Hunting Washington Forum
Big Game Hunting => Wolves => Topic started by: denali on March 20, 2013, 10:00:12 AM
-
Wow, I could be wrong but I don't recall this large of budget when the wolf plan was being discussed :dunno:
http://nwsportsmanmag.com/2013/03/20/wa-wolf-bill-for-2013-estimated-at-2-3-million/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.com/2013/03/20/wa-wolf-bill-for-2013-estimated-at-2-3-million/)
-
Our tag fees at work providing opportunity.
-
So, the costs will triple every year now? Looks like 2014, it will cost around $7 million. I sure wish some had tried to tell them their plan was faulty. Oh yeah, we did. Never mind. :bash: :bash: :bash:
-
So, what do we get for this money spent? Mutilated deer, elk, moose, pets, livestock and prosecution if you protect your animals. Just searching for the good wolves do much like killer bees and contageous diseases we have eradicated. Don't see much difference than wanting a Giant Tsunami to wash all the way up the the base of the Cascades. We would just call it natural and it would reduce the population for a while. Seems there is a lot of self centered, self righteous opinions being implemented.
-
Hopefully, we'll reach our goals this year, so by 2016 when we get to start hunting, the bill will only be around $65 million.
-
I would rather not have wolves in the state, and I agree it's money that could be better spent elsewhere. But the fact is, wolves have made a comeback, after being eradicated from the state a century ago. It only makes sense that wolves would eventually return to Washington, and repopulate any areas that still have the appropriate habitat and prey necessary to sustain a population of wolves.
I don't like it any more than anybody else, as I'd rather all the deer, elk, and moose be left for us humans to hunt, kill, and keep their numbers in balance. What I don't understand is all the anger I see directed mostly at the WDFW. So we don't agree 100% with the wolf plan. I get that. I think 15 breeding pairs is unnecessarily high. But other than that what's wrong with the plan?
Shouldn't we be happy that they're not wanting to transplant wolves into all areas of the state? I see the plan as being the WDFW's way of assuring that wolves are delisted by the Feds ASAP. Only then can the state take over management of wolves statewide.
As far as money being spent, isn't it to be expected? Again I don't like it but what's the alternative? Just no management at all? Just ignore the problem? Is that what they should be doing?
-
Why the WDFW hate? Well they COULD have started hunting /MGT E of the columbia several years ago when the FEDS delisted the rockey mountain region. The WDFW COULD have gone the Wyoming route and pressed the feds. They COULD have done a lot of things BUT the WDFW has been less interested in sportmens dollars and more interested in Federal ESA grants. Hell they even said there is lots of $$$ attached to this issue... I can point to SEVERAL issues where the WDFW has NOT meet its mandate by using SCIENCE to make rules for "management" of state game. The WDFW has shown us over and over that they employ people who are NOT sportmen, and do not share our values. If you some how think i am ignorant on this issue please say so and i will LIST more examples.
I liken the WDFW tro my 6 year old that seems to have a hard time doing as they are instructed. Since she does not want to cooperate and go to bed, I make sure she turnes her light off and puts her books away... Sportsmen are tired of having to hold the WDFW's hand to do the job they are paid to do. If they cannot earn our trust through actions then we must treat them like a child.
I don't know about you BC but i can only think of a couple of things i have been able to publically praise about the WDFW on here. I give credit where it is due, but since there seems to be a lack of trust by me and many others they need to be doing MORE things that make sence. They also need MORE clarity and transparency.... Hell even thier name change from Department of Fish and Game to Department of Fish and Wildlife is a sign that they are LESS intested insportsmen except for thier $$$.
-
Under the state’s Wolf Conservation and Management Plan, wolves can be removed from the state’s endangered species list once 15 successful breeding pairs are documented for three consecutive years among three designated wolf-recovery regions. Four pairs are required in Eastern Washington, four pairs in the North Cascades, four pairs in South Cascades/Northwest Coast and three pairs in any recovery region.
This is from the wdfw website. They do want them all over the whole state according to the management plan.
-
Special T- I agree with your post, but again I don't understand why its a surprise that the WDFW doesn't put 100% of their efforts into pleasing hunters and only doing what is most beneficial for hunters. It's just simply the world we live in. Hunters make up what, around 5% of the population? Or maybe less. It only makes sense that the WDFW focuses a lot of their attention on what the majority of the people want. Which is why you see an emphasis more on wildlife "watching" activities, rather than "harvesting."
-
They do want them all over the whole state according to the management plan.
I told Bobcat that more than a year ago.
-
It is the disconnect with where the $$$ comes from and where it goes that makes me >:(.
"What I don't understand is all the anger I see directed mostly at the WDFW" Bobcat.
Where should we direct our anger?
-
Four pairs are required in Eastern Washington, four pairs in the North Cascades, four pairs in South Cascades/Northwest Coast and three pairs in any recovery region.
This is from the wdfw website. They do want them all over the whole state according to the management plan.
Not exactly. At least from the way I read it, there could be zero wolves on the Oly Peninsula and the Willapa Hills, and the state could still meet the 15 BP requirement.
-
Where should we direct our anger?
I don't know. Nature? The wolves themselves?
Or, take a chill pill and don't get angry? :dunno:
-
If i take your $$$ to do something i SAY i'm gona do, and then give you the reasoning that i'm a schister so you should know your not really gona get what i promised, your gonna be happy? :bash:
-
I don't like to read, so this a lazy persons question,wouldn't it be cheaper/easier to just allow us to shoot them on site. Than the second question is why would it cost so much money.last time I bought a license,ammo,firearm I don't remember the GOV handing me their wallet, or saying ,hey heres a discount to shoot a predator. Just saying.......
-
If i take your $$$ to do something i SAY i'm gona do, and then give you the reasoning that i'm a schister so you should know your not really gona get what i promised, your gonna be happy? :bash:
:chuckle: What exactly did the WDFW promise you when you gave them your money?
-
Management by the use of science... at leat that is what thier Gov mandate is.
-
I don't like to read, so this a lazy persons question,wouldn't it be cheaper/easier to just allow us to shoot them on site. Than the second question is why would it cost so much money.last time I bought a license,ammo,firearm I don't remember the GOV handing me their wallet, or saying ,hey heres a discount to shoot a predator. Just saying.......
They are still listed and can not be "hunted" yet. Besides that fact, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming already presented their first hand numbers to WDFW showing that "hunting" is ineffective in controlling wolf numbers. The high costs come from helicopter time.
-
...and the 2.3million does not even factor in the lost revenue from hunting licenses/fees when hunters move out of state or stop buying tags for 1 of the following 2 reasons: 1) the tags becoming more expensive and/or 2) hunters see the decrease in quality hunting of ungulates.
Both of the above are due primary to the wolves -increase fees to pay for WDFW costs and decrease hunter opportunity due to predation.
On a side note I'm also surpried there's not been more talk about upping the cougar allotment via hound hunting to ease some of the effects of wolf depredation (maybe there has but I've missed it?????)
-
Anger should definitely be directed toward WDFW. They should have come up with a more reasonable wolf plan. If the Feds rejected the plan the first time, then it would be time to argue the case with the Feds. Not simply create a wolf plan that is so slanted toward the pro-wolf crowd. Sportsmen have been footing the bill for wildlife management in the state for a long, long time.........and this wolf plan is the thanks we get??? I don't have one good thing to say about WDFW......... :bash:
-
Management by the use of science... at least that is what thier Gov mandate is.
And that is what they are doing. They are managing wolves in a way to recover the wolf population statewide. We as hunters may not like that, because we prefer less wolves and more deer and elk for us to eat, rather than the wolves. But the fact that the state isn't managing the wolves in a way to provide the most benefit to YOU, doesn't mean they aren't using science.
-
Management by the use of science... at least that is what thier Gov mandate is.
And that is what they are doing. They are managing wolves in a way to recover the wolf population statewide. We as hunters may not like that, because we prefer less wolves and more deer and elk for us to eat, rather than the wolves. But the fact that the state isn't managing the wolves in a way to provide the most benefit to YOU, doesn't mean they aren't using science.
Sorry Bob, you were not at those meetings that I attended and there was no science involved, they were basing their plan on speculation and estimates.
-
Management by the use of science... at least that is what thier Gov mandate is.
And that is what they are doing. They are managing wolves in a way to recover the wolf population statewide. We as hunters may not like that, because we prefer less wolves and more deer and elk for us to eat, rather than the wolves. But the fact that the state isn't managing the wolves in a way to provide the most benefit to YOU, doesn't mean they aren't using science.
Sorry Bob, you were not at those meetings that I attended and there was no science involved, they were basing their plan on speculation and estimates.
Isn't the purpose of a peer review to ensure the science is sound and valid? A lot of wildlife management is based on modeling (computerized speculation) and estimates. It's actually quite accurate. How the exponential growth in wolf numbers caught the biologists by surprise is beyond me though.
-
I like the last wolf plan best. Eradicate them!
You know Polio and Tuberculous were all but eradicated in this country, but you know, with globalization and everything it was only a matter of time before it "naturally" came back. Oh well... But don't worry to much about it. It is mostly in other parts of country... I think as long as we keep it to 1 million cases a year that should be be a good goal...
Just because it's "natural" doesn't automatically mean it's good.
These wolves are not endangered, so why do we act like they are?
-
Management by the use of science... at least that is what thier Gov mandate is.
And that is what they are doing. They are managing wolves in a way to recover the wolf population statewide. We as hunters may not like that, because we prefer less wolves and more deer and elk for us to eat, rather than the wolves. But the fact that the state isn't managing the wolves in a way to provide the most benefit to YOU, doesn't mean they aren't using science.
They've been using a bit of flawed science and assumptions, eventhough they have been given updated data from Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. Examples: they assume wolves will kill 13 elk/wolf/year but the bios in those other states claim it is closer to 22-23 elk/wolf/year (are WA elk twice the size of other elk?). They also claim wolves will shy away and stay in wilderness areas, rarely to be seen by humans. Their assumptions in the wolf plan estimate that WA has more habitat for wolves than ID and MT combined. When they do things like that, it questions how valid their science is.
-
Management by the use of science... at least that is what thier Gov mandate is.
And that is what they are doing. They are managing wolves in a way to recover the wolf population statewide. We as hunters may not like that, because we prefer less wolves and more deer and elk for us to eat, rather than the wolves. But the fact that the state isn't managing the wolves in a way to provide the most benefit to YOU, doesn't mean they aren't using science.
Sorry Bob, you were not at those meetings that I attended and there was no science involved, they were basing their plan on speculation and estimates.
Isn't the purpose of a peer review to ensure the science is sound and valid? A lot of wildlife management is based on modeling (computerized speculation) and estimates. It's actually quite accurate. How the exponential growth in wolf numbers caught the biologists by surprise is beyond me though.
And with people that had personally witnessed their effect in other states telling WDFW that their "estimates" were way low, and even asking them why they thought it would be any different here.
-
I don't question their science, I'm sure it is crap. Show me where they have got it right? I'm might be willing to entertain that they are actually, really trying to do an honest job, but I suspect not. Bought and paid for. Just like the rest of them.
-
I don't question their science, I'm sure it is crap. Show me where they have got it right? I'm might be willing to entertain that they are actually, really trying to do an honest job, but I suspect not. Bought and paid for. Just like the rest of them.
Especially when theso called "wolf expert" has recently come out and admitted that some of his "science" may not have been correct in the long run. :bash:
-
The biologists werent the least bit surprised.....for that matter, no one in wdfw was surprised. That was just their go to approach. Every last one of them knew/knows better. Add this to the long list of deceptive tactics used by state politicians using wdfw as their vehicle.
-
Management by the use of science... at least that is what thier Gov mandate is.
And that is what they are doing. They are managing wolves in a way to recover the wolf population statewide. We as hunters may not like that, because we prefer less wolves and more deer and elk for us to eat, rather than the wolves. But the fact that the state isn't managing the wolves in a way to provide the most benefit to YOU, doesn't mean they aren't using science.
If you think they are using GOOD science and taking acceptable actions on behalf of Wa state Citizens as well as hunters then we have nothing in common on this issue.
I like it when people play devils advocate, however the list is long as to faulty science used on this issue.
-Wrong subspecies of wolves
-We have less potential environment than other state but required 15BP All across the state.
- Feds said wolves were recovered in rocky mt region, yet we did not delist there despite enough wolves
-Used wrong elk/deer numbers for consumption/food as uptdated by other states
-belived that non leathal use of force works but other states have proven it only works temporary.
-No concern/discussion of hydatid disease or echinococcal disease
-Refusal to take help from concerned parties, IE hunters and ranchers, YET accept help from wolf promoters like Dow. No show of scientific bias there.
History is a great teacher. ID and MT both followed versions of the paln we have, only WY has taken a different route, and not suffered the problems that the other states have. To ignor what is goingon in those state is POOR science.
Do I need go on?
-
Why don't you ask some one like WAcoyote hunter that lives in the NE that origonally was taking the "lets wait and see" approach to this issue. I've been a member here long enough to see more than a couple who were "soft" on the wolf issue get a reality check...
I personally think that the WDFW used bad science, did a poor job executing, and has no concept of real followup on this issue. They are being dragged kicking and screaming to adress this issue becuase of a couple of counties that have gotten thier sherrifs/ State reps involved.
-
Why don't you ask some one like WAcoyote hunter that lives in the NE that origonally was taking the "lets wait and see" approach to this issue. I've been a member here long enough to see more than a couple who were "soft" on the wolf issue get a reality check...
I personally think that the WDFW used bad science, did a poor job executing, and has no concept of real followup on this issue. They are being dragged kicking and screaming to adress this issue becuase of a couple of counties that have gotten thier sherrifs/ State reps involved.
+1
-
Management by the use of science... at least that is what thier Gov mandate is.
And that is what they are doing. They are managing wolves in a way to recover the wolf population statewide. We as hunters may not like that, because we prefer less wolves and more deer and elk for us to eat, rather than the wolves. But the fact that the state isn't managing the wolves in a way to provide the most benefit to YOU, doesn't mean they aren't using science.
I've got to call BS, BC. When they developed a plan that was 50% more agressive than MT's plan with 16 times the population density than MT, they weren't using anything even close to science. They didn't use the experiences of MT, ID, and WY at all. They yeilded to pressure from the wolf lovers and sat silent when Jay Kehne was appointed to the Commission. Many of us here and from the Cattleman's Assn. told them that exactly what's happening now would happen and they ignored all of the warning signs. They are using some science now and it's too late. They're far outspending what they estimated and the wolves are far more entrenched then they will admit because if they told the truth, they'd all be publicly hung.
-
I vote to proceed with the public hanging....... :tup:
-
I just called Sen Benton's office and gave them the figures surrounding the current wolf situation, and requested that he look into having a hearing with the DFW to get to the bottom of this. I told him I believe that we're not getting all of the information that they have. I would encourage others to follow suit with their senators.
-
I just called Sen Benton's office and gave them the figures surrounding the current wold situation, and requested that he look into having a hearing with the DFW to get to the bottom of this. I told him I believe that we're not getting all of the information that they have. I would encourage others to follow suit with their senators.
Great idea :tup:
-
Why don't you ask some one like WAcoyote hunter that lives in the NE that origonally was taking the "lets wait and see" approach to this issue. I've been a member here long enough to see more than a couple who were "soft" on the wolf issue get a reality check...
I personally think that the WDFW used bad science, did a poor job executing, and has no concept of real followup on this issue. They are being dragged kicking and screaming to adress this issue becuase of a couple of counties that have gotten thier sherrifs/ State reps involved.
In my opinion, a number of people could be swayed on management issues if you highlight how hardy wolves are. They're not as invincible as some here may claim, but much hardier than a lot of casual non-consumptive conservationists realize. I think if that issue can be highlighted, you might be able to drive a wedge between the casuals and the hardcore, anti-hunting wolf advocate.
For a number of folks, just knowing they are around and not in danger of extirpation or big genetic bottleneck issues would be enough.
-
Don't blame WDFW?
I posted this on another thread but this is a cut paste job off of the hunters safety program (online) that is teaching our new hunters a thing or two about their role in managing wildlife.
If we try to eliminate predators, more animals will die from other causes, including hunting, disease and accidents.
:bash:
-
Bobcat that quote is from the web page of wdfw I did not write that. It specifically says in all those recovery zones.
Look at the full article on wdfw to see it in there
-
Bobcat that quote is from the web page of wdfw I did not write that. It specifically says in all those recovery zones.
Look at the full article on wdfw to see it in there
I understand that. What I'm saying is one of the regions is the South Cascades combined with all of western Washington. So if there is a sufficient number of wolves in the South Cascades, there need not be any in all of western Washington. And that would suit me just fine.
-
I kind of get what your saying but remember it says northwest coast to which is the peninsula.
When they are in each of those areas they will quickly spread to the rest of western Washington.
-
But why did they make it all one region? Why not have a Olympic Peninsula region and a Willapa Hills region, if they did in fact intend for those areas to become populated with wolves. There are already reports of wolves in the southern Cascades. I assume once those wolves can be officially confirmed, they can declare the region to have been "recovered." I'm hoping they don't get any ideas about moving wolves to the coastal regions, if the wolves don't go there on their own.
-
Bobcat that quote is from the web page of wdfw I did not write that. It specifically says in all those recovery zones.
Look at the full article on wdfw to see it in there
I understand that. What I'm saying is one of the regions is the South Cascades combined with all of western Washington. So if there is a sufficient number of wolves in the South Cascades, there need not be any in all of western Washington. And that would suit me just fine.
:yeah:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/graphics/packs_map_20130215.jpg (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/graphics/packs_map_20130215.jpg)
-
bobcat, are you afraid of the wolves?? the eastern side is already seeing the effects of the wolves. delisted by the feds. wash wont delist untill thier goal is met. you seem to be against the state meeting the goal.as long as it stays on the eastern side of the state its ok but you dont want them over on the west side??
thats ok as far as im conserned but you have to let the people on the eastern side deal with them. if not, then yes- take some over there so management can procede.
-
That's a good look at it on the picture. I don't want them in the state period but that's my opinion. We have enough problems already
-
bobcat, are you afraid of the wolves?? the eastern side is already seeing the effects of the wolves. delisted by the feds. wash wont delist untill thier goal is met. you seem to be against the state meeting the goal.as long as it stays on the eastern side of the state its ok but you dont want them over on the west side??
thats ok as far as im conserned but you have to let the people on the eastern side deal with them. if not, then yes- take some over there so management can procede.
Heck no I don't want them in the areas I hunt! I don't believe they'd entirely wipe out deer and elk, but at the least they would move them around, possibly out of places I hunt and into places I can't.
Why would I want my hunting success to become more difficult than it already is?
I don't care if wolf numbers reach the WDFW's "goal" or not. However I'm sure they will eventually. The less wolves the better as far as I'm concerned.
-
Exactly. We have enough trouble finding animals in the brush as it is. The state did a study on blacktail fawn survival and out of 13 radio collared 11 died most from predators. Lets kill the last two that survived while were at it with wolves.
I don't want them in eastern wa either but it is too late now.
-
That quote might be off the online hunter education program but I can assure you that's not being taught in the hands on classroom program, like I said before the pro-wolf loving contingent has taken over the wing of hunter education and wants to eliminate the traditional class all together and make it an computer generated scaled down version, with selected instructors doing a 4 hour skills online class evaluation, the 20.00 fee charged for the registration will pay for wolf mitigation, at least that's there plan, the master hunters have been sent letters explaining the great shortage of qualified instructors in the state and they want them to all get certified, the decision makers in the WDW, not sure if its the wildlife commission or some headhunter in Olympia have miss calculated the number of instructors that will stay in the program, the call has gone out for the so called masters of hunting to take over, this fits into there long range goal of charging fees for everything from shed hunting, bird watching, whale watching, flower picking you name it, the introduction of wolfs has sped up the time line for the decline of wildlife populations in the state, we all know that hunting as we have known it will never be the same if we wait for the experts to make a decision, Eastern Washington should be considered a zone and western Washington another zone, we cant continue to let a mostly urbanized west side community making decisions for ranchers and farmers and rural residents that have a vastly different out look on whats considered quality of life.
Don't blame WDFW?
I posted this on another thread but this is a cut paste job off of the hunters safety program (online) that is teaching our new hunters a thing or two about their role in managing wildlife.
If we try to eliminate predators, more animals will die from other causes, including hunting, disease and accidents.
:bash:
-
Agree with you...
I've never been concerned about the individual person spending his time to help teach educate etc....
My issue is the State (and gov't in general) pushing what THEY think we all need to believe. Does WDFW make it's decisions on science or is it just a vote of what people want? Should we have politicians in charge or people who understand how to manage wildlife for long term sustainability with "we the people" getting to harvest the excess as it allows?
-
That quote might be off the online hunter education program but I can assure you that's not being taught in the hands on classroom program, like I said before the pro-wolf loving contingent has taken over the wing of hunter education and wants to eliminate the traditional class all together and make it an computer generated scaled down version, with selected instructors doing a 4 hour skills online class evaluation, the 20.00 fee charged for the registration will pay for wolf mitigation, at least that's there plan, the master hunters have been sent letters explaining the great shortage of qualified instructors in the state and they want them to all get certified, the decision makers in the WDW, not sure if its the wildlife commission or some headhunter in Olympia have miss calculated the number of instructors that will stay in the program, the call has gone out for the so called masters of hunting to take over, this fits into there long range goal of charging fees for everything from shed hunting, bird watching, whale watching, flower picking you name it, the introduction of wolfs has sped up the time line for the decline of wildlife populations in the state, we all know that hunting as we have known it will never be the same if we wait for the experts to make a decision, Eastern Washington should be considered a zone and western Washington another zone, we cant continue to let a mostly urbanized west side community making decisions for ranchers and farmers and rural residents that have a vastly different out look on whats considered quality of life.
Well said. :tup:
-
Exactly. We have enough trouble finding animals in the brush as it is. The state did a study on blacktail fawn survival and out of 13 radio collared 11 died most from predators. Lets kill the last two that survived while were at it with wolves.
I don't want them in eastern wa either but it is too late now.
What study? I know they have an ongoing study on fawn and doe survival. My understanding it will be several years before any hypothesis can be tested and there for no results until them.
-
Here is a good mortality study. Read the whole thing and don't quote a sentence with out understanding it.
http://access.nwifc.org/wildlife/documents/makah-fawn-report-final-201102.pdf (http://access.nwifc.org/wildlife/documents/makah-fawn-report-final-201102.pdf)
Something we should all remember. Also Leopold, basically the father of North American model of wildlife management, acknowledged later in life the predator reduction was a mistake. It lead to disease and over population. Of course now all the private hunting clubs and leases have made it worse.
-
The study was in an article from nw sportsman read the magazine you will see it. I will check to see what issue
-
I think what they were referring to was one sub sample (cluster) of the total sample. What the WDFW is doing is a long term study over many different areas if I understand it correctly. NW sportsman does a good job but, they do keep it simple and people may have misunderstood and just posted one seasons results for one sample. Young mortality of 50% up to 90% is not that unusual in nature. It is the way things are. To much human meddling could actually make it far worse.
Just to provide an example of how a little bit of data can confuse the issues. On one elk calve study the first year there was an almost 100% survival so using that everything looked great. The next year it was the opposite. I think it was a three or four year study. Still waiting for that paper to be published so I can find out what the modeling teased out of it. I am betting when all was said and done it was about a 50 - 60% survival which is pretty good and so long as adult cow mortality is not to high would lead to a stable to increasing population.
-
All this talk about WDFW and the FEDS need to let hunters manage wolves. Do people on here really think they need to be managed yet?
I am not aganist managing them. In fact; I don't want wolves in Wa at all. Just saying; if we are going to be forced to let wolves live here, then give them a chance to populate and get settled, before we start hunting them. I don't think the WDFW or the FEDS plan to NOT let us hunt them. It is only a matter of time before wolves reach the management plan goals and they are delisted to hunt in WA. I am guessing within 5-10 years wolves will be hunted under a special permit draw. Wait to bash the game department until their management plan is deemed a total failure. Kinda hard to judge them, when the wolf management plan goals have not even been completed yet. Just saying; give the program a chance to become the program it is suppose to be, and give the WDFW a chance to show us that they don't know or do know what they are doing. Many will bash the WDFW regardless of what the outcome is, so what does it matter....
-
I am guessing within 5-10 years wolves will be hunted under a special permit draw.
Its ok to be optimistic, but this same question asked of WDFW I will now ask of you. What makes you think it will be any different than Idaho, Montana and Wyoming?
-
Good question huntnpholl. I guess we can all be hopeful but, I think the antis are winding up to fight any hunting. Since the WDFW is getting bashed by all and did not get any support from hunters when the smacked the wedge pack my guess is they will get slaughtered when they propose it. On the interesting side if people take the time to read the Wolf plan. Yes, I know it hurts and makes one want to bang their head on the wall. I think people will find that there is sufficient language to aid the process of having hunts when the time comes. Five to ten years is not unrealistic. The big question will be if hunters can represent themselves in a manner that won't help the antis.
-
I am guessing within 5-10 years wolves will be hunted under a special permit draw.
Its ok to be optimistic, but this same question asked of WDFW I will now ask of you. What makes you think it will be any different than Idaho, Montana and Wyoming?
All I am saying is IMO in the next 5-10 years we will have a special permit hunt, which will be broke up by wolf region. Maybe they don't go with a special permit draw, and they create a general season with a kill quota attached to each region. My only point is they will be available to hunt at some point. Whether that be 2 years from now or 20 years from now; I don't care. Just saying that we will be provided a privledge to hunt them at some point IMO....
-
Good question huntnpholl. I guess we can all be hopeful but, I think the antis are winding up to fight any hunting. Since the WDFW is getting bashed by all and did not get any support from hunters when the smacked the wedge pack my guess is they will get slaughtered when they propose it. On the interesting side if people take the time to read the Wolf plan. Yes, I know it hurts and makes one want to bang their head on the wall. I think people will find that there is sufficient language to aid the process of having hunts when the time comes. Five to ten years is not unrealistic. The big question will be if hunters can represent themselves in a manner that won't help the antis.
And if I am understanding HP question...
Because MONEY $$$ and POWER is what modivates politicians. If the WDFW can justify a wolf season equals X amount of dollars $$$; then IMO it is more likely to happen then not. Despite what the tree huggers may want. Politicians go where the money is.
-
All this talk about WDFW and the FEDS need to let hunters manage wolves. Do people on here really think they need to be managed yet?
I am not aganist managing them. In fact; I don't want wolves in Wa at all. Just saying; if we are going to be forced to let wolves live here, then give them a chance to populate and get settled, before we start hunting them. I don't think the WDFW or the FEDS plan to NOT let us hunt them. It is only a matter of time before wolves reach the management plan goals and they are delisted to hunt in WA. I am guessing within 5-10 years wolves will be hunted under a special permit draw. Wait to bash the game department until their management plan is deemed a total failure. Kinda hard to judge them, when the wolf management plan goals have not even been completed yet. Just saying; give the program a chance to become the program it is suppose to be, and give the WDFW a chance to show us that they don't know or do know what they are doing. Many will bash the WDFW regardless of what the outcome is, so what does it matter....
:yike: Well said!
I wish I would've wrote that. :tup:
-
When I was at a WDFW Commissioner's meeting in Olympia, before the wolf plan was approved, the only people I remember getting up to talk, were wolf huggers, and their main point of contention was that 15 breeding pairs was far too low. And there were plenty of wolf huggers there. And yes, they were from Seattle, and Tacoma, if I remember correctly. This is what the WDFW has to deal with.
-
Of course the wolf lovers want wolves, just as long as they can put them on the eastside and not have to live with them themselves, that has been proven by Rep. Kretz.
I suppose it's sort of tough for some to justify a wolf hunt when they aren't killing your cattle or pets and you haven't seen what happens to big game herds. We're not asking for wolf management on the westside so you can rest in peace, we only want to protect our pets and livestock where the wolves are eating them.
-
We're not asking for wolf management on the westside so you can rest in peace, we only want to protect our pets and livestock where the wolves are eating them.
That's not true. People have been saying there should be an open season on wolves. I doubt anyone disagrees with people having the right to protect their livestock and pets. I would shoot a wolf to protect my dog, legal or not. Who wouldn't?
Personally I think there should be a year around season on wolves just like there is coyotes. If I was in charge, that's how it WOULD be.
But, I don't think it's right to criticize the WDFW, as they are only doing what they are required to do by law.
-
Skywalker & Bobcat I asked this of WDFW on there FB page and that is, Why do you think that WDFW knows so much more than Idaho, Montana and Wyoming does now that they all have stated that hunting alone will not be able to control wolf populations. Idaho started with 15 introduced wolves in '95 and '98 (I may be wrong on second year) by 2010 they had well over 1000 and said now that wolves are directly responsible for a 20% reduction in elk numbers where wolves are present. Please explain how WDFW knows how they can control them when no one else does.
-
Everyone, except maybe the wolf huggers, know that hunting will not sufficiently control the wolf population. The WDFW knows this, of this I have no doubt.
But what is your point?
Did the WDFW ever say that we would soon be hunting wolves and everything would then be in perfect harmony?
-
We're not asking for wolf management on the westside so you can rest in peace, we only want to protect our pets and livestock where the wolves are eating them.
That's not true. People have been saying there should be an open season on wolves. I doubt anyone disagrees with people having the right to protect their livestock and pets. I would shoot a wolf to protect my dog, legal or not. Who wouldn't?
Personally I think there should be a year around season on wolves just like there is coyotes. If I was in charge, that's how it WOULD be.
But, I don't think it's right to criticize the WDFW, as they are only doing what they are required to do by law.
Here's the problem with WDFW:
- They pushed for 1.5 times as many wolves in WA as in Montana, a state probably more than twice as large
- WDFW ignored much of the new data coming out of ID/MT regarding wolf predation to get their 15 BP's
- Not one option for the wolf plan allowed fewer than 15 BP's
- WDFW stacked the wolf working group with enough wolf lovers to pass their agenda
- With a multi-million dollar budget WDFW only has 4 wolf trappers for the whole state
- WDFW has lied about wolves, far more wolves have been reported, but WDFW calls many of them coyotes, etc.
- Certain personnel appear to be hiding the true wolf numbers
No doubt, WDFW owns this wolf mess! >:(
-
My point is we start controlling right now or we are screwed, We cannot afford to wait for the whole state to get wolves by then it will be to late for many areas. Waiting 5-10 years to start hunting like stated above and most deer hunting in this state on the east side will be very limited at best. :twocents:
-
My point is we start controlling right now or we are screwed, We cannot afford to wait for the whole state to get wolves by then it will be to late for many areas
I think we're screwed, either way.
Very soon, out of state hunting will become a much more common thing for Washington residents.
-
My point is we start controlling right now or we are screwed, We cannot afford to wait for the whole state to get wolves by then it will be to late for many areas
:yeah: That's the problem in a nutshell, the NE and the Okanogan will be devastated.
-
What makes me the most upset, I have watched this moose herd grow. I remember when they issued the first moose tag, now we have a good growing moose herd and that is the animal that the wolves will hit the hardest. :bash:
-
All I am saying is IMO in the next 5-10 years we will have a special permit hunt, which will be broke up by wolf region.
The reason I said you were too optimistic is according to the proposal they need to be stable at the 15 BP number for three years once they reach that requirement. At that point they will begin the discussion of hunting them, likely taking another year or two, or perhaps waiting until the following three year big game season setting meeting.
After all this stalling they will publically announce their hunting proposal meeting, to be held a couple months later in the year so they can adequately plan for it. The meeting will be filled with wolf advocates from all the popular groups, all speaking opposed to any kind of hunting.
Finally the season for hunting wolves will be set, likely 10+ years from now. Then just when you thought it would finally happen, the wolf groups will file law suits to stop it, which WDFW will have to abide by until litigation is complete, likely several more years down the road.
This is exactly what has happened in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, and like I asked you earlier, what makes you think Washington will be any different? By the way, WDFW couldn't answer this question from the commission either. ;)
In total, I don't see a hunt for wolves in Washington for at least 15 years, and thats assuming WDFW doesn't pull the trump card 2.5 years into the 3 year waiting period of wolves maintaining the 15 BP's, saying "one of the alpha males is missing and pressumed dead so we are no longer at 15BP's" at which point the 3 year "stable" period would have to start over.
-
Thankfully Commissioner Douvia pushed for an 18 BP cap and for the 75% big game threshhold, if we reach 18 BP's in any year they can delist, if any ungulate herd drops below 75%, they can manage.
The problem will be getting WDFW to identify 18 BP's or the decline in big game herds. :bash:
-
And that would be for the state to delist, which would only allow hunting on the eastern 1/3 of the state. The western 2/3 would still be federally listed. I think it would require western OR and Northern CA (cascade and sierra mountain regions) to recover before the westside could manage.
-
The problem will be getting WDFW to identify 18 BP's or the decline in big game herds. :bash:
And there in lies the problem, actually believing what they say about the numbers.
-
The problem will be getting WDFW to identify 18 BP's or the decline in big game herds. :bash:
And there in lies the problem, actually believing what they say about the numbers.
In some cases I think they are just naive and lack experience, in other cases I am convinced some of their personnel are purposefully hiding wolves from the count.
-
The problem will be getting WDFW to identify 18 BP's or the decline in big game herds. :bash:
And there in lies the problem, actually believing what they say about the numbers.
In some cases I think they are just naive and lack experience, in other cases I am convinced some of their personnel are purposefully hiding wolves from the count.
Or perhaps a little of both. I would add egotistical as well, I mean how can they sit through all the testimony and documentation from other states dealing with wolves and believe that they will actually get a different result without it coming down to ego?
Its a shame too because I have met some good people in the dept. and they don't deserve to be lumped in with the ones that are making these asinine decisions.
-
Wait to bash the game department until their management plan is deemed a total failure. Kinda hard to judge them, when the wolf management plan goals have not even been completed yet. Just saying; give the program a chance to become the program it is suppose to be, and give the WDFW a chance to show us that they don't know or do know what they are doing. Many will bash the WDFW regardless of what the outcome is, so what does it matter....
Wait to bash them? The wolf plan was a complete failure the day it went into effect. The time to bash them is now. They really screwed up and they are starting to see that (hopefully).
-
Wait to bash the game department until their management plan is deemed a total failure. Kinda hard to judge them, when the wolf management plan goals have not even been completed yet. Just saying; give the program a chance to become the program it is suppose to be, and give the WDFW a chance to show us that they don't know or do know what they are doing. Many will bash the WDFW regardless of what the outcome is, so what does it matter....
Wait to bash them? The wolf plan was a complete failure the day it went into effect. The time to bash them is now. They really screwed up and they are starting to see that (hopefully).
How did they screw up and what is it they are seeing now that will make them realize they screwed up? Is it because a dog got attacked? Or because some cattle were eaten by wolves? Or that wolves are killing deer and elk?
Sure these things are happening- it's what wolves do, and I don't think the WDFW ever said, or thought, that these things wouldn't happen. I've said this before, but we'd be seeing these exact same things happening if they had never written the wolf plan. If the WDFW didn't exist, we'd still have wolves, and they'd still be doing what wolves do.
-
Wait to bash the game department until their management plan is deemed a total failure. Kinda hard to judge them, when the wolf management plan goals have not even been completed yet. Just saying; give the program a chance to become the program it is suppose to be, and give the WDFW a chance to show us that they don't know or do know what they are doing. Many will bash the WDFW regardless of what the outcome is, so what does it matter....
Wait to bash them? The wolf plan was a complete failure the day it went into effect. The time to bash them is now. They really screwed up and they are starting to see that (hopefully).
How did they screw up and what is it they are seeing now that will make them realize they screwed up? Is it because a dog got attacked? Or because some cattle were eaten by wolves? Or that wolves are killing deer and elk?
Sure these things are happening- it's what wolves do, and I don't think the WDFW ever said, or thought, that these things wouldn't happen. I've said this before, but we'd be seeing these exact same things happening if they had never written the wolf plan. If the WDFW didn't exist, we'd still have wolves, and they'd still be doing what wolves do.
Back at Ya Bobcat...Just What have they done right?? Since all your opinions on them (DFW) seem to indicate they (DFW) are family to you. Do you work for them?
-
Wait to bash the game department until their management plan is deemed a total failure. Kinda hard to judge them, when the wolf management plan goals have not even been completed yet. Just saying; give the program a chance to become the program it is suppose to be, and give the WDFW a chance to show us that they don't know or do know what they are doing. Many will bash the WDFW regardless of what the outcome is, so what does it matter....
Wait to bash them? The wolf plan was a complete failure the day it went into effect. The time to bash them is now. They really screwed up and they are starting to see that (hopefully).
How did they screw up and what is it they are seeing now that will make them realize they screwed up? Is it because a dog got attacked? Or because some cattle were eaten by wolves? Or that wolves are killing deer and elk?
Sure these things are happening- it's what wolves do, and I don't think the WDFW ever said, or thought, that these things wouldn't happen. I've said this before, but we'd be seeing these exact same things happening if they had never written the wolf plan. If the WDFW didn't exist, we'd still have wolves, and they'd still be doing what wolves do.
There's an enormous difference between managing wolves and managing wolves while keeping the public in the dark, which is what I believe is happening. How is it that they expect the expenses for the program to triple this year and yet are only acknowledging an increase of a few packs? Are the existing packs tripling in population or are the number of packs tripling and we're not being kept in the loop?
It's one thing to understand that their job managing wolves is not an easy one. It's another altogether to ignore the fact that they were told this was coming, it has come, and they're up to the butts in wolves without knowing how to handle it.
-
But, I don't think it's right to criticize the WDFW, as they are only doing what they are required to do by law.
They could have delisted wolves in the eastern 1/3 of the state according to the Feds. They chose not to. How is that "only doing what they are required to do by law" ? :dunno:
I don't like WDFW caving to the wolf loving crowd (and obviously the predator lovers within WDFW too); they should have used data available from ID, MT, and WY. Instead they listened to pro wolf people who only care about wolves. They should not be managing wildlife by public opinion................(unless that opinion is from hunters). ;) :chuckle:
-
Wait to bash the game department until their management plan is deemed a total failure. Kinda hard to judge them, when the wolf management plan goals have not even been completed yet. Just saying; give the program a chance to become the program it is suppose to be, and give the WDFW a chance to show us that they don't know or do know what they are doing. Many will bash the WDFW regardless of what the outcome is, so what does it matter....
Wait to bash them? The wolf plan was a complete failure the day it went into effect. The time to bash them is now. They really screwed up and they are starting to see that (hopefully).
How did they screw up and what is it they are seeing now that will make them realize they screwed up? Is it because a dog got attacked? Or because some cattle were eaten by wolves? Or that wolves are killing deer and elk?
Sure these things are happening- it's what wolves do, and I don't think the WDFW ever said, or thought, that these things wouldn't happen.
Yes they did say it Bob, I was sitting there in the meetings when they did..........taking notes!!!
How about the fact that their numbers have doubled years before their "science" estimates, or the fact that they sat there and said they do not anticipate a ungulate predation problem, yet they are now calling for a meeting because there is!!!!!! Just to name a couple.
I understand you like to play devils advocate Bob but you need to get your facts strait before you spout off in defense of the wolf issue.
-
I don't think that bobcat will understand how us eastsiders feel or what we are going through until the wolves affect his hunting areas. The eastside needs different rules then the west side, before it really gets out of control.
-
I don't think that bobcat will understand how us eastsiders feel or what we are going through until the wolves affect his hunting areas. The eastside needs different rules then the west side, before it really gets out of control.
Funny how he hunts a month during deer season on the wet side too, yet he is the first one chiming in opposed to giving us back a few of our east side deer days back. :chuckle:
-
I hear Bobcat saying the same thing I heard from WDFW in the wolf meetings I went to.
It went something like this.
We are on the same team! We want to manage wolves as well, so lets just hurry up and get the 15 BP or approx 250-300 wolves in the state so that then we can manage them.
:yike: This is the logic....and one that doesn't add up in my head. Let's hold off on management until the issue is a real big problem so that we can then pat ourselves on the back. Oh, and yes, Washington will be much different than Idaho because we just think so.
Stupid data....gets in the way.
-
Skywalker & Bobcat I asked this of WDFW on there FB page and that is, Why do you think that WDFW knows so much more than Idaho, Montana and Wyoming does now that they all have stated that hunting alone will not be able to control wolf populations. Idaho started with 15 introduced wolves in '95 and '98 (I may be wrong on second year) by 2010 they had well over 1000 and said now that wolves are directly responsible for a 20% reduction in elk numbers where wolves are present. Please explain how WDFW knows how they can control them when no one else does.
All I ever said was IMO I feel hunters will be provided the privledge to hunt them at some point. Whether that be a few years from now or 20 years from now; I don't know. If I had it my way, then all wolves would already be dead. I don't want them in Wa...period! But since they are being forced upon us, I said give them a chance to settle in and populate. Give the WDFW a chance to prove their plan works or DOES NOT work. In other words; I am not saying I agree or disagree with their plan. I am not a wolf expert and neither is anybody else on this site. Just saying; let the quote EXPERTS be experts and see how it turns out. If it is a total failure then feel free to bash the WDFW, as it is justified. If they do a good job and their plan is a success, then give them credit where credit is due. Many will bash the WDFW regardless of WHAT the outcome is.
-
Of course the wolf lovers want wolves, just as long as they can put them on the eastside and not have to live with them themselves, that has been proven by Rep. Kretz.
I suppose it's sort of tough for some to justify a wolf hunt when they aren't killing your cattle or pets and you haven't seen what happens to big game herds. We're not asking for wolf management on the westside so you can rest in peace, we only want to protect our pets and livestock where the wolves are eating them.
To be fair; isn't the eastside where the prime hunting ground is located (generally speaking). I don't care, which side of the mountains they live. But common sense would tell me, that is where they should live. Perhaps the Olympic Pennisula, St. Helens, Nooksack, and the Willipa Hills would make some sense as living quarters on the westside. But with hoof rott becoming a major concern; I don't think we need 2 major killers of our elk herds on this side. Perhaps down the road when they get this hoof rott issue figured out.
-
My point is we start controlling right now or we are screwed, We cannot afford to wait for the whole state to get wolves by then it will be to late for many areas. Waiting 5-10 years to start hunting like stated above and most deer hunting in this state on the east side will be very limited at best. :twocents:
I never suggested waiting 5-10 years to hunt them. I said IMO we WILL be able to hunt them in the next 5-10 years. Who knows? Maybe a year from now we can? It is all opinions and speculations at this point.
I agree that there are more wolves then the game department is letting us know about, but until we actually KNOW the TRUE wolf population in Wa and the specific regions; how can you organize a hunt and issue the proper number of tags? I would not mind seeing a wolf hunt in NE WA next year. That region seems to be the most prevalent with wolves. After what happened up there last year; I don't see the game department working with the FEDS to delist them up there anytime soon. They clearly want to be the managers of wolves in WA at this point.
-
Its nice that we have to pay for the introduction then the cost of managing them. It's not like the state is going to generate any future funds if or when they become delisted to offset the management costs. Better just to get the state to use some of their property fence it in then bring some wolves in and let the huggers pay to view them. Be cheaper in the long run.
-
All I am saying is IMO in the next 5-10 years we will have a special permit hunt, which will be broke up by wolf region.
The reason I said you were too optimistic is according to the proposal they need to be stable at the 15 BP number for three years once they reach that requirement. At that point they will begin the discussion of hunting them, likely taking another year or two, or perhaps waiting until the following three year big game season setting meeting.
After all this stalling they will publically announce their hunting proposal meeting, to be held a couple months later in the year so they can adequately plan for it. The meeting will be filled with wolf advocates from all the popular groups, all speaking opposed to any kind of hunting.
Finally the season for hunting wolves will be set, likely 10+ years from now. Then just when you thought it would finally happen, the wolf groups will file law suits to stop it, which WDFW will have to abide by until litigation is complete, likely several more years down the road.
This is exactly what has happened in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, and like I asked you earlier, what makes you think Washington will be any different? By the way, WDFW couldn't answer this question from the commission either. ;)
In total, I don't see a hunt for wolves in Washington for at least 15 years, and thats assuming WDFW doesn't pull the trump card 2.5 years into the 3 year waiting period of wolves maintaining the 15 BP's, saying "one of the alpha males is missing and pressumed dead so we are no longer at 15BP's" at which point the 3 year "stable" period would have to start over.
Like I said...
IMO- Their will be some sort of hunt in the next 5-10 years. I also said whether its a few years or 20 years I don't know and I don't care. Just saying I think hunters will get the privledge to hunt them at some point. Nothing more...
I am not a wolf expert, so that is why I make an opinion statement based of what I THINK will eventually happen. NOT what ID, MT, the wolf plan, etc. says should or will happen. I have 20 years to prove to you that hunters will be able to hunt them at some point. So start counting...
-
Contact me in the year 2033. By then you will likely have been attacked and eaten by a wolf pack. :tup: :chuckle:
-
Wait to bash the game department until their management plan is deemed a total failure. Kinda hard to judge them, when the wolf management plan goals have not even been completed yet. Just saying; give the program a chance to become the program it is suppose to be, and give the WDFW a chance to show us that they don't know or do know what they are doing. Many will bash the WDFW regardless of what the outcome is, so what does it matter....
Wait to bash them? The wolf plan was a complete failure the day it went into effect. The time to bash them is now. They really screwed up and they are starting to see that (hopefully).
How did they screw up and what is it they are seeing now that will make them realize they screwed up? Is it because a dog got attacked? Or because some cattle were eaten by wolves? Or that wolves are killing deer and elk?
Sure these things are happening- it's what wolves do, and I don't think the WDFW ever said, or thought, that these things wouldn't happen.
Yes they did say it Bob, I was sitting there in the meetings when they did..........taking notes!!!
How about the fact that their numbers have doubled years before their "science" estimates, or the fact that they sat there and said they do not anticipate a ungulate predation problem, yet they are now calling for a meeting because there is!!!!!! Just to name a couple.
I understand you like to play devils advocate Bob but you need to get your facts strait before you spout off in defense of the wolf issue.
What is wrong with playing devils advocate? You think everybody on here knows nothing about the various issues/topics discussed. Its like you want everyone to defer to you for your opinion. Plenty of people know plenty about hunting and the issues at hand on Hunt-Wa. I think it is great you are involved, and certainately far more educated then many of us on here.
I don't think Bob was necessarily supporting wolves. He was just making the point to give things a chance to materialize. All you guys are posting (spouting off) comments, based off speculation and what you think is going to happen. Let the EXPERTS be experts. And lets be honest; if we had 3 wolf packs totaling 20 wolves, in WA, you guys would want to kill them all and EXPECT the WDFW to work to get them delisted etc. You would be saying all the big game is going to get killed off by the wolves in WA and to kill them all now or our herds are in for it. Then when they put together a wolf plan to accomodate try and make everyone happy. Then you would be saying how dumb they are, they caved in to the wolf lovers, etc. The WDFW could not win either way. So again; what does it matter what they do?
And I am by no mean supporting wolves. I want them all dead. Just saying; give the damn WDFW a chance to be the experts they claim to be. If it fails, then bash the hell out of them and say "I told you so!"
-
If you guys are so concerned about it. How is bitching on Hunt-Wa going to change anything? You could be spending your time presenting your own wolf management plan and showing them you are the EXPERT, needed for the task. Just saying...
-
I have no idea what the real breakdown would be, but I bet half the WDFW are huggers. The wolf plan was developed by the endangered species division of WDFW. Former director Jeff Koenings was the one who stacked the wolf working group and set the wolf plan in motion. Fortunately they got rid of him and upgraded with Phil Anderson.
I honestly think Director Anderson is doing a much better job than Koenings. But Koenings had already set in motion the wolf working group which was stacked heavy with wolfers. On top of that the endangered species dept wrote all the options for the commission, not one option offered less than 15 BP's. I am just glad as I mentioned before that the commission put in the parts about 18 BP's and 75% on the big game herds.
Now what we need to do is push the WDFW to get these wolves confirmed and to closely monitor our game herds. If we can manage wolves in an area before we lose all the moose or an elk herd drops below 20% like in the Lolo, we will actually be in better position to correct the situation than Idaho or Montana have been with their plans.
-
(And I am by no mean supporting wolves. I want them all dead. Just saying; give the damn WDFW a chance to be the experts they claim to be. If it fails, then bash the hell out of them and say "I told you so!")
WDFW are the reason we are in the fix that we are today SW, severnteen years already proves this.
-
To get even more off topic, why is it that wolves are considered to be endangered, yet bison are not? I feel bison should be listed as well, and a plan put in place to restore them to their historical numbers. At least they are good to eat, AND they will provide another source of food for the wolves!
-
To get even more off topic, why is it that wolves are considered to be endangered, yet bison are not? I feel bison should be listed as well, and a plan put in place to restore them to their historical numbers. At least they are good to eat, AND they will provide another source of food for the wolves!
add some moose, antelope and caribou, too.
-
One of the problems is that the WDFW can make the numbers look however they want them. An example is the deer populations thru out the state. Back in the 80's and 90's the state said the deer population was just the right in areas like the Entiat, Methow, Chiwawa. Now if you listen to the biologists the deer populations are once again just right even though they are not even close to what they used to be. The same thing has happened with the Saint Helens and the Clockum elk herds so if they want to say that the wolves are having no effect on the deer or elk populations they will adjust the numbers accordingly.
-
What we must do is watch the harvest data, when harvest drops below 75% in a known wolf area we need to put on the pressure to manage. It's in the plan, that's what is supposed to happen.
-
Bearpaw-(Now what we need to do is push the WDFW to get these wolves confirmed and to closely monitor our game herds.)
Watching the deer herds drop every year in the Methow to what it is today surely should have told WDFW that we have a major wolf problem even if they didn't already know. Remember in 2008 when WDFW were forced to "discover" the first wolf pack in severty years? What WDFW failed to tell people is that the Methow had more then one pack in 2008. They confirmed one pack out of three, since then the Methow has been raising more wolves then deer, now we have many packs.
In 2011 a freind and I were interveiwed by the BBC crew, we had been hunting wolves and deer kills for the last two months with cameras. To make a long story short we gave them pictures of four different wolves from the Lookout pack, we told them about the Cow Cr. wolf pack and several others in the Methow and on the Okanogan side. I ask Jasmine Minbashian why Scott Fitkin hadn't confirmed the War cr pack as we knew he knew of them? She said she was aware that Scott knew of the War cr pack, but that it took alot of money to monitor wolves and WDFW didn't have any money. So I then ask her if they didn't have any money, how did they manage a cougar callaring program every year? She looked at the ground and didn't want to talk about what Fitkin knew anymore. WDFW still ran with the lie of one maybe two wolves left in the Lookout pack.
-
Bearpaw-(Now what we need to do is push the WDFW to get these wolves confirmed and to closely monitor our game herds.)
Watching the deer herds drop every year in the Methow to what it is today surely should have told WDFW that we have a major wolf problem even if they didn't already know. Remember in 2008 when WDFW were forced to "discover" the first wolf pack in severty years? What WDFW failed to tell people is that the Methow had more then one pack in 2008. They confirmed one pack out of three, since then the Methow has been raising more wolves then deer, now we have many packs.
In 2011 a freind and I were interveiwed by the BBC crew, we had been hunting wolves and deer kills for the last two months with cameras. To make a long story short we gave them pictures of four different wolves from the Lookout pack, we told them about the Cow Cr. wolf pack and several others in the Methow and on the Okanogan side. I ask Jasmine Minbashian why Scott Fitkin hadn't confirmed the War cr pack as we knew he knew of them? She said she was aware that Scott knew of the War cr pack, but that it took alot of money to monitor wolves and WDFW didn't have any money. So I then ask her if they didn't have any money, how did they manage a cougar callaring program every year? She looked at the ground and didn't want to talk about what Fitkin knew anymore. WDFW still ran with the lie of one maybe two wolves left in the Lookout pack.
You talkin War cr like up Twisp River Road ?
-
Yes, up the Twisp river, and in 2012 eleven wolves were seen in Lime cr
-
(And I am by no mean supporting wolves. I want them all dead. Just saying; give the damn WDFW a chance to be the experts they claim to be. If it fails, then bash the hell out of them and say "I told you so!")
WDFW are the reason we are in the fix that we are today SW, severnteen years already proves this.
What is the fix we are in? I guess I don't understand your post...
-
One of the problems is that the WDFW can make the numbers look however they want them. An example is the deer populations thru out the state. Back in the 80's and 90's the state said the deer population was just the right in areas like the Entiat, Methow, Chiwawa. Now if you listen to the biologists the deer populations are once again just right even though they are not even close to what they used to be. The same thing has happened with the Saint Helens and the Clockum elk herds so if they want to say that the wolves are having no effect on the deer or elk populations they will adjust the numbers accordingly.
I agree with you. Years ago we had way more deer in Marengo. The game department claims there are more deer there than ever. I highly doubt their numbers. We use to see field after field full of deer. Now it is nothing put small groups and ones and twos here and there.
Correct me if I am wrong. I thought they WDFW told us there were too many elk in the St. Helens GMUs, so they increased the special permits to thin the herds. I beleive their goal was to reduce the herds to satisfy Weyco? Sombody chim in please. Hunt Phool....you are the EXPERT on here. Now lone us your EXPERTISE...Your being called upon-LOL
-
One of the problems is that the WDFW can make the numbers look however they want them. An example is the deer populations thru out the state. Back in the 80's and 90's the state said the deer population was just the right in areas like the Entiat, Methow, Chiwawa. Now if you listen to the biologists the deer populations are once again just right even though they are not even close to what they used to be. The same thing has happened with the Saint Helens and the Clockum elk herds so if they want to say that the wolves are having no effect on the deer or elk populations they will adjust the numbers accordingly.
I agree with you. Years ago we had way more deer in Marengo. The game department claims there are more deer there than ever. I highly doubt their numbers. We use to see field after field full of deer. Now it is nothing put small groups and ones and twos here and there.
Correct me if I am wrong. I thought they WDFW told us there were too many elk in the St. Helens GMUs, so they increased the special permits to thin the herds. I beleive their goal was to reduce the herds to satisfy Weyco? Sombody chim in please. Hunt Phool....you are the EXPERT on here. Now lone us your EXPERTISE...Your being called upon-LOL
:chuckle: I'm no expert skywalker but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night . :chuckle:
-
Someone asked me how do you know there were three wolf packs in 08? In 2003 there was a wolf pack of seven seen in Bridge cr, one of those wolves was collared and in 2007 there was a pack seen on Thompson Ridge and two of those wolves were collared. Then there was the show and tell collaring of the Lookout pack which had been reported to WDFW for several years and ignored. The new Lookout packs hang out was the Gold cr and libby cr. country or was that a different pack altogether? There could have been more packs that we don't know about, every wolf reported in the Okanogan, WDFW always referred back to the lookout pack.
In the last ten years our deer herds have dropped like a rock till we are where we are today, in a shocking state of practically no deer and many wolves.
-
To get even more off topic, why is it that wolves are considered to be endangered, yet bison are not? I feel bison should be listed as well, and a plan put in place to restore them to their historical numbers. At least they are good to eat, AND they will provide another source of food for the wolves!
Because the ESA is NOT about animals! Its about $ and control. NO other answer makes sense.
-
To get even more off topic, why is it that wolves are considered to be endangered, yet bison are not? I feel bison should be listed as well, and a plan put in place to restore them to their historical numbers. At least they are good to eat, AND they will provide another source of food for the wolves!
Because the ESA is NOT about animals! Its about $ and control. NO other answer makes sense.
Actually no. It is because of the political clout of the stockgrowers in MT that bison are managed by the Department of Livestock. Archaic brucellosis policy, threats of economic sanctions, and good old fashioned fear mongering will likely forever keep bison in their current "no man's land status".
-
the ESA is a weapon JLS. THAT was my point. Look at the history with salmon, spotted owls Sealions and even bison. NOTHING the ESA mages good sence it is just a form of control, and a way for people to make $$$... (Control & $ are somewhat interchangeable)
-
A weapon? Come on, that's a little far fetched. :rolleyes:
-
I'm sorry bobcat you must either be trying to discredit me or you are completely ignorant of the facts. Have you not read ANY of the articles over the last 30 years about the spotted owl? Since you are a westsider and hunter you must have at least a little knowledge on the subject.
Spotted owls were used by Eco groups to stop the logging on the OLY Pen. It was NOT about the owls it was about not cutting timber on NF land.
So far I've only heard you say that you don't like wolves either, and that anyone who thinks the WDFW or USFS have not put forth their best effort is a wack job conspiracy theorist.
Contrary to what those agencies may SAY they are going to do, they have to follow though on them.... That is how MANY people can lie without actually contradicting themselves. Excuses can be made as to why there is piss poor performance despite their "best" intentions.
-
I'm sorry bobcat you must either be trying to discredit me or you are completely ignorant of the facts. Have you not read ANY of the articles over the last 30 years about the spotted owl? Since you are a westsider and hunter you must have at least a little knowledge on the subject.
Spotted owls were used by Eco groups to stop the logging on the OLY Pen. It was NOT about the owls it was about not cutting timber on NF land.
So far I've only heard you say that you don't like wolves either, and that anyone who thinks the WDFW or USFS have not put forth their best effort is a wack job conspiracy theorist.
Contrary to what those agencies may SAY they are going to do, they have to follow though on them.... That is how MANY people can lie without actually contradicting themselves. Excuses can be made as to why there is piss poor performance despite their "best" intentions.
Man! This guy is bitter and a little coo coo!
SpecialT address is...
1313 Mocking Bird Lane (its where the Munsters live)
Love the passion thou... :tup:
-
One of the problems is that the WDFW can make the numbers look however they want them. An example is the deer populations thru out the state. Back in the 80's and 90's the state said the deer population was just the right in areas like the Entiat, Methow, Chiwawa. Now if you listen to the biologists the deer populations are once again just right even though they are not even close to what they used to be. The same thing has happened with the Saint Helens and the Clockum elk herds so if they want to say that the wolves are having no effect on the deer or elk populations they will adjust the numbers accordingly.
I agree with you. Years ago we had way more deer in Marengo. The game department claims there are more deer there than ever. I highly doubt their numbers. We use to see field after field full of deer. Now it is nothing put small groups and ones and twos here and there.
Correct me if I am wrong. I thought they WDFW told us there were too many elk in the St. Helens GMUs, so they increased the special permits to thin the herds. I beleive their goal was to reduce the herds to satisfy Weyco? Sombody chim in please. Hunt Phool....you are the EXPERT on here. Now lone us your EXPERTISE...Your being called upon-LOL
:chuckle: I'm no expert skywalker but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night . :chuckle:
Holiday Express is a dump. Try the Mariott next time. I heard they "Unlocked The Gates" to build it in the middle on your beloved winter feeding ground in the ENTIAT. Now thats funny! :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Just drive up Mud Creek RD and you will see they have domesticated your deer herd, and made them apart of the property. They also hired "Natives" to maintain the property, as long as they don't net the *censored* out of the Koi in the hotel ponds.
-
Skywalker thank you for proving my point. :tup:
-
My Wolf Management Plan only costs $.50 per wolf.
-
I've heard it is a weapon/tool that the eco-crusaders like to use. There was a green warrior that wrote a piece about how it wasn't about saving the owl, the owl just happened to be the most convenient animal to apply the ESA to use. The guy said if it hadn't been an owl, they would've found a different animal. He said that the troops in the field for the green movement are for the most part genuine and love nature and want to protect it. As he moved up he saw it turned more and more corporate and focused more on money and less on the environment. When up near the top the leaders were basically indistinguishable from those in the industries they opposed. His claim was that many of the groups that use the ESA eventually work with the Nature Conservancy and they are really a real estate corporation. They lobby for laws to make land unusable (typically with ESA or wetlands laws). Once the laws have enough bite the landowners can't profit and either sell or the bank forecloses/auctions. Very little interest from potential buyers due to regulations regarding use, so Nature Conservancy and those like it pick up the land at little cost. They get tax incentives while holding the land. Eventually they get an approved sale to the government at a much higher price and the land is added to a park/refuge/etc. The corporation makes a nice profit and the bottom level greenies get warm and fuzzies for saving mother earth.
-
Skywalker thank you for proving my point. :tup:
:chuckle:
-
Just so you don't think i'm talking out my pie hole...
Here is one example of using the ESA as a weapon.
http://missoulian.com/news/local/montana-fish-wildlife-and-parks-sued-over-trapping-in-lynx/article_3bb83122-9297-11e2-8e2e-0019bb2963f4.html (http://missoulian.com/news/local/montana-fish-wildlife-and-parks-sued-over-trapping-in-lynx/article_3bb83122-9297-11e2-8e2e-0019bb2963f4.html)
And I can't find the other article i read about a "new" subspecies of fisher that they want to ban trapping in ID to protect... i will post it later
-
I agree, SpecialT. The environmentalists use the ESA to their advantage. Funny that they pick and choose which species they want use as a tool to get what they want.
-
Wasn't a large development stopped when the CA wood rat was listed on ESA? This happened like 15-20 years ago. The spotted owl is such an obvious example of people using the ESA to stop practices with which they disagree. Most of the timber industry in the Pacific NW was eliminated or changed with that listing. How could anyone look at this and not see the ESA is used by radical groups to forward their agendas?
-
The spotted owl is endangered, and they did what they had to do to try to prevent it from continuing to decrease in number. If it weren't for the spotted owl, logging would have slowed down anyway, as they were cutting at unsustainable rates.
You all got your tin foil hats on?
-
unsustainable rates? how so? Todays biologist have found that without multi stage forrest the spotted owl will continue to struggle. Also that the barred owl is out competing the spotted owl and is the main reason for the down fall of the spotted owl. all arguemants that were made back then. The owl was used to further an agenda and suto science was used just as with todays wolves
-
Did you see how much logging was going on in the 80's? They didn't measure the area of clearcuts in acres, but square miles.
-
I'm young but I've been interested in the topic for along time since i was very young. All info I've read or having talked to old time loggers it was completely sustainable. Yes the cuts were very large which was bad for game and some non game animals. but the overall harvest was not beyond sustainability. by the 80s logging had already slowed greatly compared to historic levels.
-
Everything I have read said that they were logging at unsustainable rates. So the spotted owl wasn't responsible for much of the slowdown in logging. It may have put a stop to it sooner than if they would have just kept logging everything until all the trees were gone.
Not that I don't think there should be logging. And now we desperately need more logging in the National Forests, mainly Gifford Pinchot, that I'm aware of, to create more feed for deer and elk. It's either that or we need to have some big fires to create that habitat.
Maybe they'll actually do that now, as more deer and elk would mean more food for wolves.
-
Just so you don't think i'm talking out my pie hole...
Here is one example of using the ESA as a weapon.
http://missoulian.com/news/local/montana-fish-wildlife-and-parks-sued-over-trapping-in-lynx/article_3bb83122-9297-11e2-8e2e-0019bb2963f4.html (http://missoulian.com/news/local/montana-fish-wildlife-and-parks-sued-over-trapping-in-lynx/article_3bb83122-9297-11e2-8e2e-0019bb2963f4.html)
And I can't find the other article i read about a "new" subspecies of fisher that they want to ban trapping in ID to protect... i will post it later
Taking Liberty, How Private Property is being Abolished in America
http://www.takingliberty.us/TLHome.html (http://www.takingliberty.us/TLHome.html)
-
prior to 1935 the timber industry was washingtons lagest employers.The 1926 seen the largest amount of board feet cut, 1945 seen the next highest after the early 1920's from this point the amount of board feets declined. In the Northwest Forest Summit in April 1993 Clinton set aside a harvest of 1.2 billion board feet in NF compared the the 7.2 billion in 1926. the 1.2b was a quarter of what was practiced in the 1980s. In the 80s the fed already had sustainability codes in place for the timber industry. 94, 96, 98, 99 seen further fed reductions. private timberland's have grown to help sustain the industry, bringing the board foot levels equal to what was being cut in the 1980s. Todays FS levels are around 375 million board feet. there have been many arguments for decreasing logging starting with Roosevelt's conservationest preservationest ideas, to the protection of insects and fungi found only in old growth, to erosion into streams, to finally the owl being the scape goat for the preservationist idea of a wild places. All this while current science has shown selective logging would help, it would increase the prey species. Also science shows the barred owl as being the biggest threat to the spotted owl. just as the wolves the spotted owl has been controled by countless lawsuites, biased research funded by many wild life and anti timber industry groups. Many of these groups have found alot of representation by getting members on working groups or into managment positions and work as biologest. HHHMMM sound familier?
-
Most of the touchy feely groups dont approve of the killing of barred owls to save the spotted owl. They also got the goverment to increase the critical habitat map to more than 9.5 million arces twice as many in 2008. Of the new land 1% is old growth. These groups were extremely upset that private land was not included. So are they really fighting for the spotted owl? This land stretches from North Cascade Mountains near the Canadian border down to the coastal redwood zone in California. Might be conspericy but kinda sounds like the wild lands project. This was used with owls and now with wolves. once industry can be hurt or shut down rural economies will crash. land and housing become cheap and can be bought at record low prices then sold to the goverment for a profit to be protected.
-
Skywalker thank you for proving my point. :tup:
Your welcome... :tup:
I tried to tell him, but he don't listen. LOL
-
My cousin married Bucky Manke from Manke. He always told us that logging slowed in the late 80's because the Japanese market slowed purchasing logs. Apparently they were purchasing logs and burying them underground to preserve them. Once they got their share, things began to slow. I know zero about this topic. Can any of the EXPERTS (and trust me, there is plenty on Hunt-Wa) catch me up on why specifically logging slowed down.
-
My cousin married Bucky Manke from Manke. He always told us that logging slowed in the late 80's because the Japanese market slowed purchasing logs. Apparently they were purchasing logs and burying them underground to preserve them. Once they got their share, things began to slow. I know zero about this topic. Can any of the EXPERTS (and trust me, there is plenty on Hunt-Wa) catch me up on why specifically logging slowed down.
Almost everyone else in my family worked in logging or lumber mills. The US economy hasn't helped, but, there is a big lumber market in Japan due to the sunami. In spite of the spotted owl affair logging is still very active on private and state lands. The problem is that the National Forest has practically stopped logging, mills could not get logs and many had to close. I am sure there are other factors depending on which mill or area, but the NFS really put a hurt on logging in my area.
-
My point is we start controlling right now or we are screwed, We cannot afford to wait for the whole state to get wolves by then it will be to late for many areas. Waiting 5-10 years to start hunting like stated above and most deer hunting in this state on the east side will be very limited at best. :twocents:
I said IMO we WILL be able to hunt them in the next 5-10 years. Who knows? Maybe a year from now we can? It is all opinions and speculations at this point.
Just a FYI in case you didn't know, Idaho has been battling delisting wolf hunts in courts since 2002.
-
Here are the numbers estimated for the final proposal, it took a while but I found them.
-
Wow! That is quite a budget they wrote there. The compensation for livestock losses are really delusional.
The only missed this years request by 2 million.
-
thanks huntinphool that is the kind of numbers I remember as well :bash: I'm glad you found them.
-
My point is we start controlling right now or we are screwed, We cannot afford to wait for the whole state to get wolves by then it will be to late for many areas. Waiting 5-10 years to start hunting like stated above and most deer hunting in this state on the east side will be very limited at best. :twocents:
I said IMO we WILL be able to hunt them in the next 5-10 years. Who knows? Maybe a year from now we can? It is all opinions and speculations at this point.
Just a FYI in case you didn't know, Idaho has been battling delisting wolf hunts in courts since 2002.
Right...
But I am only talking about Wa. We have not delisted them here. Good for Idaho.
-
My point is we start controlling right now or we are screwed, We cannot afford to wait for the whole state to get wolves by then it will be to late for many areas. Waiting 5-10 years to start hunting like stated above and most deer hunting in this state on the east side will be very limited at best. :twocents:
I said IMO we WILL be able to hunt them in the next 5-10 years. Who knows? Maybe a year from now we can? It is all opinions and speculations at this point.
Just a FYI in case you didn't know, Idaho has been battling delisting wolf hunts in courts since 2002.
Right...
But I am only talking about Wa. We have not delisted them here. Good for Idaho.
:chuckle: Yeah, I figured it would be a stretch for you to understand the correlation, but I gave it a shot. :chuckle:
-
My point is we start controlling right now or we are screwed, We cannot afford to wait for the whole state to get wolves by then it will be to late for many areas. Waiting 5-10 years to start hunting like stated above and most deer hunting in this state on the east side will be very limited at best. :twocents:
I said IMO we WILL be able to hunt them in the next 5-10 years. Who knows? Maybe a year from now we can? It is all opinions and speculations at this point.
Just a FYI in case you didn't know, Idaho has been battling delisting wolf hunts in courts since 2002.
Right...
But I am only talking about Wa. We have not delisted them here. Good for Idaho.
:chuckle: Yeah, I figured it would be a stretch for you to understand the correlation, but I gave it a shot. :chuckle:
You like to ask questions to the hunt-wa members, which only you have answers to. Even when we have the answer, you find a way to tear apart are posts and tell us how much more you know. This is the REPUTATION you created for yourself. Nobody likes a know it all. I am sure I am disliked by many on here, because I tend to play devils advocate. Or I just tell it like it is. The difference is; I always respect another members opinion and I tend to be open minded to changing my opinion, once I have read another members post. Remember your know it all attitude follows you to all those meetings and sportmans shows you attend. Thou you might think you have friends in those places; they will be the first ones to talk crap behind your back, because they know your a know it all. People tend to blow people like that off and push them aside. Go spew your useless garbage somewhere else. Nobody cares about your statistics and all your WDFW meetings feedback. The only thing I have read from you, which was of value is your name "PHOOL". That what you are. :hello:
-
I said IMO we WILL be able to hunt them in the next 5-10 years. Who knows? Maybe a year from now we can? It is all opinions and speculations at this point.
Just a FYI in case you didn't know, Idaho has been battling delisting wolf hunts in courts since 2002.
Right...
But I am only talking about Wa. We have not delisted them here. Good for Idaho.
:chuckle: Yeah, I figured it would be a stretch for you to understand the correlation, but I gave it a shot. :chuckle:
You like to ask questions to the hunt-wa members, which only you have answers to. Even when we have the answer, you find a way to tear apart are posts and tell us how much more you know. This is the REPUTATION you created for yourself. Nobody likes a know it all. I am sure I am disliked by many on here, because I tend to play devils advocate. Or I just tell it like it is. The difference is; I always respect another members opinion and I tend to be open minded to changing my opinion, once I have read another members post. Remember your know it all attitude follows you to all those meetings and sportmans shows you attend. Thou you might think you have friends in those places; they will be the first ones to talk crap behind your back, because they know your a know it all. People tend to blow people like that off and push them aside. Go spew your useless garbage somewhere else. Nobody cares about your statistics and all your WDFW meetings feedback. The only thing I have read from you, which was of value is your name "PHOOL". That what you are. :hello:
:ACRY: :chuckle:
-
The quickest way to size some one up is to ask a question you already know the answer to. :twocents:
This place is a GREAT place to share facts because if it concerns sportsmen we need to know them, and hold our the WDFW accountable for thier (in)actions.
-
My point is we start controlling right now or we are screwed, We cannot afford to wait for the whole state to get wolves by then it will be to late for many areas. Waiting 5-10 years to start hunting like stated above and most deer hunting in this state on the east side will be very limited at best. :twocents:
I said IMO we WILL be able to hunt them in the next 5-10 years. Who knows? Maybe a year from now we can? It is all opinions and speculations at this point.
Just a FYI in case you didn't know, Idaho has been battling delisting wolf hunts in courts since 2002.
Which likely won't mean much at all in the way of predicting WA efforts to establish wolf hunts. WA can now rely on data from MT, ID, and WY to show that wolf populations can withstand a reasonably high degree of hunting without adverse effects on populations segments.
Our biggest fear should not be the courts, but rather the ballot box.
-
:yeah:
Won't be long after delisting occurs that an initiative is voted on to eliminate hunting of wolves...... :bash:
-
:yeah: and if we finally do win the court battle and hunt wolves, we will never be able to trap and 1/2 of the wolves removed in ID and MT were trapped.
-
Why the WDFW hate? Well they COULD have started hunting /MGT E of the columbia several years ago when the FEDS delisted the rockey mountain region.
Not really true. In order for hunting season to open on wolves the state legislature has to clasiffy them as a Big Game animal, they are currently classified as a endagered species under state law. WDFW actually pushed for that classification change this year in their wolf bill but it was removed by the state senate.
-
My point is we start controlling right now or we are screwed, We cannot afford to wait for the whole state to get wolves by then it will be to late for many areas. Waiting 5-10 years to start hunting like stated above and most deer hunting in this state on the east side will be very limited at best. :twocents:
I said IMO we WILL be able to hunt them in the next 5-10 years. Who knows? Maybe a year from now we can? It is all opinions and speculations at this point.
Just a FYI in case you didn't know, Idaho has been battling delisting wolf hunts in courts since 2002.
Which likely won't mean much at all in the way of predicting WA efforts to establish wolf hunts. WA can now rely on data from MT, ID, and WY to show that wolf populations can withstand a reasonably high degree of hunting without adverse effects on populations segments.
Our biggest fear should not be the courts, but rather the ballot box.
I agree the low information voter is the biggest threat, but don't forget that Washington had data from MT, ID and Wyoming in the proposal meetings that was completely ignored, what gives you the confidence it will be considered this time around? :dunno:
-
My cousin married Bucky Manke from Manke. He always told us that logging slowed in the late 80's because the Japanese market slowed purchasing logs. Apparently they were purchasing logs and burying them underground to preserve them. Once they got their share, things began to slow. I know zero about this topic. Can any of the EXPERTS (and trust me, there is plenty on Hunt-Wa) catch me up on why specifically logging slowed down.
Almost everyone else in my family worked in logging or lumber mills. The US economy hasn't helped, but, there is a big lumber market in Japan due to the sunami. In spite of the spotted owl affair logging is still very active on private and state lands. The problem is that the National Forest has practically stopped logging, mills could not get logs and many had to close. I am sure there are other factors depending on which mill or area, but the NFS really put a hurt on logging in my area.
Recently I've felt that timber cut on public lands should have to be processed locally. In the past, I think there was too shipping of raw logs to foreign markets which mostly only benefits the short-term profit objectives of large timber companies as opposed to small outfits and local economies.
If you look at statistics from the 1980's, the number of board feet cut in the west was increasing most years, while the actual number of timber related jobs decreased throughout the entire decade. I've never had anyone truly explain that phenomenon to me other than by attributing it to better technology and the incrased export of raw, unprocessed timber.
I've also wondered how much longer a lot of the mills that specialized in processing old-growth national forest timber would have lasted without the spotted owl. I've spent a lot of time traveling through forests in western WA, and I really don't see many large stands of true old-growth that are left outside of National Parks or buffer zones. I mean there's some, but enough to sustain that segment of the industry the way it was for more than another few years?
It's true that "environmentalists" have played a huge role in augmenting the timber industry, but I don't know if folks really hold any of the large timber companies accountable for the role they played in the whole boom and bust cycles that have damaged a number of rural economies over the years. I guess it's really water under the bridge at this point........
-
Why the WDFW hate? Well they COULD have started hunting /MGT E of the columbia several years ago when the FEDS delisted the rockey mountain region.
Not really true. In order for hunting season to open on wolves the state legislature has to clasiffy them as a Big Game animal, they are currently classified as a endagered species under state law. WDFW actually pushed for that classification change this year in their wolf bill but it was removed by the state senate.
The lack of "big game" classification was a self imposed one. I see a bunch of politicains and an agency (WDFW) that is either indefferent or helping push this nonsence.
-
Why is that WDFW is trying to reinvent the wheel . They must know more than Id,Mt,Wy. What we have learned that there is 2 kinds of biology . Two may liberals have infiltrated all game departments. Oh sorry Wildlife departments. Do you know how they get rid of someone who doesn't fit in a government office . They promote them to a different department. Does any body here live with these flea bags. We have lived in the Teanaway for 15 years. I have more deer and elk at my little 5 areas in last 3 years than ever before, not because of population spikes. They have alot better chance of living on the out skirts of town/rural areas. There are so few game animals left in the higher hills now. So there will be more landowner /wildlife conflicts resulting in landowner tags. Do you know what it is like to have wolves tracks on your property that you have small children and pets on. When there is 3 ft of snow on the ground in the winter where is all the wildlife. In all the low lands that is almost all privately owned property. I am so done with all this wolf crap. I got drawn in 2011 for a teanaway late bow tag. It snowed multiple days in a row , riding a snow machine to try and cut tracks. I covered 45 miles in two days. I counted a minimum of 12 different fresh tracks in the snow. That's at least 200 deer or elk a year. How many deer and elk get harvested in the Teanaway unit in the last three years? We no longer have to worry about coyotes now, they are no longer around. Just a 1/2 mile from the house 2 weeks ago a lab was skinned and beheaded in a matter of minutes. Owner heard distress and ran out and found dog. WDFW investigate , say it was coyotes. Come on really. There have been numerous sighting of the flea bags in the area in the last month. WDFW lying again . Sorry to rant. But people or hunters that want to coexist with wolves DONT LIVE WITH THEM. If you think its OK , I invite you to bring your children or grandchildren over and we will send them up the hills to play , like many of us grew up doing. Not. I cant even let my kids play on the swing set alone. Sorry there is not millions of acres of land like there used to be hundreds of years ago. If they where a classified as a predator today , we would still have serious problems in a couple of years. Paying WDFW contractors big money to remove them, once they are too big of problems. Canada and Alaska laugh at us. If you would like to watch a real documentary of wolves , watch Crying wolf documentary. We need to stand together and fight these people or organizations. WDFW is to political already. Which in turn means lies.
-
I've heard what you mention before dirtbike. About how all the game get pushed closer and closer to cities and towns. In many cases it has made for higher hunter harvest numbers in the early years. But the wilderness areas are void of game. I had read that the bios like to use old correlations of harvest compared to population surveys, and they extrapolate that there are bigger herds than ever. But it is actually just the wolves pushing the game to the humans, so the herds keep getting smaller. There were some newspaper articles about how hunters in ID and MT were having the best seasons on record even with the wolves, and that wolves were making all wildlife 'flourish'. Then some independent or retired bio was looking into the conflicting accounts and was saying their data was wrong. Basically he found overall numbers were way down, but animals were more accessible so it made hunting a little easier. And with decreased herds and increased harvest, the herds were not being sustainably managed.
-
My cousin married Bucky Manke from Manke. He always told us that logging slowed in the late 80's because the Japanese market slowed purchasing logs. Apparently they were purchasing logs and burying them underground to preserve them. Once they got their share, things began to slow. I know zero about this topic. Can any of the EXPERTS (and trust me, there is plenty on Hunt-Wa) catch me up on why specifically logging slowed down.
Three words. The Sierra Club.
Contact the Ruffed Grouse Society for details on how anti logging policies actually hurt game animal numbers.
-
My cousin married Bucky Manke from Manke. He always told us that logging slowed in the late 80's because the Japanese market slowed purchasing logs. Apparently they were purchasing logs and burying them underground to preserve them. Once they got their share, things began to slow. I know zero about this topic. Can any of the EXPERTS (and trust me, there is plenty on Hunt-Wa) catch me up on why specifically logging slowed down.
Three words. The Sierra Club.
Contact the Ruffed Grouse Society for details on how anti logging policies actually hurt game animal numbers.
Also three letters: ESA
-
One of the frustrating things about a lot of environmental groups is they want to take a live and let live approach to forest management. But the second a forest fire starts they are ready to send the fire crews in. I think they love trees more than wildlife and biodiversity.
The sooner people understand the concept of mixed age forests the better.
Sorry for the deviation off topic.
-
One of the frustrating things about a lot of environmental groups is they want to take a live and let live approach to forest management. But the second a forest fire starts they are ready to send the fire crews in. I think they love trees more than wildlife and biodiversity.
The sooner people understand the concept of mixed age forests the better.
Sorry for the deviation off topic.
I'm not sure the real enviro-freaks do want fire fighting to be done. I know they want to stop logging and hunting and cattle ranching and anything that has anything to do with using critters or other nature for man's benefit. Using the spotted owl was all about stopping logging. Using the grey wolf is all about stopping hunting and cattle ranching.
-
One of the frustrating things about a lot of environmental groups is they want to take a live and let live approach to forest management. But the second a forest fire starts they are ready to send the fire crews in. I think they love trees more than wildlife and biodiversity.
The sooner people understand the concept of mixed age forests the better.
Sorry for the deviation off topic.
I'm not sure the real enviro-freaks do want fire fighting to be done. I know they want to stop logging and hunting and cattle ranching and anything that has anything to do with using critters or other nature for man's benefit. Using the spotted owl was all about stopping logging. Using the grey wolf is all about stopping hunting and cattle ranching.
The spotted owl was also a way to stop hunting.
Less habitat = fewer deer = less hunting
I used to see dead deer on I-5 between Portland and Longview all of the time in the 80's. Barely see any now. I don't think that's coincidence.
-
Spotted owls are nearing extinction. That's why their preferred habitat was given extra protection. It's quite a stretch to say that saving spotted owls was done only to end logging and hunting.
-
Spotted owls are nearing extinction. That's why their preferred habitat was given extra protection. It's quite a stretch to say that saving spotted owls was done only to end logging and hunting.
I'll buy into that.
But I think some of the more radical environmental groups out there saw this as a side affect and an opportunity.
Look, my point is we're not doing a good job managing habitat for any animal these days. Bare forest floors are essentially eco deserts. Mixed age forest makes things happen.
If the spotted owl is on the way out it's probably because it can't find anything to eat. I question whether those who support no logging really understand what a healthy thriving forest is.
We've already got guys on here who say they can't find deer in older stands of forest west of the mountains, areas that they used to find them in. Mountain lions aren't that efficient.
-
Spotted owls are nearing extinction. That's why their preferred habitat was given extra protection. It's quite a stretch to say that saving spotted owls was done only to end logging and hunting.
The stretch was in saying that spotted owls only could survive in old growth, which was the basis of the listing that ended logging in many public areas of the NW. That mixed with advanced firefighting has eliminated a huge portion of habitat for other animals. I routinely see spotted owls in new growth. I believe that your saying they're nearing extinction is incorrect.
-
Spotted owls are nearing extinction. That's why their preferred habitat was given extra protection. It's quite a stretch to say that saving spotted owls was done only to end logging and hunting.
The stretch was in saying that spotted owls only could survive in old growth, which was the basis of the listing that ended logging in many public areas of the NW. That mixed with advanced firefighting has eliminated a huge portion of habitat for other animals. I routinely see spotted owls in new growth. I believe that your saying they're nearing extinction is incorrect.
You routinely see spotted owls? :yike: Sorry, I have to call BS on that. Perhaps you're seeing Barred owls, they look very similar. And, the fact is, spotted owls' preferred habitat IS old growth timber, or 2nd growth with old growth characteristics. I'd say more but this thread is about wolves, not owls. :chuckle:
-
Spotted owls are nearing extinction. That's why their preferred habitat was given extra protection. It's quite a stretch to say that saving spotted owls was done only to end logging and hunting.
The stretch was in saying that spotted owls only could survive in old growth, which was the basis of the listing that ended logging in many public areas of the NW. That mixed with advanced firefighting has eliminated a huge portion of habitat for other animals. I routinely see spotted owls in new growth. I believe that your saying they're nearing extinction is incorrect.
You routinely see spotted owls? :yike: Sorry, I have to call BS on that. Perhaps you're seeing Barred owls, they look very similar. And, the fact is, spotted owls preferred habitat is old growth timber, or 2nd growth with old growth characteristics. I'd say more but this thread is about wolves, not owls. :chuckle:
The point is that animal rights groups will do what they can through the ESA to stop the activities they don't like. They didn't like logging and found the spotted owls. They didn't like developments in CA and found a rat. They don't like hunting and got behind the wolf. If you don't want to see the pattern, that's fine. It's there to see when you decide to look.
-
You routinely see spotted owls? :yike: Sorry, I have to call BS on that. Perhaps you're seeing Barred owls, they look very similar. And, the fact is, spotted owls' preferred habitat IS old growth timber, or 2nd growth with old growth characteristics. I'd say more but this thread is about wolves, not owls. :chuckle:
There are enough spotted to see routinely. They are plenty distinguishable from barred owls, looks and behavior.
-
The point is that animal rights groups will do what they can through the ESA to stop the activities they don't like.
I don't necessarily disagree with this statement, but I feel it's being applied too broadly. Spotted owls would not have been "used" to stop any activities if they weren't in danger of going extinct. It may have had the effect of slowing down logging, but logging in many areas was already being done at unsustainable rates. So if the spotted owl hadn't slowed down logging, it would have slowed down on it's own in another decade after all the old growth was gone.
Also, at least in the case of the spotted owl, I don't feel "animal rights groups" is the proper terminology for organizations that may have "used" the spotted owl to stop or slow down logging.
-
You routinely see spotted owls? :yike: Sorry, I have to call BS on that. Perhaps you're seeing Barred owls, they look very similar. And, the fact is, spotted owls' preferred habitat IS old growth timber, or 2nd growth with old growth characteristics. I'd say more but this thread is about wolves, not owls. :chuckle:
There are enough spotted to see routinely. They are plenty distinguishable from barred owls, looks and behavior.
Perhaps, if you're in the right areas, but I don't believe Pman is seeing them.
-
I was married into a Roseburg logging family and had the opportunity to see some up close back in the early 90s. I know exactly what they look like when I see them. I've seen quite a few. And now, back to the topic at hand.
-
I spent two years as a spotted owl surveyor, and in that time I only saw two spotted owls. I saw the same two owls on more than one occasion, but nevertheless, it was still only two individual owls. That's why I find it hard to believe that you would just randomly have seen several spotted owls, while not out specifically looking for them.
But, to get back on topic, yes I have also seen three wolves, back in 1990.
-
I spent one summer in the late 80's performing land surveying for USFS in the Olympics. My immediate supervisor was a spotted owl hugger and fanatic. He would go out on his own time (after hours and on the weekends) looking for spotted owls. He would find them and get whole timber sale areas shut down because of the owls he would find. I never did see a spotted owl, but I didn't go out at night.
He wasn't doing it with the goal of shutting down logging; he just loved owls for some reason. He and his boss really butted heads. His boss was an avid elk/deer hunter and was pissed about this guy going out and finding spotted owls and getting timber sales shut down, because that meant less clearcuts for the deer and elk to feed in.........(and less cutting for the USFS to make money on).
I guess my point is that I'm not so sure that the spotted owl was used specifically as tool to shut down logging; maybe it was for some of the wackos, but others just liked owls and the result was some logging getting shut down.
I believe the wolf is being used as a tool though, for an end game of shutting down hunting (more so than the owl was used as a tool for shutting down logging). The anti-hunters have found the perfect tool. But, like the spotted owl, some wolf huggers are simply in love with wolves and want them protected and don't really care about ending all hunting........ :twocents:
One thing the owl huggers, tree huggers, and wolf huggers have in common is a lack of logic and the over use of emotion for whatever cause they happen to be in love with.
(I also saw wolves over 20 years ago). :hello:
-
I spent two years as a spotted owl surveyor, and in that time I only saw two spotted owls. I saw the same two owls on more than one occasion, but nevertheless, it was still only two individual owls. That's why I find it hard to believe that you would just randomly have seen several spotted owls, while not out specifically looking for them.
But, to get back on topic, yes I have also seen three wolves, back in 1990.
I think that statement answers a lot of questions that have had me scratching my head.
-
I spent two years as a spotted owl surveyor, and in that time I only saw two spotted owls. I saw the same two owls on more than one occasion, but nevertheless, it was still only two individual owls. That's why I find it hard to believe that you would just randomly have seen several spotted owls, while not out specifically looking for them.
But, to get back on topic, yes I have also seen three wolves, back in 1990.
I think that statement answers a lot of questions that have had me scratching my head.
Oh, questions related to the rarity of spotted owls? I'm glad I could be of some help. :tup:
-
The agency really wanted SB 5193 to pass. It would have also raised a lot of money for management through the sales of special license plates — earlier this year, WDFW said there would be a $1.5 million shortfall in its wolf budget — as well as designated wolves as big game for future hunting seasons/increased poaching fines.
I'm going to go out on a limb here....there are more wolves and they will cost more than the WDFW estimates. :rolleyes: :bash: :bash:
-
The agency really wanted SB 5193 to pass. It would have also raised a lot of money for management through the sales of special license plates — earlier this year, WDFW said there would be a $1.5 million shortfall in its wolf budget — as well as designated wolves as big game for future hunting seasons/increased poaching fines.
I'm going to go out on a limb here....there are more wolves and they will cost more than the WDFW estimates. :rolleyes: :bash: :bash:
Can't be. That would mean we're being lied to. 8)
-
wolf management will cost $2.3 million in 2013? What will the cost in tags be with less hunting?
"MOOSE & WOLVES"
The Minnesota moose population “free fall” noted on your front page (8,840 in 2006; 4,900 last year; and 4,230 today) coincides with the steady rise in the number of wolves in the state and the past two decades of wolf dispersals N, E, & S from the overpopulated Minnesota wolf habitat. Despite “Upper Midwest” “scientists” claiming that wolf predation on moose is not the “culprit” while cleverly admitting that “wolves do eat moose”; wolves are widely recognized to currently be:
- Reducing moose populations in Alaska
- Reducing moose and elk populations in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Alberta.
- A primary limiting factor on moose in Asia.
- Limiting, to the point of extinction, caribou in both the Lower 48 States and sections of Canada.
Both State and federal bureaucrat “scientists” have a stake in downplaying the many bad effects of their continuing wolf programs. Wolves, like your dog, learn and adapt. That Minnesota wolves learn where moose calves are to be found each year as increasing numbers of wolves compete for decreasing food is not surprising. That the “Bull-to-cow” ratio is “at the highest level since 2006” while maintaining a “consistent 80% pregnancy rate” only indicates that many pregnant, nursing, and protective (to calves) moose cows are sharing the cruel and ugly demise suffered by their calves.
Ask your favorite bureaucrat how they measure calf predation the next time they tell you, “parasites, possibly linked to summer heat spells” are causing the moose decline or how Native harvests are reported as including the laughingly accurate “six or so female” moose? All the other bunk about “wolves can be a moose’s best friend” and how Michigan moose on the U.P. (a few years behind Minnesota’s wolf population expansion and big game impacts) won’t be hunted because “If you don’t have a moose season now is not the time to start one” are simply bureaucratic public relations diversions intended only to muddy the waters.
Minnesota moose and Minnesota moose hunting are indeed in “free fall” and headed “toward zero within decades.” The problem isn’t just the wolves killing moose: the problem is government perfidy and public gullibility. Minnesota natural resources are being managed like children’s cartoons and the adults are pretending not to recognize it..
Jim Beers
28 March 2012,