways try to do.
:ban:
Post by: Kola16 on October 07, 2012, 04:23:15 PM
Post by: villageidiot on October 08, 2012, 06:39:02 AM
If you have a fox eating your chickens in the chicken house, do you make the chicken house bigger or put in boxes for them to hide behind? No, you shoot the fox!
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 10, 2012, 11:57:51 PM
Thanks Sitka, I read the report both statewide overview and region by region. There is a underlying theme when you go through the regional reports and the statewide report sums it up rather nicely, and I will quote the IDFG,QuoteWolf predation is the leading cause of mortality.Enough said!!!
Before I go on, let me say that I have no problem with the Wedge Pack being taken out. It's an appropriate step for any predators that concentrate on livestock. I have never said that wolves shouldn't be killed or that they should be unmanaged. My opinion is, that there's a place for them and they won't be the end of hunting or even be the cause of a long term downturn in game populations. I've been through this fight before in the commercial salmon industry in Alaska and in fact took the position of many of you, that predators were going to affect my bottom line. I'm talking about seals and sea lions. In the early part of my career, we killed them relentlessly whenever they came near our nets. They not only stole fish from our nets, but they also did a lot of damage to the nets too. A 1500 lb bull sea lion can rip a lot of web and they like to swim back and forth through your net.
There was even a time when there was a bounty on seals as it was believed they suppressed salmon runs. I've heard stories from the old timers about dropping dynamite out of airplanes on sand bars full of seals.
Then the feds got concerned about dwindling numbers of marine mammals and they started documenting our interactions with marine mammals through logbooks and observers we were forced to take out on our boats. Then we were banned from purposely killing them. I believe that was in 1994. Many, maybe even most resisted and continued killing them. A few people were caught and prosecuted and fined and it wasn't cheap. Most of us quit then, but some continued. The feds found remains washed up on the beaches and then the word came down. " If we find any more animals dead from gunshot wounds, we will close your fishery down for being out of compliance with the marine mammal act. Well that got everybody's attention.
Fast forward to today. we have more seals, sea lions and sea otters by far, than any time in my fishing career. (I started in 1968) We are also catching more salmon than at any time in my career. The last 4 years have been the best of my career by far and this year was by far my best ever season. The seals and sea lions are more of a pain than ever. They take more fish from my net and rip more holes than ever. Guess what? I've learned to live with it. I move if I can't take the abuse. I make shorter sets. I fish around other fishermen to spread the misery. And I spend more time on closures mending my net. Farmers are lucky, they can get reimbursed for damages and have problem animals taken out. Fishermen don't get those options. But I'm not complaining. With as good as things are, how can I?
Now onto your reading of the report huntnphool, in your focus on wolves, you missed a lot. Stuff like.........
"It is likely that elk populations are influenced by a complex combination of habitat condition/characteristics and predator systems. It is also likely that temporal changes in weather patterns and precipitation affect the relative role of habitat and predators."
"In fact, populations in north-central Idaho generally have the lowest calf:cow ratios statewide. These observations are consistent with populations that are at or near carrying capacity."
"Much of the Panhandle Zone’s forested habitat experienced extensive timber harvest during the 1980s and 1990s. While this high level of timber harvest created additional elk forage, the more important impact was the construction of logging roads that allowed hunters easy access to elk and increased elk vulnerability."
"This low level of recruitment is assumed to be the result of unsatisfactory cow elk body condition following the severe winter of 2007-2008 that led to abnormally low pregnancy rates, fetal development and births in the spring of 2008."
"Elk habitat in north-central Idaho was greatly improved during the early 1900s when extensive wildfires replaced heavily-forested habitats with productive shrub-fields. However, as these shrub-fields have aged and conifer reestablishment has occurred, habitat potential has been reduced."
Now to really make my point that wolves aren't the only or even most important consideration in deer and elk management, here's another report. And if you go to pages 4 and 5, you'll see a table that shows game harvest numbers from 1935 until 2005. The first thing you notice is the normal ups and downs in harvest levels. Even in the pre wolf reintroduction days there were wide variations in harvest levels. There were also two noticeable catastrophic drop offs, one from 1939 to 1944, and the other from 1976 until about 1978. I know the 1976 drop off was from a bad winter and expect that the 1939 drop was for the same reason. Much like the current drop was proceeded by the bad winters of 2007/2008 and 2008/2009. Deer and elk recovered from those declines and I don't doubt they'll recover from the recent one.
https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/Wildlife%20Technical%20Reports/Game%20Harvest%20PR06.pdf
Post by: Duffer on October 11, 2012, 12:27:52 AM
Why reintroduce these Wolves to Washington:?
To 'balance' undulate numbers? Hogwash. If Washington EVER had an overpopulation of game, they can (and have) allowed hunters more opportunity. (higher success rates)
To 'save' this species from extinction? Bullpuckey. There are thousands, tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands? of these wolves on planet earth. Nowhere near extinct.
To re-establish a missing species to it's original habitat? Moosedroppings. This is a mistake of the Endangered Species Act that should be fixed! I think we should re-introduce Smallpox to Washington State! It was here. Now it's almost extinct. Same logic.
Fact: Wolves are being re-introduced (in every possible state) to kill hunting. and it's working. It's brilliant actually. At a minimum, wolves (and other predators) WILL lower undulate populations. Don't care if it's the main reason It is happening. Lower populations means less hunting tags. Here's the brilliant part tho. Even if a state (like Idaho) finally decides to fight this trend, the cost will bankrupt their game management ability. Then there is no money to manage hunters NOR manage predators.
.... and they win. Probably already have. Sucks.
(see thread on How Hunters don't Vote)
Post by: bearpaw on October 11, 2012, 12:49:14 AM
Thanks Sitka, I read the report both statewide overview and region by region. There is a underlying theme when you go through the regional reports and the statewide report sums it up rather nicely, and I will quote the IDFG,QuoteWolf predation is the leading cause of mortality.Enough said!!!
Before I go on, let me say that I have no problem with the Wedge Pack being taken out. It's an appropriate step for any predators that concentrate on livestock. I have never said that wolves shouldn't be killed or that they should be unmanaged. My opinion is, that there's a place for them and they won't be the end of hunting or even be the cause of a long term downturn in game populations. I've been through this fight before in the commercial salmon industry in Alaska and in fact took the position of many of you, that predators were going to affect my bottom line. I'm talking about seals and sea lions. In the early part of my career, we killed them relentlessly whenever they came near our nets. They not only stole fish from our nets, but they also did a lot of damage to the nets too. A 1500 lb bull sea lion can rip a lot of web and they like to swim back and forth through your net.
There was even a time when there was a bounty on seals as it was believed they suppressed salmon runs. I've heard stories from the old timers about dropping dynamite out of airplanes on sand bars full of seals.
Then the feds got concerned about dwindling numbers of marine mammals and they started documenting our interactions with marine mammals through logbooks and observers we were forced to take out on our boats. Then we were banned from purposely killing them. I believe that was in 1994. Many, maybe even most resisted and continued killing them. A few people were caught and prosecuted and fined and it wasn't cheap. Most of us quit then, but some continued. The feds found remains washed up on the beaches and then the word came down. " If we find any more animals dead from gunshot wounds, we will close your fishery down for being out of compliance with the marine mammal act. Well that got everybody's attention.
Fast forward to today. we have more seals, sea lions and sea otters by far, than any time in my fishing career. (I started in 1968) We are also catching more salmon than at any time in my career. The last 4 years have been the best of my career by far and this year was by far my best ever season. The seals and sea lions are more of a pain than ever. They take more fish from my net and rip more holes than ever. Guess what? I've learned to live with it. I move if I can't take the abuse. I make shorter sets. I fish around other fishermen to spread the misery. And I spend more time on closures mending my net. Farmers are lucky, they can get reimbursed for damages and have problem animals taken out. Fishermen don't get those options. But I'm not complaining. With as good as things are, how can I?
Now onto your reading of the report huntnphool, in your focus on wolves, you missed a lot. Stuff like.........
"It is likely that elk populations are influenced by a complex combination of habitat condition/characteristics and predator systems. It is also likely that temporal changes in weather patterns and precipitation affect the relative role of habitat and predators."
"In fact, populations in north-central Idaho generally have the lowest calf:cow ratios statewide. These observations are consistent with populations that are at or near carrying capacity."
"Much of the Panhandle Zone’s forested habitat experienced extensive timber harvest during the 1980s and 1990s. While this high level of timber harvest created additional elk forage, the more important impact was the construction of logging roads that allowed hunters easy access to elk and increased elk vulnerability."
"This low level of recruitment is assumed to be the result of unsatisfactory cow elk body condition following the severe winter of 2007-2008 that led to abnormally low pregnancy rates, fetal development and births in the spring of 2008."
"Elk habitat in north-central Idaho was greatly improved during the early 1900s when extensive wildfires replaced heavily-forested habitats with productive shrub-fields. However, as these shrub-fields have aged and conifer reestablishment has occurred, habitat potential has been reduced."
Now to really make my point that wolves aren't the only or even most important consideration in deer and elk management, here's another report. And if you go to pages 4 and 5, you'll see a table that shows game harvest numbers from 1935 until 2005. The first thing you notice is the normal ups and downs in harvest levels. Even in the pre wolf reintroduction days there were wide variations in harvest levels. There were also two noticeable catastrophic drop offs, one from 1939 to 1944, and the other from 1976 until about 1978. I know the 1976 drop off was from a bad winter and expect that the 1939 drop was for the same reason. Much like the current drop was proceeded by the bad winters of 2007/2008 and 2008/2009. Deer and elk recovered from those declines and I don't doubt they'll recover from the recent one.
https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/Wildlife%20Technical%20Reports/Game%20Harvest%20PR06.pdf
First it wasn't wolves eating your salmon.
Next, if you review wolf management in Alaska and B.C. you will find that wolves must be managed heavily to protect ungulate herds when wolves get to numerous.
Lastly, there are numerous elk herds which have declined due to wolves and it's documented. Your arguments are outdated and proven to be misconceptions by more recent data since 2005. Many of the greatest elk declines have occurred in just the last few years. Why don't you just give up with this phony science you are trying to push?
I suppose you will be telling the McIrvins that the wolves didn't really have an impact on their cattle herd numbers, that they imagined there are fewer cattle in their herd. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on October 11, 2012, 12:58:55 AM
FYI - Despite having some of the worst habitat, the McIrvins are Stevens Counties largest cattle producer.
Another hole in your propaganda: Unit 4 in the panhandle has Idaho's largest elk herd because wolves ate the other herds first, but it's in a decline now that wolves have arrived. :bdid:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 12, 2012, 01:45:38 PM
Sitka, better yet, the wedge isn't ideal habitat for cattle, that must be the reason their herd is declining. :chuckle:
FYI - Despite having some of the worst habitat, the McIrvins are Stevens Counties largest cattle producer.
Another hole in your propaganda: Unit 4 in the panhandle has Idaho's largest elk herd because wolves ate the other herds first, but it's in a decline now that wolves have arrived. :bdid:
So in your opinion as long as there are wolves, the deer and elk populations will not only never recover, but will keep declining until they are all gone? Does that mean if harvest numbers start going back up that you'll admit you were wrong?
Common sense says you have little knowledge of predator prey relationships. Before Europeans settled North America, it was teaming with predators and with wildlife. Look at the great herds of wildlife in Africa, they are preyed upon by large numbers of predators and seem to survive just fine.
There is only one animal that hunts it's prey to extinction or near extinction. I'll let you figure that out for yourself. But I'll give you a hint, it's the same animal that smugly thinks it should be the only predator in the world.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 12, 2012, 02:01:26 PM
Now to really make my point that wolves aren't the only or even most important consideration in deer and elk management, here's another report. And if you go to pages 4 and 5, you'll see a table that shows game harvest numbers from 1935 until 2005. The first thing you notice is the normal ups and downs in harvest levels. Even in the pre wolf reintroduction days there were wide variations in harvest levels. There were also two noticeable catastrophic drop offs, one from 1939 to 1944, and the other from 1976 until about 1978. I know the 1976 drop off was from a bad winter and expect that the 1939 drop was for the same reason. Much like the current drop was proceeded by the bad winters of 2007/2008 and 2008/2009. Deer and elk recovered from those declines and I don't doubt they'll recover from the recent one.
https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/Wildlife%20Technical%20Reports/Game%20Harvest%20PR06.pdf
Next, if you review wolf management in Alaska and B.C. you will find that wolves must be managed heavily to protect ungulate herds when wolves get to numerous.
Lastly, there are numerous elk herds which have declined due to wolves and it's documented. Your arguments are outdated and proven to be misconceptions by more recent data since 2005. Many of the greatest elk declines have occurred in just the last few years. Why don't you just give up with this phony science you are trying to push?
When have I ever said wolves shouldn't be managed? I've also said I'm fine with them being hunted.......legally. That means the bio's decide what range of wolf population is appropriate and allow hunting or trapping, or if necessary take out problem animals by other means. But it doesn't mean citizens deciding for themselves that one wolf is too many wolves and killing them on the sly. Just as you wouldn't go along with someone deciding an elk herd decimating their corn or pea fields or deer destroying their alfalfa fields was justification for them killing every deer or elk they saw by whatever means. You either agree with scientifically managing wild animal populations or you don't. You don't get to pick and choose by what your favorite animals are.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 12, 2012, 02:12:47 PM
The early accounts like the Lewis and Clark journals generally mention how sparse wildlife was in Idaho and Washington. That they ate a lot of bear in Idaho and shot wolves. When they got to Washington they nearly starved and had to eat horses and leather until they met Indian tribes. Then they bartered for salmon and camas, even the Indians rarely went for game due to lack of it and abundance of salmon.
Common sense says you have little knowledge of predator prey relationships. Before Europeans settled North America, it was teaming with predators and with wildlife. Look at the great herds of wildlife in Africa, they are preyed upon by large numbers of predators and seem to survive just fine.
Other accounts for early Washington mention how there is enough game to support trappers and traders, but due to high levels of predators not enough to support colonization (except with salmon). Many of the settlers around 1900 were hired specifically to kill predators. I believe the wolf count at the time was estimated to be around 3,000 for Washington.
edited for one to many zeroes. :DOH:
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 12, 2012, 02:42:38 PM
Sitka, better yet, the wedge isn't ideal habitat for cattle, that must be the reason their herd is declining. :chuckle:
FYI - Despite having some of the worst habitat, the McIrvins are Stevens Counties largest cattle producer.
Another hole in your propaganda: Unit 4 in the panhandle has Idaho's largest elk herd because wolves ate the other herds first, but it's in a decline now that wolves have arrived. :bdid:
So in your opinion as long as there are wolves, the deer and elk populations will not only never recover, but will keep declining until they are all gone? Does that mean if harvest numbers start going back up that you'll admit you were wrong?
Common sense says you have little knowledge of predator prey relationships. Before Europeans settled North America, it was teaming with predators and with wildlife. Look at the great herds of wildlife in Africa, they are preyed upon by large numbers of predators and seem to survive just fine.
There is only one animal that hunts it's prey to extinction or near extinction. I'll let you figure that out for yourself. But I'll give you a hint, it's the same animal that smugly thinks it should be the only predator in the world.
The time before Europeans settled NA isn't now. North America was sparsely populated and there was room for large numbers of predators. Once the white man populated the west, wolves were hunted to near extinction because they didn't get along with man, especially with the hugely increased numbers of white men. We have replaced the wolf as the top apex predator. This doesn't mean that there can't be wolves, but it does mean there should be a much smaller number of them than is planned for WA. What happened before has nothing to do with what's happening now in a fully populated country.
Your argument is misleading. There were also wolves where Seattle now sits. But, there shouldn't be wolves there now. Why? Because man is there and wouldn't get along with them. The same goes for much of our rural but populated state.
Post by: Bob33 on October 12, 2012, 02:57:36 PM
Your argument is misleading. There were also wolves where Seattle now sits. But, there shouldn't be wolves there now. Why? Because man is there and wouldn't get along with them. The same goes for much of our rural but populated state.Wolves, and bears, cougars, and probably some dinosaurs - let's bring them all back to Seattle and have our own Jurassic Park. ;)
Let's bring on the mosquitos also. I think King County has been killing those poor little creatures!
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 12, 2012, 07:04:58 PM
The early accounts like the Lewis and Clark journals generally mention how sparse wildlife was in Idaho and Washington. That they ate a lot of bear in Idaho and shot wolves. When they got to Washington they nearly starved and had to eat horses and leather until they met Indian tribes. Then they bartered for salmon and camas, even the Indians rarely went for game due to lack of it and abundance of salmon.
Common sense says you have little knowledge of predator prey relationships. Before Europeans settled North America, it was teaming with predators and with wildlife. Look at the great herds of wildlife in Africa, they are preyed upon by large numbers of predators and seem to survive just fine.
Other accounts for early Washington mention how there is enough game to support trappers and traders, but due to high levels of predators not enough to support colonization (except with salmon). Many of the settlers around 1900 were hired specifically to kill predators. I believe the wolf count at the time was estimated to be around 30,000 for Washington (about what today's black bear estimate is).
Not enough game for settlers, but enough to keep 30,000 wolves healthy? All around 1900? Do tell.
If you read the elk biology report I linked above (https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/Wildlife%20Technical%20Reports/Elk%20Statewide%20PR10.pdf) You will see this repeated over and over throughout the reports from the different regions....... "Historically, elk herds were scattered and numbers were low in this area. Few big game animals were found along Clearwater River by Lewis and Clark in the early 1800s, probably due in part to the dense, unbroken canopy of forest that covered the entire area. Wildfires burned over vast expanses near the beginning of the twentieth century, creating vast brush-fields that provided abundant forage areas for elk." or "Elk numbers were very low in the Panhandle Zone around the early 1900s. Major landscape changes occurred as a result of stand-replacing fires beginning in 1910. Vast areas of timber were transformed into brush fields and early succession timber stands that provided ideal conditions for elk."
Nowhere do I see the low numbers at that time attributed to wolves or other predators. I see it attributed to "poor habitat". Massive forest fires changed that. These days logging, not forest fires is more likely to change habitat from dense and poor to open and good for elk.
But this arguing is all getting monotonous. You guys aren't going to change my opinion on the matter, and I'm not going to change anybody's mind if they can't open their mind to the idea that game dynamics are controlled by much more than predators. Are predators a piece of the puzzle? Sure. But they aren't the only piece or even the biggest piece. To think they are just opens you up to being overwhelmed by other conditions that can cause downturns in game herds while you're fixated on one issue.
I'm done with this argument. I'm going hunting. Just remember, when harvest numbers come back up in spite of wolves, you heard that it was possible and even probable here first.
Good hunting!
Post by: Kola16 on October 12, 2012, 07:11:58 PM
But this arguing is all getting monotonous. You guys aren't going to change my opinion on the matter, and I'm not going to change anybody's mind if they can't open their mind to the idea that game dynamics are controlled by much more than predators. Are predators a piece of the puzzle? Sure. But they aren't the only piece or even the biggest piece. To think they are just opens you up to being overwhelmed by other conditions that can cause downturns in game herds while you're fixated on one issue.
I'm done with this argument. I'm going hunting. Just remember, when harvest numbers come back up in spite of wolves, you heard that it was possible and even probable here first.
Good hunting!
Edited, for being mean.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on October 12, 2012, 07:42:32 PM
But this arguing is all getting monotonous. You guys aren't going to change my opinion on the matter, and I'm not going to change anybody's mind if they can't open their mind to the idea that game dynamics are controlled by much more than predators. Are predators a piece of the puzzle? Sure. But they aren't the only piece or even the biggest piece. To think they are just opens you up to being overwhelmed by other conditions that can cause downturns in game herds while you're fixated on one issue.
I'm done with this argument. I'm going hunting. Just remember, when harvest numbers come back up in spite of wolves, you heard that it was possible and even probable here first.
Good hunting!
So you quit. Arguments can be solved. When someone quits, it pretty much shows that you lost.
Be nice junior, you gotta remember that some of us are three times your age
Post by: Kola16 on October 12, 2012, 07:44:05 PM
But this arguing is all getting monotonous. You guys aren't going to change my opinion on the matter, and I'm not going to change anybody's mind if they can't open their mind to the idea that game dynamics are controlled by much more than predators. Are predators a piece of the puzzle? Sure. But they aren't the only piece or even the biggest piece. To think they are just opens you up to being overwhelmed by other conditions that can cause downturns in game herds while you're fixated on one issue.
I'm done with this argument. I'm going hunting. Just remember, when harvest numbers come back up in spite of wolves, you heard that it was possible and even probable here first.
Good hunting!
So you quit. Arguments can be solved. When someone quits, it pretty much shows that you lost.
Be nice junior, you gotta remember that some of us are three times your age
Didn't think I was being mean. If you find that offensive I will take it away.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on October 12, 2012, 07:48:09 PM
Post by: Kola16 on October 12, 2012, 07:52:13 PM
Post by: sakoshooter on October 12, 2012, 08:13:40 PM
I LOVE HUNTN, been doing it my whole life like many here on this site, we should all ban together and refuse to hunt next year, i could give up a huntn season or 2 to get are point across, what would be 1 or 2 years for us, yeah it would suck not actually getn to hunt but it would stop a guy from killn a ton of animals with his camera, it wouldnt hurt us as much as it would the department of fish and wildlife, maybe they would have to cut back on some of the anti-hunting staff.....just a thought..... your points would still be there, when we decided to hunt again, and it would be a hell of a united message :tup: :tup:
I totally agree Jackmaster. We've got to hit them where it will make a difference and that's in they're bank account. One year and they'd realize who carry's the hammer in WA.
Get it started Jackmaseter and count me in.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 12, 2012, 09:52:05 PM
I just think that this is something that could have easily been resolved. And I also said "pretty much". I never said he did lose. I wasn't even arguing with him anyway.
It was never about winning Kola, just about getting people to think. There's more than one way to look at and deal with an issue. The popular opinion train isn't always the one that will get you where you want to go.
No offense taken by the way to anything you've said.
Post by: bearpaw on October 12, 2012, 10:36:23 PM
Sitka, better yet, the wedge isn't ideal habitat for cattle, that must be the reason their herd is declining. :chuckle:
FYI - Despite having some of the worst habitat, the McIrvins are Stevens Counties largest cattle producer.
Another hole in your propaganda: Unit 4 in the panhandle has Idaho's largest elk herd because wolves ate the other herds first, but it's in a decline now that wolves have arrived. :bdid:
So in your opinion as long as there are wolves, the deer and elk populations will not only never recover, but will keep declining until they are all gone? Does that mean if harvest numbers start going back up that you'll admit you were wrong?
Common sense says you have little knowledge of predator prey relationships. Before Europeans settled North America, it was teaming with predators and with wildlife. Look at the great herds of wildlife in Africa, they are preyed upon by large numbers of predators and seem to survive just fine.
There is only one animal that hunts it's prey to extinction or near extinction. I'll let you figure that out for yourself. But I'll give you a hint, it's the same animal that smugly thinks it should be the only predator in the world.
Careful, you claim to be a hunter like most wolf lovers do, but you are letting your possible hatred and bias against hunters show through. :chuckle:
You also have exposed the fact that you are not quite as sharp as you would like everyone to think that you are. First, I never said wolves will eat elk to extinction, never, ever, and I challenge you to find where I ever once to said to extinction.
However, wolves can take prey species into a predator pit, you should know what that is if you are as sharp as you want to portray yourself! Once prey species are in a predator pit, then the predators will have a serious correction (they die off or they leave for other parts) which is exactly what has occurred in YNP and the Lolo. I challenge you to prove me wrong!
Once prey species are in a predator pit they will likely be stuck there until predator numbers drop low enough to allow recovery of prey specie numbers. There can only be very limited human hunting during times of a predator pit or there will be further decline in the prey species. If you understand and agree with this sort of extreme fluctuations in prey species, then I suggest you are either nuts, or you are another wolf hugger posing as a hunter. I would suggest that nobody can be that naive!
Any reasonably intelligent person should be able to do the math and figure out that wolf numbers should never be allowed to be high enough to have an effect of lowering game populations. Once predator numbers are high enough to effect prey numbers then there will likely be a domino effect, as prey numbers decline, predator impact will be more significant, until prey numbers drop to the point that there is a predator correction. At that point in time, due to piss poor management, the land will be supporting both fewer prey species and fewer predators. An intelligent biologist, a biologist without an agenda of promoting wolves and reducing hunter opportunity, could easily calculate that we would have the highest wolf population if we keep wolf numbers from reaching a point where they begin impacting prey numbers.
Quote
Before Europeans settled North America, it was teaming with predators and with wildlife. Look at the great herds of wildlife in Africa, they are preyed upon by large numbers of predators and seem to survive just fine.
You seem to be living in a make believe world! Anyone who has studied history knows that prey precies were very hard to find in the west, yet bear and wolves were commonly seen. Modern management has actually increased the number of animals which our land can support. But by your writing, I can tell you are opposed to the land supporting more wildlife, you are most likely one of those wolf lovers that hates the fact that man has managed for ample wildlife to hunt. Your lack of understanding or perhaps bias of predator/prey relationships seems to suggest that you are one of those people who wants less wildlife on the landscape because you don't believe man is part of the ecosystem. :twocents:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 12, 2012, 10:48:08 PM
Post by: waterdoctor on October 13, 2012, 07:32:45 AM
One thing that happens with bio's working with a species is that they can "fall in love" with the animal they are studying. I have seen this happen in other states with bio's and only one on one interaction will help this issue. That is why I have made the appointment.
East of 395 an amendment to the wolf plan needs to be requested IMO. It is small but might get past the tree huggars. That is that lethal force could be used to protect pets and "penned" live stock. Also I will ask the question what is the impact on other endangered species in the federal de-listed area? Is the department being opened up to lawsuits without a plan that takes into consideration of the wolves on the endangered species?
Bearpaw, if you would like to meet me PM me.
Post by: Kola16 on October 13, 2012, 10:54:15 AM
No offense taken by the way to anything you've said.
Good. I really wasn't trying to make anyone feel bad :tup:
And on top of that, I kind of like being on the minority. Some people have found out that I will take the side that I don't even believe in. It drives some of them nuts that I do that, but oh well :dunno: :chuckle:
Post by: Northway on October 13, 2012, 10:55:58 AM
Sitka, better yet, the wedge isn't ideal habitat for cattle, that must be the reason their herd is declining. :chuckle:
FYI - Despite having some of the worst habitat, the McIrvins are Stevens Counties largest cattle producer.
Another hole in your propaganda: Unit 4 in the panhandle has Idaho's largest elk herd because wolves ate the other herds first, but it's in a decline now that wolves have arrived. :bdid:
So in your opinion as long as there are wolves, the deer and elk populations will not only never recover, but will keep declining until they are all gone? Does that mean if harvest numbers start going back up that you'll admit you were wrong?
Common sense says you have little knowledge of predator prey relationships. Before Europeans settled North America, it was teaming with predators and with wildlife. Look at the great herds of wildlife in Africa, they are preyed upon by large numbers of predators and seem to survive just fine.
There is only one animal that hunts it's prey to extinction or near extinction. I'll let you figure that out for yourself. But I'll give you a hint, it's the same animal that smugly thinks it should be the only predator in the world.
Careful, you claim to be a hunter like most wolf lovers do, but you are letting your possible hatred and bias against hunters show through. :chuckle:
You also have exposed the fact that you are not quite as sharp as you would like everyone to think that you are. First, I never said wolves will eat elk to extinction, never, ever, and I challenge you to find where I ever once to said to extinction.
However, wolves can take prey species into a predator pit, you should know what that is if you are as sharp as you want to portray yourself! Once prey species are in a predator pit, then the predators will have a serious correction (they die off or they leave for other parts) which is exactly what has occurred in YNP and the Lolo. I challenge you to prove me wrong!
Once prey species are in a predator pit they will likely be stuck there until predator numbers drop low enough to allow recovery of prey specie numbers. There can only be very limited human hunting during times of a predator pit or there will be further decline in the prey species. If you understand and agree with this sort of extreme fluctuations in prey species, then I suggest you are either nuts, or you are another wolf hugger posing as a hunter. I would suggest that nobody can be that naive!
Any reasonably intelligent person should be able to do the math and figure out that wolf numbers should never be allowed to be high enough to have an effect of lowering game populations. Once predator numbers are high enough to effect prey numbers then there will likely be a domino effect, as prey numbers decline, predator impact will be more significant, until prey numbers drop to the point that there is a predator correction. At that point in time, due to piss poor management, the land will be supporting both fewer prey species and fewer predators. An intelligent biologist, a biologist without an agenda of promoting wolves and reducing hunter opportunity, could easily calculate that we would have the highest wolf population if we keep wolf numbers from reaching a point where they begin impacting prey numbers.QuoteBefore Europeans settled North America, it was teaming with predators and with wildlife. Look at the great herds of wildlife in Africa, they are preyed upon by large numbers of predators and seem to survive just fine.
You seem to be living in a make believe world! Anyone who has studied history knows that prey precies were very hard to find in the west, yet bear and wolves were commonly seen. Modern management has actually increased the number of animals which our land can support. But by your writing, I can tell you are opposed to the land supporting more wildlife, you are most likely one of those wolf lovers that hates the fact that man has managed for ample wildlife to hunt. Your lack of understanding or perhaps bias of predator/prey relationships seems to suggest that you are one of those people who wants less wildlife on the landscape because you don't believe man is part of the ecosystem. :twocents:
I've read that prey species were hard to find in some areas, but abundant in others. I am curious to know more about historical accounts of game prevelance in the Okanagan prior to the impact of market hunting by the early 1900's. I recently read a book called "From Copenhagen to the Okanagan". Based on Ulrich Fries accounts, game appeared to be relatively prevelant in the mid to late 1880's - at least in parts of the Okanagan. I have not read enough accounts from that time period to really say what the situation was in that area, however.
Post by: Special T on October 21, 2012, 09:46:25 AM
It all comes down to economics.
Current ideology is to fund a program that balances a natural system, (void of man) to the greatest possibility.
The tipping point (IMO) is no longer a matter of a surplus harvest Vs. a predator pit. Instead, how low can harvests, access, and opportunity become and still keep people buying hunting lotto tickets and licenses?
Management thought non mgt is the new norm... How will they justify all those jobs if everything is supposed to balance itself out?
Post by: Ridgeratt on October 21, 2012, 07:45:17 PM
Week after next I get to come home for a while and have made an appointment with the wolf biologist in Colville. I can talk to talk with the bio's as I have a degree in Vertebrate Zoology. After having been a chairman of a local Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation chapter I leaned a lot about the politics of game management. The most important thing that we can do in the short term is help the trappers like Paul do is locate and confirm new packs. Once we have the pack count up we can get the wolves de-listed.
One thing that happens with bio's working with a species is that they can "fall in love" with the animal they are studying. I have seen this happen in other states with bio's and only one on one interaction will help this issue. That is why I have made the appointment.
East of 395 an amendment to the wolf plan needs to be requested IMO. It is small but might get past the tree huggars. That is that lethal force could be used to protect pets and "penned" live stock. Also I will ask the question what is the impact on other endangered species in the federal de-listed area? Is the department being opened up to lawsuits without a plan that takes into consideration of the wolves on the endangered species?
Bearpaw, if you would like to meet me PM me.
I ran into the bio during Muzzle Elk up there. He has gained a vast knowledge about the problem and was IMO brutally Honest.
A year and half ago I met him at a presentation here in Spokane and his learning curve has what is best call vertical.
If you do get a chance to talk to him see if he will show the you GPS tracking data that they had on the Alpha male they got a sat update every 6 hours and had a batch of dot's on a map.
I think you will find he is not enamoured with them as you may believe.
Post by: villageidiot on October 21, 2012, 09:13:54 PM
Post by: denali on October 22, 2012, 08:55:49 AM
Somehow WDFW thinks making people sign restrictive agreements about what they can do on their own land will solve the wolf problem. We don't agree.
Wolf kill: Will there have to be more?
By PHUONG LE
Associated Press
SEATTLE (AP) -- Taking aim from a helicopter flying over northeastern Washington state, a marksman last month killed the alpha male of a wolf pack that had repeatedly attacked a rancher's cattle. The shooting put an end to the so-called Wedge pack, but it did little to quell the controversy over wolves in the state.
The issue has been so explosive that state wildlife officials received death threats and the head of the Fish and Wildlife Commission warned the public at a recent hearing in Olympia on wolves that uniformed and undercover officers were in the room ready to act.
More conflicts between wolves and livestock are inevitable, officials say, as wolves in Washington recover, growing in number more quickly than expected. The animals numbered a handful in 2008, and are now estimated at between 80 and 100.
"What are we going to do so we don't have this again?" asked Steve Pozzanghera, a Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife regional director.
He said officials are trying to be proactive to prevent the need to kill wolves in the future. They plan to collar more wolves this winter to keep better track of them. They plan to ask the Legislature to beef up money to compensate livestock owners whose animals are killed by wolves. And they're urging livestock operators to sign agreements with the state to share the cost of using a broad range of non-lethal measures to prevent livestock-wolf conflicts.
So far, only one livestock owner has signed an agreement, with four to six others in the hopper -- underscoring the challenges the agency faces as it tries to recover the endangered native species while encouraging social tolerance of the wolves by minimizing livestock losses.
"We understand there is some resistance out there," said Pozzanghera, but the agency is committed to working with ranchers and cattlemen.
"The whole situation is really tragic, most of all because it could have been avoided," said Jasmine Minbashian, of the nonprofit Conservation Northwest, which supported the decision in the end to kill the wolf pack because the animals had become reliant on livestock.
"If you remove the pack without changing something on the ground, this situation is bound to repeat itself," she said.
The Stevens County Cattlemen's Association is urging its roughly 50 members not to sign those agreements. It wants the commission to remove gray wolves from the state endangered list in Eastern Washington in the near future.
"Our guys are willing to use these nonlethal methods ... The problem is these methods are not always effective," said the group's spokeswoman Jamie Henneman, noting the agreements address only symptoms. "The illness happens to be that we're oversaturated with wolves."
Grey wolves are protected as an endangered species throughout Washington state. The animals are federally listed as endangered only in the western two-thirds of the state. Removing the animals from the state endangered list could open the way to future wolf hunting.
While Montana, Idaho and Wyoming have been grappling with wolves in the past decade, Washington has dealt with wolves only in recent years. In 2008, a wolf pack was documented for the first time in 70 years. Now, there are eight confirmed packs, with four others suspected.
The killing of seven members of the Wedge Pack -- named for the area they inhabit along the Canadian border near Laurier -- has prompted an outcry from some wolf advocates. Some have criticized the owners of the Diamond M ranch for not taking enough non-lethal measures.
"As far as I know, we've done everything that they suggested might be effective," Bill McIrvin said during a recent Olympia hearing. McIrvin is one of the owners of the ranch, where wolves killed or injured at least 17 animals on both private and public land. The ranch employed cowboys, delayed the turnout of their cow-calf pairs until the animals were bigger and quickly removed injured cattle, state officials said.
Wildlife officials say they're working on new rules to compensate ranchers for losses, including for reduced weight gain or reduced pregnancy rates.
Ranchers who sign onto nonlethal agreements with WDFW would have priority for livestock compensation.
Sam Kayser, an Ellensburg cattle rancher, said he signed an agreement with the state because he knows wolves will eventually target his cattle and he wanted help.
"What are the wolves going to eat? They're going to eat elk. If the elk numbers go short, they're going to eat my cattle," said Kayser, whose cattle graze on thousands of acres of private land that he leases in central Washington.
"Fish and Wildlife (department) was trying to be proactive and I was trying to be a little proactive myself," he added.
The state is sharing the cost of a range rider who stays with the cattle to make sure they don't become prey to wolves.
Range riders have been used in other states to prevent wolf-livestock conflicts. A pilot project in Stevens County over the summer is testing the concept in this state. Officials have been working with a rancher there and will review the success of that project in coming months to see whether and how it can be duplicated elsewhere.
Kayser says he and other cattlemen saw the conflicts coming.
"If they're willing to try, I'm willing to try," Kayser said. "(But) I think it's putting off the eventuality of what's going to be."
Post by: Special T on October 22, 2012, 10:51:30 AM
Post by: denali on October 22, 2012, 11:10:49 AM
Post by: Special T on October 22, 2012, 11:17:02 AM
Why would you want to work with an organisation that is not being honest with you? you have nothing to gain, but everything to lose.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 22, 2012, 11:50:34 AM
Post by: Ridgeratt on October 22, 2012, 12:07:13 PM
Post by: huntnphool on October 22, 2012, 07:13:05 PM
The Cattlemen's Association made their stand very clear, using scientific evidence and past results /impacts from the states of WY, MT, and ID. The WDFW didn't listen to them at all. As a matter of fact, seemed not to understand the depth of the chit-hole they'd get into with their plan. Were I a cattleman, I'd tell them to stick their agreement where the sun don't shine, much like the DFW said to them about their concerns for this outrageous wolf plan. This whole thing has been shoved down everyone's throats because they rushed to appease the greenies. Now they have to pay and it's going to cost them (sorry, Us) many multiple times their original estimates. Will the greenies step up to pay the bills? No, It's going to come out of PR funds and our license fees. Then, when that's all gone, the state (sorry, We) will be on the hook for the balance.+1, exactly!!!
Post by: Ridgeratt on October 26, 2012, 07:49:06 PM
Wolf management will require cooperation, more money
This came the the Spokesman review:
Posted by Rich
Oct. 23, 2012 6:07 a.m. •
ENDANGERED SPECIES — Wolves continue to consume, among other things, a lot of time, money and attention in Washington.
Read on for an Associated Press report that rounds up what state Fish and Wildlife officials are doing and proposing as we head into winter, a critical time for wildlife as well as for wildlife officials seeking funding from the Legislature.
By PHUONG LE
Associated Press
SEATTLE — Taking aim from a helicopter flying over northeastern Washington state, a marksman last month killed the alpha male of a wolf pack that had repeatedly attacked a rancher's cattle. The shooting put an end to the so-called Wedge pack, but it did little to quell the controversy over wolves in the state.
The issue has been so explosive that state wildlife officials received death threats and the head of the Fish and Wildlife Commission warned the public at a recent hearing in Olympia on wolves that uniformed and undercover officers were in the room ready to act.
More conflicts between wolves and livestock are inevitable, officials say, as wolves in Washington recover, growing in number more quickly than expected. The animals numbered a handful in 2008, and are now estimated at between 80 and 100.
“What are we going to do so we don't have this again?” asked Steve Pozzanghera, a Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife regional director.
He said officials are trying to be proactive to prevent the need to kill wolves in the future. They plan to collar more wolves this winter to keep better track of them. They plan to ask the Legislature to beef up money to compensate livestock owners whose animals are killed by wolves. And they're urging livestock operators to sign agreements with the state to share the cost of using a broad range of non-lethal measures to prevent livestock-wolf conflicts.
So far, only one livestock owner has signed an agreement, with four to six others in the hopper - underscoring the challenges the agency faces as it tries to recover the endangered native species while encouraging social tolerance of the wolves by minimizing livestock losses.
“We understand there is some resistance out there,” said Pozzanghera, but the agency is committed to working with ranchers and cattlemen.
“The whole situation is really tragic, most of all because it could have been avoided,” said Jasmine Minbashian, of the nonprofit Conservation Northwest, which supported the decision in the end to kill the wolf pack because the animals had become reliant on livestock.
“If you remove the pack without changing something on the ground, this situation is bound to repeat itself,” she said.
The Stevens County Cattlemen's Association is urging its roughly 50 members not to sign those agreements. It wants the commission to remove gray wolves from the state endangered list in Eastern Washington in the near future.
“Our guys are willing to use these nonlethal methods … The problem is these methods are not always effective,” said the group's spokeswoman Jamie Henneman, noting the agreements address only symptoms. “The illness happens to be that we're oversaturated with wolves.”
Grey wolves are protected as an endangered species throughout Washington state. The animals are federally listed as endangered only in the western two-thirds of the state. Removing the animals from the state endangered list could open the way to future wolf hunting.
While Montana, Idaho and Wyoming have been grappling with wolves in the past decade, Washington has dealt with wolves only in recent years. In 2008, a wolf pack was documented for the first time in 70 years. Now, there are eight confirmed packs, with four others suspected.
The killing of seven members of the Wedge Pack - named for the area they inhabit along the Canadian border near Laurier - has prompted an outcry from some wolf advocates. Some have criticized the owners of the Diamond M ranch for not taking enough non-lethal measures.
“As far as I know, we've done everything that they suggested might be effective,” Bill McIrvin said during a recent Olympia hearing. McIrvin is one of the owners of the ranch, where wolves killed or injured at least 17 animals on both private and public land. The ranch employed cowboys, delayed the turnout of their cow-calf pairs until the animals were bigger and quickly removed injured cattle, state officials said.
Wildlife officials say they're working on new rules to compensate ranchers for losses, including for reduced weight gain or reduced pregnancy rates.
Ranchers who sign onto nonlethal agreements with WDFW would have priority for livestock compensation.
Sam Kayser, an Ellensburg cattle rancher, said he signed an agreement with the state because he knows wolves will eventually target his cattle and he wanted help.
“What are the wolves going to eat? They're going to eat elk. If the elk numbers go short, they're going to eat my cattle,” said Kayser, whose cattle graze on thousands of acres of private land that he leases in central Washington.
“Fish and Wildlife (department) was trying to be proactive and I was trying to be a little proactive myself,” he added.
The state is sharing the cost of a range rider who stays with the cattle to make sure they don't become prey to wolves.
Range riders have been used in other states to prevent wolf-livestock conflicts. A pilot project in Stevens County over the summer is testing the concept in this state. Officials have been working with a rancher there and will review the success of that project in coming months to see whether and how it can be duplicated elsewhere.
Kayser says he and other cattlemen saw the conflicts coming.
“If they're willing to try, I'm willing to try,” Kayser said. “(But) I think it's putting off the eventuality of what's going to be.”
Post by: huntnphool on October 26, 2012, 08:07:08 PM
Quote
More conflicts between wolves and livestock are inevitable, officials say, as wolves in Washington recover, growing in number more quickly than expected.BS, growing in more number than WHO expected? Every one of us hunters, at those sorry excuse for meetings they had, expected higher numbers than they put up in their powerpoint presentation. The commision even questioned their BS fabricated numbers, yet they agreed to "the plan". (https://hunting-washington.com/smf/MGalleryItem.php?id=6996)
Post by: Ridgeratt on October 26, 2012, 08:11:28 PM
Post by: flatbkman on October 27, 2012, 09:16:31 AM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on October 27, 2012, 09:18:10 AM