Post by: Scottystyle on March 28, 2013, 08:48:04 AM
Post by: vandeman17 on March 28, 2013, 08:50:46 AM
Post by: jackelope on March 28, 2013, 08:53:36 AM
The BS meter is definitely on high alert.
Post by: Scottystyle on March 28, 2013, 08:56:11 AM
Post by: vandeman17 on March 28, 2013, 09:01:21 AM
Post by: grundy53 on March 28, 2013, 09:07:28 AM
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2013, 09:08:33 AM
Sorry, but I think I'd trust a biologist's opinion over anyone else on whether these animals were killed by wolves or not. And I would think this would be good news. These are animals that would have died anyway, the wolves are feeding on them, which means the wolves don't need to kill additional animals.
Post by: BIGINNER on March 28, 2013, 09:09:27 AM
Post by: grundy53 on March 28, 2013, 09:10:08 AM
What- are we wanting for these to be wolf kills? You know, animals do die in the winter, and especially at the very end of winter, AND especially older animals, like big bull elk. Is it so hard to imagine that wolves might feed on winter kill? It's a lot easier for them than having to chase one down and kill it.
Sorry, but I think I'd trust a biologist's opinion over anyone else on whether these animals were killed by wolves or not. And I would think this would be good news. These are animals that would have died anyway, the wolves are feeding on them, which means the wolves don't need to kill additional animals.
I would agree..... if the wolves didn't actually kill the animals and that is a BIG if.
Post by: vandeman17 on March 28, 2013, 09:12:37 AM
What- are we wanting for these to be wolf kills? You know, animals do die in the winter, and especially at the very end of winter, AND especially older animals, like big bull elk. Is it so hard to imagine that wolves might feed on winter kill? It's a lot easier for them than having to chase one down and kill it.
Sorry, but I think I'd trust a biologist's opinion over anyone else on whether these animals were killed by wolves or not. And I would think this would be good news. These are animals that would have died anyway, the wolves are feeding on them, which means the wolves don't need to kill additional animals.
I would agree..... if the wolves didn't actually kill the animals and that is a BIG if.
I would agree too but it seems pretty lucky to me that there just "happened" to be wolf sightings in the area at the times of the kills. Seems like a little too much of a coincidence to me...
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2013, 09:14:59 AM
Post by: Scottystyle on March 28, 2013, 09:18:02 AM
Post by: BIGINNER on March 28, 2013, 09:20:10 AM
Post by: jackelope on March 28, 2013, 09:20:41 AM
Was the cow in the middle of birthing the calf?
The BS meter is definitely on high alert.
Post by: grundy53 on March 28, 2013, 09:21:06 AM
come on guys,... everyone knows that the wolves would never hurt another animal, they were simply helping the cow give birth,.. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
:yeah: and they only eat animals that die of natural causes.... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2013, 09:21:15 AM
Quote
State biologists and enforcement officers dissected the dead cow in Pitcher Canyon on Tuesday with the ranchers present. Monda said they did not find any puncture holes, crushing bruises or internal bleeding that are characteristic of wolves or other predators having killed an animal.
“Something did eat the cow, but all evidence indicated that it was fed upon after it died,” he said. “But there was no sign of a scuffle, no torn-up ground, no blood. There was absolutely no sign that it was killed by a predator of any kind.”
Post by: cougarbart on March 28, 2013, 09:21:36 AM
Post by: bigtex on March 28, 2013, 09:31:55 AM
What- are we wanting for these to be wolf kills? You know, animals do die in the winter, and especially at the very end of winter, AND especially older animals, like big bull elk. Is it so hard to imagine that wolves might feed on winter kill? It's a lot easier for them than having to chase one down and kill it.
Sorry, but I think I'd trust a biologist's opinion over anyone else on whether these animals were killed by wolves or not. And I would think this would be good news. These are animals that would have died anyway, the wolves are feeding on them, which means the wolves don't need to kill additional animals.
:yeah:
Are we getting to the point where every dead livestock animal is now a wolf kill?
What ever happened to cougar kills? Llamas were killed by coyotes a couple weeks ago.
Post by: Curly on March 28, 2013, 09:32:25 AM
Was the cow in the middle of birthing the calf?
The BS meter is definitely on high alert.
:yeah:
So, even if the WDFW is right in thinking the wolves did not kill the cow, wouldn't the wolves now have a taste for beef and go out looking for beef now?
Post by: vandeman17 on March 28, 2013, 09:34:16 AM
It's a coincidence that wolves would be in an area that is a major wintering area for elk? A place where elk die of natural causes?
Well the only other way I think it could happen without people having pictures and encounters is if the wolves just came here. If they did just move to the area, how would they know it is a major wintering area for elk? Isn't that learned over the years? I am not trying to argue with you and I like how you keep an open mind. I am just a believer that they tend to error on the side of caution and try not to alert people to what is actually going on even though we all know better. :twocents:
Post by: jackelope on March 28, 2013, 09:34:35 AM
What- are we wanting for these to be wolf kills? You know, animals do die in the winter, and especially at the very end of winter, AND especially older animals, like big bull elk. Is it so hard to imagine that wolves might feed on winter kill? It's a lot easier for them than having to chase one down and kill it.
Sorry, but I think I'd trust a biologist's opinion over anyone else on whether these animals were killed by wolves or not. And I would think this would be good news. These are animals that would have died anyway, the wolves are feeding on them, which means the wolves don't need to kill additional animals.
:yeah:
Are we getting to the point where every dead livestock animal is now a wolf kill?
What ever happened to cougar kills? Llamas were killed by coyotes a couple weeks ago.
My mother in law's llama killed a couple coyotes last year. Maybe they're even now.
:dunno:
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2013, 09:39:02 AM
Quote
So, even if the WDFW is right in thinking the wolves did not kill the cow, wouldn't the wolves now have a taste for beef and go out looking for beef now?
Just my opinion, but I think wolves are smart enough to know when they see cattle, even if it's the first time they've ever seen them, that they know it's food.
I think when they are hungry, and there are cattle available, they're going to eat them.
I don't know why a wolf eating a cow is seen as something extraordinary. It's going to happen. That's what wolves do. They have to kill stuff so they can eat. Just like us.
Post by: huntnphool on March 28, 2013, 09:41:46 AM
Post by: jrebel on March 28, 2013, 09:46:17 AM
Bobcat
I think your theory could be a possibility if we actually had a hard winter and these animals didn't have feed or cover. Fact of the matter is...this winter (in this range) was not that bad. Very little snow and lots of feed where these three animals decided to drop dead of natural causes. :twocents:
Post by: KFhunter on March 28, 2013, 09:49:24 AM
What- are we wanting for these to be wolf kills? You know, animals do die in the winter, and especially at the very end of winter, AND especially older animals, like big bull elk. Is it so hard to imagine that wolves might feed on winter kill? It's a lot easier for them than having to chase one down and kill it.
Sorry, but I think I'd trust a biologist's opinion over anyone else on whether these animals were killed by wolves or not. And I would think this would be good news. These are animals that would have died anyway, the wolves are feeding on them, which means the wolves don't need to kill additional animals.
:yeah:
Are we getting to the point where every dead livestock animal is now a wolf kill?
What ever happened to cougar kills? Llamas were killed by coyotes a couple weeks ago.
Bobcat is correct, these animals would have died anyways, eventually :rolleyes:
Wolves are going to be the ruin of WDFW bigtex. The mistrust is growing exponentially.
Post by: Curly on March 28, 2013, 09:49:59 AM
Post by: jackelope on March 28, 2013, 09:51:51 AM
Dunno. I imagine someone on here knows the rancher. That would be a good piece of info.
Just a thought.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 28, 2013, 09:52:16 AM
Post by: huntnphool on March 28, 2013, 09:54:16 AM
All I'm getting at is that they took out the Wedge pack (most of it anyway) because they "had gotten a taste for cattle" and they figured they wouldn't stop until they had killed a crap load of cattle. So, even if these wolves didn't kill the cow, they will be killing other cattle in the near future. It would be nice if the wolves could be shot since they are right there in the open for a good dose of lead.........(instead of waiting until they kill a bunch of cattle [and deer/elk] and then the state will have to spend another $77,000 in aerial gunning to take them out). :twocents:Isnt it amazing that the alpha female was smart/elusive enough to avoid the hired gun.
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2013, 09:55:07 AM
I'm sure they don't know with 100% certainty that the wolves didn't somehow cause the death of these elk, and the beef cow. But what are they supposed to do? They came up with their best "guess" and people complain.
Surely if they are right and these aren't wolf kills, there WILL BE elk and probably cattle killed by these wolves in the Colockum. That is to be expected.
Post by: huntnphool on March 28, 2013, 09:57:01 AM
Would you guys be happier if the WDFW did their investigation, concluded they were not wolf kills, and then lied and said yes they were wolf kills? Because it sounds like that's what you guys want.The problem Bob is they didn't expect this much this fast, to the tune of a estimated $2.3 million this year.
I'm sure they don't know with 100% certainty that the wolves didn't somehow cause the death of these elk, and the beef cow. But what are they supposed to do? They came up with their best "guess" and people complain.
Surely if they are right and these aren't wolf kills, there WILL BE elk and probably cattle killed by these wolves in the Colockum. That is to be expected.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 28, 2013, 09:57:31 AM
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2013, 10:00:36 AM
Quote
Monda said the agency has no prediction on how large a pack could grow near Wenatchee. He said the Lookout pack to the north is “tenuous at best” with just two known wolves right now.
“They are just barely hanging on up there,” he said, adding that while the territory in North Central Washington is prime for wolves, “They aren’t taking off (in numbers) here like they have in other areas.”
The state agency had expected wolves to have established themselves more by now in the area between Wenatchee and the Methow Valley, he said.
Post by: Northway on March 28, 2013, 10:01:55 AM
Was the cow in the middle of birthing the calf?
The BS meter is definitely on high alert.
:yeah:
So, even if the WDFW is right in thinking the wolves did not kill the cow, wouldn't the wolves now have a taste for beef and go out looking for beef now?
We are certainly going to find out one way or another this Spring & Summer.
Post by: huntnphool on March 28, 2013, 10:05:57 AM
Actually, from the article, the wolves are not doing as well as they expected:QuoteMonda said the agency has no prediction on how large a pack could grow near Wenatchee. He said the Lookout pack to the north is “tenuous at best” with just two known wolves right now.
“They are just barely hanging on up there,” he said, adding that while the territory in North Central Washington is prime for wolves, “They aren’t taking off (in numbers) here like they have in other areas.”
The state agency had expected wolves to have established themselves more by now in the area between Wenatchee and the Methow Valley, he said.
:chuckle: LMFAO, the officials and media said the Benghazi attack was in response to a YouTube video too Bob, I guess that makes it true. :chuckle:
Post by: cougarbart on March 28, 2013, 10:06:48 AM
Post by: KFhunter on March 28, 2013, 10:07:20 AM
Would you guys be happier if the WDFW did their investigation, concluded they were not wolf kills, and then lied and said yes they were wolf kills? Because it sounds like that's what you guys want.
I'm sure they don't know with 100% certainty that the wolves didn't somehow cause the death of these elk, and the beef cow. But what are they supposed to do? They came up with their best "guess" and people complain.
Surely if they are right and these aren't wolf kills, there WILL BE elk and probably cattle killed by these wolves in the Colockum. That is to be expected.
If there was trust in the WDFW then yes, but lacking trust the people are not going to buy anything the WDFW are selling.
They did the same thing in the wedge.
It is obvious the pro-wolf people in WDFW who are the ones making decisions at the very top. The very fact that one must call Olympia to get a determination of a wolf kill speaks to truth. Unless the evidence is irrefutable, undeniable and so damming it cannot be anything else, then it wasn't a wolf.
It is the same with the wedge wolf kills, at first they were all cougar, or bear.
In the 20+ years I ran cattle prior to wolf reintroduction cougar/bear depredation was unheard of. I've found more lightning killed cattle than any predator. I've found trees fallen on cows, I've found rustling of cattle and I've found cattle shot and left to lay. You name it I've found it....but I've yet to see a true cougar kill or bear kill.
Cougars don't like the pressure of a group of cattle surrounding them bellering. Wolfs disperse the herd, they prey on herds it's their specialty. Bears likewise do not like being in the middle of a herd of angry cattle.
Post by: Elkslayer on March 28, 2013, 10:11:58 AM
Actually, from the article, the wolves are not doing as well as they expected:QuoteMonda said the agency has no prediction on how large a pack could grow near Wenatchee. He said the Lookout pack to the north is “tenuous at best” with just two known wolves right now.
“They are just barely hanging on up there,” he said, adding that while the territory in North Central Washington is prime for wolves, “They aren’t taking off (in numbers) here like they have in other areas.”
The state agency had expected wolves to have established themselves more by now in the area between Wenatchee and the Methow Valley, he said.
I'm sure the wolves are doing just fine!
If they would get off there arses and hire some more trappers or make a better attempt to document how many wolves there really are they would be stating the exact opposite.
Post by: BIGINNER on March 28, 2013, 10:13:23 AM
Post by: huntnphool on March 28, 2013, 10:24:56 AM
huntinphool! i was just gonna say and oj simpson was framed!lol(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/MGalleryItem.php?id=11990)
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 28, 2013, 10:33:36 AM
What- are we wanting for these to be wolf kills? You know, animals do die in the winter, and especially at the very end of winter, AND especially older animals, like big bull elk. Is it so hard to imagine that wolves might feed on winter kill? It's a lot easier for them than having to chase one down and kill it.
Sorry, but I think I'd trust a biologist's opinion over anyone else on whether these animals were killed by wolves or not. And I would think this would be good news. These are animals that would have died anyway, the wolves are feeding on them, which means the wolves don't need to kill additional animals.
:yeah:
Are we getting to the point where every dead livestock animal is now a wolf kill?
What ever happened to cougar kills? Llamas were killed by coyotes a couple weeks ago.
Yep- there are a hundred ways for an animal to die out there. It doesn't seem all that outlandish to think that the dead animals attracted the wolves...
Post by: SkookumHntr on March 28, 2013, 10:38:10 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 28, 2013, 10:38:42 AM
What- are we wanting for these to be wolf kills? You know, animals do die in the winter, and especially at the very end of winter, AND especially older animals, like big bull elk. Is it so hard to imagine that wolves might feed on winter kill? It's a lot easier for them than having to chase one down and kill it.
Sorry, but I think I'd trust a biologist's opinion over anyone else on whether these animals were killed by wolves or not. And I would think this would be good news. These are animals that would have died anyway, the wolves are feeding on them, which means the wolves don't need to kill additional animals.
:yeah:
Are we getting to the point where every dead livestock animal is now a wolf kill?
What ever happened to cougar kills? Llamas were killed by coyotes a couple weeks ago.
So, when the llamas were killed by coyotes, that's how it was reported. However, when they found the dead cow, they could see wolves from where they were standing. You think that the rancher coming to that conclusion was pulling it right out of his butt or might there have been just a tad of justification? C'mon BT, if it looks like a wolf, walks like a wolf, and has a NY sirloin in it's mouth, what are the chances that was a cougar kill?
Post by: buckfvr on March 28, 2013, 10:54:32 AM
Post by: snowpack on March 28, 2013, 11:04:23 AM
Was the cow in the middle of birthing the calf?From what I remember when a cow is giving birth and having complications, is that they pretty much lay there. They might be able to give a little kick here and there, but they moan and moo and breathe heavily. Not much of an animal that can really run or fight off a predator. Easy pickins. A couple wolves wouldn't need to attack at the throat and the legs leaving all kinds of trauma. They could just go right at eating the cow.
The BS meter is definitely on high alert.
Post by: bigtex on March 28, 2013, 11:08:56 AM
What- are we wanting for these to be wolf kills? You know, animals do die in the winter, and especially at the very end of winter, AND especially older animals, like big bull elk. Is it so hard to imagine that wolves might feed on winter kill? It's a lot easier for them than having to chase one down and kill it.
Sorry, but I think I'd trust a biologist's opinion over anyone else on whether these animals were killed by wolves or not. And I would think this would be good news. These are animals that would have died anyway, the wolves are feeding on them, which means the wolves don't need to kill additional animals.
:yeah:
Are we getting to the point where every dead livestock animal is now a wolf kill?
What ever happened to cougar kills? Llamas were killed by coyotes a couple weeks ago.
So, when the llamas were killed by coyotes, that's how it was reported. However, when they found the dead cow, they could see wolves from where they were standing. You think that the rancher coming to that conclusion was pulling it right out of his butt or might there have been just a tad of justification? C'mon BT, if it looks like a wolf, walks like a wolf, and has a NY sirloin in it's mouth, what are the chances that was a cougar kill?
I am just saying that it seems like every dead animal we see now is a wolf kill according to people on this site. If someone in Puyallup has a sheep killed is it going to be a wolf until someone can prove it wrong? What about Port Angeles? Tri Cities?
Post by: Fowlweather25 on March 28, 2013, 11:25:53 AM
QuoteSo, even if the WDFW is right in thinking the wolves did not kill the cow, wouldn't the wolves now have a taste for beef and go out looking for beef now?
Just my opinion, but I think wolves are smart enough to know when they see cattle, even if it's the first time they've ever seen them, that they know it's food.
I think when they are hungry, and there are cattle available, they're going to eat them.
I don't know why a wolf eating a cow is seen as something extraordinary. It's going to happen. That's what wolves do. They have to kill stuff so they can eat. Just like us.
Wonder if you would feel the same way if you were trying to raise beef in wolf country as a main source of income to raise your family. Oh well, calves were all killed this year, sorry kids no food this month! Have you ever raised cattle bobcat and truley dealt with the hardships of trying to maintain a healthy herd, on top of dealing with apex predators? Or did you read and believe all of this in a book the same way you believe WDFW when they say the wolves aren't doing very well?
If ranchers in eastern washington had that same lackadaisical approach they would be in big trouble. But they don't because they see it first hand.
Post by: vandeman17 on March 28, 2013, 11:36:02 AM
What- are we wanting for these to be wolf kills? You know, animals do die in the winter, and especially at the very end of winter, AND especially older animals, like big bull elk. Is it so hard to imagine that wolves might feed on winter kill? It's a lot easier for them than having to chase one down and kill it.
Sorry, but I think I'd trust a biologist's opinion over anyone else on whether these animals were killed by wolves or not. And I would think this would be good news. These are animals that would have died anyway, the wolves are feeding on them, which means the wolves don't need to kill additional animals.
:yeah:
Are we getting to the point where every dead livestock animal is now a wolf kill?
What ever happened to cougar kills? Llamas were killed by coyotes a couple weeks ago.
So, when the llamas were killed by coyotes, that's how it was reported. However, when they found the dead cow, they could see wolves from where they were standing. You think that the rancher coming to that conclusion was pulling it right out of his butt or might there have been just a tad of justification? C'mon BT, if it looks like a wolf, walks like a wolf, and has a NY sirloin in it's mouth, what are the chances that was a cougar kill?
I am just saying that it seems like every dead animal we see now is a wolf kill according to people on this site. If someone in Puyallup has a sheep killed is it going to be a wolf until someone can prove it wrong? What about Port Angeles? Tri Cities?
I don't assume all kills are wolf kills, I am not that naive. When there are wolves standing a little ways away watching everything happen then it makes me suspicious. If you can across a carcass in the woods and saw a bear nearby would you assume it was a bear that killed it? I think so :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2013, 11:40:34 AM
Yes, I would feel the same way if I were a rancher in eastern Washington. I would expect to have cattle eaten by wolves. Are you saying you would not expect that to happen?
I don't need a book to tell me that wolves are a predator and will kill and eat whatever is available.
I'm not sure, but I think perhaps you misinterpreted my post. I never said I want wolves here. I didn't say I want them eating MY deer and elk. And I certainly don't want them eating cattle and other livestock.
I don't even agree with wolves being listed as an endangered species. They're not endangered, there are plenty of wolves in Canada and Alaska. We don't have room for them here in the lower 48 states, and we especially don't have room for them in Washington state.
But the fact is they are listed as an endangered species, and therefore they are protected, and the WDFW has to follow all the rules that were put in place to help restore endangered species.
Did that clear it up any for you or do you still think I'm a wolf hugger?
Post by: KFhunter on March 28, 2013, 11:43:34 AM
Hell just look at little red riding hood and 3 little piggies.
WDFW is going to loose control, it's a forgone conclusion.
Post by: huntnphool on March 28, 2013, 11:48:25 AM
When people get pissed enough pretty soon wolves will be the killer of everything.LOL, you assume they ever had it! :chuckle:
Hell just look at little red riding hood and 3 little piggies.
WDFW is going to loose control, it's a forgone conclusion.
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on March 28, 2013, 11:51:35 AM
Post by: mulehunter on March 28, 2013, 11:53:04 AM
Post by: Fowlweather25 on March 28, 2013, 11:58:51 AM
The whole point that I wonder if you are missing is that once a wolf realizes that cattle are easy, almost effortless targets with plenty more meat on them, even than most elk, then they will almost forget that deer and elk even exist. Just like the Wedge pack.
Then it goes from eating our beloved deer and elk. To eating a lot of people's livelihood.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 28, 2013, 12:27:22 PM
Post by: UBA on March 28, 2013, 12:43:13 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on March 28, 2013, 12:55:09 PM
Wolves scavenge when they get the chance. I think the point is, none of us were there, the biologist was there (probably with the rancher) and they decided it wasn't killed by wolves. Who are you guys to determine that it was? :o :o
I completely agree. All I was arguing is it seems like the WDFW is always so quick to say it wasn't a wolf just to avoid the drama. I am not going to dispute their findings because I wasn't there but knowing that there were wolves there watching them leads me to believe there is more then a small chance they were involved.
Post by: NoImpactNoIdea on March 28, 2013, 01:02:41 PM
Does anyone know how to get a contract to do the aerial gunning? This is just going to happen again and again......dead livestock....Game department trys to hide the facts.
I think I still have the MagPul dvds lying around somewhere at work...
Post by: Scottystyle on March 28, 2013, 01:07:16 PM
Post by: mulehunter on March 28, 2013, 01:13:28 PM
Does anyone know how to get a contract to do the aerial gunning? This is just going to happen again and again......dead livestock....Game department trys to hide the facts.
I will be more happy to rent one and take you for a ride. :chuckle:
Post by: Fowlweather25 on March 28, 2013, 01:16:18 PM
Wolves scavenge when they get the chance. I think the point is, none of us were there, the biologist was there (probably with the rancher) and they decided it wasn't killed by wolves. Who are you guys to determine that it was? :o :o
You're right, no one knows 110%. That being said the fact of the matter remains that 3 animals have been found dead in the same area. And the wolves were sighted at the same time the necropsy was being performed. That's a pretty large red flag. Circumstantial as it may be. Seems pretty suspicious.
How many times has wdfw tried to hide things? And you honestly think its common for animals to just spontaineously drop dead? Coincidentally at the same time that wolves appear in the area? Just sayin.
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2013, 01:23:37 PM
Quote
And you honestly think its common for animals to just spontaineously drop dead? Coincidentally at the same time that wolves appear in the area?
You didn't ask me, but I'll answer anyway. Yes, I do think it's common for animals to die in the winter. And it's no coincidence that wolves are living in a deer and and elk wintering area, in the winter!
Post by: snowpack on March 28, 2013, 01:29:12 PM
I think the wolves were seen on both the dead elk too. Feeding on the one in the pond and the other bull. Didn't see much evidence of other predators in those photos (cougars will usually drag away and cover a kill). Also didn't look like from the pictures that crows and other scavengers had made much impact on the carcass, so wolves just stumbled upon the carcass before the birds.Wolves scavenge when they get the chance. I think the point is, none of us were there, the biologist was there (probably with the rancher) and they decided it wasn't killed by wolves. Who are you guys to determine that it was? :o :o
You're right, no one knows 110%. That being said the fact of the matter remains that 3 animals have been found dead in the same area. And the wolves were sighted at the same time the necropsy was being performed. That's a pretty large red flag. Circumstantial as it may be. Seems pretty suspicious.
How many times has wdfw tried to hide things? And you honestly think its common for animals to just spontaineously drop dead? Coincidentally at the same time that wolves appear in the area? Just sayin.
I guess a few other animals will probably mysteriously die in the area, in a frequency/pattern that hadn't been seen before wolves were in the area.
Post by: Fowlweather25 on March 28, 2013, 01:39:07 PM
I'm just saying that kind of a coincidence isn't likely. And I'm not about to start trusting Dfw again until they do something trustworthy. :twocents: I've seen this crap first hand and it always seems to be the people who aren't living it and never have that have the most knowledge. I'm not trying to offend anyone I'm just saying its frustrating.
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2013, 01:52:47 PM
As for no winter kill in this state- have you heard of all the Mt St Helens elk dying over the winter, the last few years? It's not due to snow, or cold temperatures. They're dying from starvation due to lack of food.
Post by: stuckalot on March 28, 2013, 01:59:52 PM
What- are we wanting for these to be wolf kills? You know, animals do die in the winter, and especially at the very end of winter, AND especially older animals, like big bull elk. Is it so hard to imagine that wolves might feed on winter kill? It's a lot easier for them than having to chase one down and kill it.
Sorry, but I think I'd trust a biologist's opinion over anyone else on whether these animals were killed by wolves or not. And I would think this would be good news. These are animals that would have died anyway, the wolves are feeding on them, which means the wolves don't need to kill additional animals.
:yeah:
Are we getting to the point where every dead livestock animal is now a wolf kill?
What ever happened to cougar kills? Llamas were killed by coyotes a couple weeks ago.
So, when the llamas were killed by coyotes, that's how it was reported. However, when they found the dead cow, they could see wolves from where they were standing. You think that the rancher coming to that conclusion was pulling it right out of his butt or might there have been just a tad of justification? C'mon BT, if it looks like a wolf, walks like a wolf, and has a NY sirloin in it's mouth, what are the chances that was a cougar kill?
I am just saying that it seems like every dead animal we see now is a wolf kill according to people on this site. If someone in Puyallup has a sheep killed is it going to be a wolf until someone can prove it wrong? What about Port Angeles? Tri Cities?
So Big Tex if you were out wandering around and found a dead elk with a 30 cal bullet hole and size 12 boot tracks all around it you wouldn't suspect the guy walking around in size 12 boots with a 30-06? Then the next week when you have trail cam pics of the same guy standing over a dead elk, knife in hand, rifle leaning against a tree, still a coincidence? Then the next week as your standing over another dead critter, while the guy in the size 12 boots with the 30-06 is perched on the hillside watching you through his spotting scope... Suspicious of the mans denials yet?
Post by: Fowlweather25 on March 28, 2013, 02:00:39 PM
Post by: 6x6in6 on March 28, 2013, 02:08:04 PM
What- are we wanting for these to be wolf kills? You know, animals do die in the winter, and especially at the very end of winter, AND especially older animals, like big bull elk. Is it so hard to imagine that wolves might feed on winter kill? It's a lot easier for them than having to chase one down and kill it.
Sorry, but I think I'd trust a biologist's opinion over anyone else on whether these animals were killed by wolves or not. And I would think this would be good news. These are animals that would have died anyway, the wolves are feeding on them, which means the wolves don't need to kill additional animals.
:yeah:
Are we getting to the point where every dead livestock animal is now a wolf kill?
What ever happened to cougar kills? Llamas were killed by coyotes a couple weeks ago.
So, when the llamas were killed by coyotes, that's how it was reported. However, when they found the dead cow, they could see wolves from where they were standing. You think that the rancher coming to that conclusion was pulling it right out of his butt or might there have been just a tad of justification? C'mon BT, if it looks like a wolf, walks like a wolf, and has a NY sirloin in it's mouth, what are the chances that was a cougar kill?
I am just saying that it seems like every dead animal we see now is a wolf kill according to people on this site. If someone in Puyallup has a sheep killed is it going to be a wolf until someone can prove it wrong? What about Port Angeles? Tri Cities?
So Big Tex if you were out wandering around and found a dead elk with a 30 cal bullet hole and size 12 boot tracks all around it you wouldn't suspect the guy walking around in size 12 boots with a 30-06? Then the next week when you have trail cam pics of the same guy standing over a dead elk, knife in hand, rifle leaning against a tree, still a coincidence? Then the next week as your standing over another dead critter, while the guy in the size 12 boots with the 30-06 is perched on the hillside watching you through his spotting scope... Suspicious of the mans denials yet?
Once the thorough investigation is complete and if enough evidence to prosecute exists, the prosecutor would advise an arrest be made.
Kind of like an autopsy. Collect the evidence and make an educated assessment on the animals demise. Except, no wolf arrests. :chuckle:
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2013, 02:10:00 PM
Post by: cmiller85 on March 28, 2013, 02:20:55 PM
I'm still going to take a biologist's word for it, a biologist who was there, and who knows the facts. Elk don't live forever, if it's their time to die it's likely that it will happen in the winter. I'm surprised we're having a debate over whether elk actually die in the winter or not.
I am not sure that anyone is arguing that. Of course elk die in the winter. What people are having a hard time with is the fact that a healthy mature bull elk, a cow elk and a domestic cow all die relatively close together. Wolves are caught feeding on the corpses, and a biologist for the WDFW (who doesn't have much credibility with hunters due to their previous actions and statements on wolves) now states that wolves did not kill this domestic cow. It is just a huge coincidence that all these animals died after wolves came into the area maybe a month ago.
In most cases I would rely on what the biologist says as well. However, with WDFW's past on the subject and with the string of huge coincidences, I think you can at least reasonably see how someone would have a hard time swallowing that pill.
Post by: vandeman17 on March 28, 2013, 02:23:56 PM
I'm still going to take a biologist's word for it, a biologist who was there, and who knows the facts. Elk don't live forever, if it's their time to die it's likely that it will happen in the winter. I'm surprised we're having a debate over whether elk actually die in the winter or not.
I am not sure that anyone is arguing that. Of course elk die in the winter. What people are having a hard time with is the fact that a healthy mature bull elk, a cow elk and a domestic cow all die relatively close together. Wolves are caught feeding on the corpses, and a biologist for the WDFW (who doesn't have much credibility with hunters due to their previous actions and statements on wolves) now states that wolves did not kill this domestic cow. It is just a huge coincidence that all these animals died after wolves came into the area maybe a month ago.
In most cases I would rely on what the biologist says as well. However, with WDFW's past on the subject and with the string of huge coincidences, I think you can at least reasonably see how someone would have a hard time swallowing that pill.
Couldn't have said it better myself. :tup:
Post by: Curly on March 28, 2013, 02:33:09 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2013, 02:36:11 PM
That all sounds reasonable and I have no argument with any of that. I guess the only thing I really question is all the previous so called "lies" from the WDFW. I'm far from convinced that this has been so commonplace as people on here make it out to be.
As an example, the recent wolf/dog attack in the Twisp area: the original story that someone wrote up and put all over the Internet, said that the WDFW denied that it was a wolf attack, and that they insisted it was instead a cougar attack.
Well, that was far from the truth, it was completely exaggerated in an attempt to make the WDFW look bad. What really happened was in the initial investigation by the WDFW, a simple question was asked of the dog's owner, something to the effect of "could it have been a cougar?"
That's a normal question that anyone would have asked in that situation. Yet people choose to blow it out of proportion into something it wasn't. That's why I have a hard time believing the stories of all these outright lies.
Post by: Curly on March 28, 2013, 02:41:09 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2013, 02:52:32 PM
Another point, did they in fact state that it's 100% certain that the cow was not killed by a wolf? I don't believe they did. I think they did their examination, and could not find any tell tale signs that a wolf killed it. That doesn't mean it wasn't killed by wolves, and I don't believe they ever said they were 100% sure that it wasn't.
And again, none of us were there, so everything we are posting here is nothing but pure speculation.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 28, 2013, 02:55:45 PM
It's a done deal. Next time you find a dead animal haul ass over there and determine the cause. In this case, I am inclined to take the bios word on it.
Post by: AspenBud on March 28, 2013, 03:16:07 PM
There are likely people within the WDFW who think wolves need to be managed. Those people likely recognize that short of some miraculous change the only way for that to happen sooner rather than later is to have as many wolves as close to the cascades as possible to help increase the odds that they will cross the mountains, breed, and reach the goals set forth in their management plan.
Like it or not, that's the only way the problem will start to turn around.
Every wolf killed legally or illegally in the western two thirds of the state is arguably a set back for everyone in the eastern third until the management plan goals are reached.
Whether they are lying or not, I suspect the WDFW will do everything in their power to keep from needing an excuse to shoot them because they recognize the obvious now...
The die is cast. They must cross in order for wolf management to have a chance of beginning.
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2013, 03:18:59 PM
Quote
The die is cast. They must cross in order for wolf management to have a chance of beginning.
Are you certain of that? Does it actually say that in the plan? I haven't seen it.
But I sure would like to know if wolves west of the mountains is a requirement. :dunno:
Post by: AspenBud on March 28, 2013, 03:23:48 PM
QuoteThe die is cast. They must cross in order for wolf management to have a chance of beginning.
Are you certain of that? Does it actually say that in the plan? I haven't seen it.
But I sure would like to know if wolves west of the mountains is a requirement. :dunno:
That's how I read it.
"Recovery goals: The plan establishes a delisting objective of 15 breeding pairs of wolves that are present in the state for at least three years, with at least four in Eastern Washington, four in the northern Cascades, four in the southern Cascades/Northwest coastal area, and three others anywhere in the state. The plan also provides for WDFW to consider initiating the delisting process if 18 breeding pairs are documented during a single year, and the distribution objectives are met."
From...
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/mgmt_plan.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/mgmt_plan.html)
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2013, 03:33:16 PM
So what if there were 4 breeding pairs in the southern cascades, on the east side of the Cascades. And no wolves actually within the "northwest coastal" part of that zone?
Would that be enough to meet the requirements set forth in the plan?
Post by: bearpaw on March 28, 2013, 03:37:41 PM
QuoteThe die is cast. They must cross in order for wolf management to have a chance of beginning.
Are you certain of that? Does it actually say that in the plan? I haven't seen it.
But I sure would like to know if wolves west of the mountains is a requirement. :dunno:
It was just verified last night in the meeting, at least 4 BP's for 3 consecutive years in each of the 3 wolf zones, plus 3 additional BP's anywhere.
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2013, 03:40:07 PM
QuoteThe die is cast. They must cross in order for wolf management to have a chance of beginning.
Are you certain of that? Does it actually say that in the plan? I haven't seen it.
But I sure would like to know if wolves west of the mountains is a requirement. :dunno:
It was just verified last night in the meeting, at least 4 BP's for 3 consecutive years in each of the 3 wolf zones, plus 3 additional BP's anywhere.
That doesn't answer my question. We could have the 4 breeding pairs in each zone, plus the 3 additional breeding pairs anywhere, and STILL NOT have any wolves west of the Cascade Mountains.
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on March 28, 2013, 03:42:05 PM
Post by: Curly on March 28, 2013, 03:43:06 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2013, 03:43:53 PM
No...
Can you show me where it says that in the wolf plan?
Post by: Curly on March 28, 2013, 03:53:34 PM
Post by: AspenBud on March 28, 2013, 03:54:10 PM
I'm not saying we have to like it, but I think this is how it plays out.
Post by: boneaddict on March 28, 2013, 03:56:43 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2013, 03:57:31 PM
I guess I will have to ask this question of a WDFW biologist to know for sure.
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2013, 04:00:28 PM
My point is the same regardless and I guess I should have rephrased it. The sooner wolves are in all three units and achieving their goal the sooner we can manage them.
I'm not saying we have to like it, but I think this is how it plays out.
I agree but I'm still curious about where wolves actually have to be in order to meet the requirements of the plan. Will there need to be a breeding pair on the Olympic Peninsula, for instance?
Post by: Curly on March 28, 2013, 04:00:57 PM
Post by: Curly on March 28, 2013, 04:03:05 PM
My point is the same regardless and I guess I should have rephrased it. The sooner wolves are in all three units and achieving their goal the sooner we can manage them.
I'm not saying we have to like it, but I think this is how it plays out.
I agree but I'm still curious about where wolves actually have to be in order to meet the requirements of the plan. Will there need to be a breeding pair on the Olympic Peninsula, for instance?
The way I read the plan, the answer is no.
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2013, 04:04:28 PM
There are already wolves on the west side, so I really don;t think you are going to have to worry about it. But why would you need to believe me, I'm not a paid WDFW biologist.
I've heard rumors but have yet to hear of any proof. There are trail cameras everywhere over here. No trail cam pictures yet that I have seen.
Post by: AspenBud on March 28, 2013, 04:05:15 PM
There are already wolves on the west side, so I really don;t think you are going to have to worry about it. But why would you need to believe me, I'm not a paid WDFW biologist.
I keep hearing rumors of them in the Toutle and Lewis units, that's for sure.
Unfortunately there were a lot of folks who liked to breed hybrids around there for a number of years and WDFW and the sheriffs got called to investigate some for many years. Until one is trapped or caught in the act...
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on March 28, 2013, 04:09:08 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2013, 04:14:43 PM
Quote
page 27 of the wolf plan shows the map for the 3 zones... you could read it as they just need to get south of I90 and that would count for the southern cascades/Northwest coast.
Yes, that's how I read it. If that's the case, then we will get to the minimum required breeding pairs much sooner than if the requirement was for there to be wolves on the Olympic Peninsula and the Willapa Hills.
Post by: bearpaw on March 28, 2013, 04:14:43 PM
There are already wolves on the west side, so I really don;t think you are going to have to worry about it. But why would you need to believe me, I'm not a paid WDFW biologist.
:yeah:
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2013, 04:15:14 PM
There are already wolves on the west side, so I really don;t think you are going to have to worry about it. But why would you need to believe me, I'm not a paid WDFW biologist.
:yeah:
Again, where is the proof?
Post by: Curly on March 28, 2013, 04:15:43 PM
:o
Post by: bearpaw on March 28, 2013, 04:17:28 PM
Wolves need confirmed ASAP.
:o
In the NE there are at least twice as many packs as they have confirmed. :twocents:
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on March 28, 2013, 04:19:41 PM
There are already wolves on the west side, so I really don;t think you are going to have to worry about it. But why would you need to believe me, I'm not a paid WDFW biologist.
:yeah:
Again, where is the proof?
Pictures and locations of the Nooksack wolves have been sent to region 4 again...
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2013, 04:24:32 PM
Quote
Pictures and locations of the Nooksack wolves have been sent to region 4 again...
Okay, so those will be included in the same zone as the Wenatchee, Teanaway, and Lookout packs (North Central.)
What I'm more interested in is confirmation of wolves on the west side, that are within the south cascades/northwest coastal zone.
Post by: Ridgeratt on March 28, 2013, 04:26:10 PM
QuotePictures and locations of the Nooksack wolves have been sent to region 4 again...
Okay, so those will be included in the same zone as the Wenatchee, Teanaway, and Lookout packs (North Central.)
What I'm more interested in is confirmation of wolves on the west side, that are within the south cascades/northwest coastal zone.
I'm sure you are starting to!!
Post by: SGTDuffman on March 28, 2013, 04:27:09 PM
Anyway, here's a quote from the story that started this thread:
Quote
“State biologists and enforcement officers dissected the dead cow in Pitcher Canyon on Tuesday with the ranchers present. Monda said they did not find any puncture holes, crushing bruises or internal bleeding that are characteristic of wolves or other predators having killed an animal.
Something did eat the cow, but all evidence indicated that it was fed upon after it died,” he said. “But there was no sign of a scuffle, no torn-up ground, no blood. There was absolutely no sign that it was killed by a predator of any kind.”
Ross Hurd, the rancher who owns the cattle with his two brothers, said he disagrees with the agency's conclusions. He said the agency's investigators talked about the path of the struggle over some 30 yards, and the disturbed ground, and the bloody wound on the back of the cow's neck. He also said he understands that the agency needs specific evidence to confirm it was a wolf kill, but he doesn't understand how the agency can conclude a wolf did not kill his cow.
For now, he's more concerned about wolves still lingering on his ranch. This morning, a wolf came right through their calving area, traveling up through their lowest field from below. They were able to chase it away, he said.
Post by: AspenBud on March 28, 2013, 04:28:51 PM
There are already wolves on the west side, so I really don;t think you are going to have to worry about it. But why would you need to believe me, I'm not a paid WDFW biologist.
:yeah:
Again, where is the proof?
Pictures and locations of the Nooksack wolves have been sent to region 4 again...
This one of them?
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=79244.0;attach=151798;image (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=79244.0;attach=151798;image)
Did they ever even bother to find these when you last reported them?
Post by: Northway on March 28, 2013, 04:30:32 PM
QuotePictures and locations of the Nooksack wolves have been sent to region 4 again...
Okay, so those will be included in the same zone as the Wenatchee, Teanaway, and Lookout packs (North Central.)
What I'm more interested in is confirmation of wolves on the west side, that are within the south cascades/northwest coastal zone.
No wolves need to be on the Peninsula or even the westside of the southern cascades for delisting. If I get a chance I'll pull up the .pdf of the wolf plan and quote the verbiage.
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2013, 04:31:50 PM
Quote
No wolves need to be on the Peninsula or even the westside of the southern cascades for delisting. If I get a chance I'll pull up the .pdf of the wolf plan and quote the verbiage.
Thanks
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on March 28, 2013, 04:39:26 PM
There are already wolves on the west side, so I really don;t think you are going to have to worry about it. But why would you need to believe me, I'm not a paid WDFW biologist.
:yeah:
I just re-sent them to region 4 a few days ago... this biologist I sent them to I trust. He never seen them the first time I sent them. ANswer to your question, no feedback to me other than probable hybrids.
Again, where is the proof?
Pictures and locations of the Nooksack wolves have been sent to region 4 again...
This one of them?
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=79244.0;attach=151798;image (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=79244.0;attach=151798;image)
Did they ever even bother to find these when you last reported them?
Post by: cougarbart on March 28, 2013, 04:51:23 PM
Post by: Kola16 on March 28, 2013, 04:56:03 PM
what is a pack concidered? i know the clockum elk herd, blue mt elk herd and other regions is not one herd all the elk running together? so could there be 5 different packs that they consider one pack?A breeding pair. Male and female and their offspring (if any).
Post by: huntnphool on March 28, 2013, 04:58:01 PM
There can be a pack without a BP.what is a pack concidered? i know the clockum elk herd, blue mt elk herd and other regions is not one herd all the elk running together? so could there be 5 different packs that they consider one pack?A breeding pair. Male and female and their offspring (if any).
Post by: jackelope on March 28, 2013, 05:04:23 PM
Right. A certain number of packs, then a certain number of breeding pairs.There can be a pack without a BP.what is a pack concidered? i know the clockum elk herd, blue mt elk herd and other regions is not one herd all the elk running together? so could there be 5 different packs that they consider one pack?A breeding pair. Male and female and their offspring (if any).
2 different classifications.
Post by: KFhunter on March 28, 2013, 05:37:23 PM
A cow carcass just doesn't last long in a coyote/bird filled area.
The pic they showed tells me the wolves would have had to find the carcass within about 12 hours of death.
Every cow carcass I've ever come across is nearly painted white from bird droppings within a day or two.
I don't see any bird droppings
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 28, 2013, 05:42:14 PM
those dont look much like wolves to me.There are already wolves on the west side, so I really don;t think you are going to have to worry about it. But why would you need to believe me, I'm not a paid WDFW biologist.
:yeah:
Again, where is the proof?
Pictures and locations of the Nooksack wolves have been sent to region 4 again...
This one of them?
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=79244.0;attach=151798;image (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=79244.0;attach=151798;image)
Did they ever even bother to find these when you last reported them?
Post by: KFhunter on March 28, 2013, 05:44:36 PM
I've never seen a yote do this in such a short period either, I'd like to look closer all I have is these pics to go off of.
http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/photos/galleries/2013/mar/27/wolves-pitcher-canyon/#http://wenatcheeworld.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/20130327-061603-pic-999892236_t550x450.jpg?ac11bf8fe6c3fa35f94967ba750209537ec39bf0 (http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/photos/galleries/2013/mar/27/wolves-pitcher-canyon/#http://wenatcheeworld.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/20130327-061603-pic-999892236_t550x450.jpg?ac11bf8fe6c3fa35f94967ba750209537ec39bf0)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwenatcheeworld.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com%2F20130327-061603-pic-207914701_t550x450.jpg%3Fac11bf8fe6c3fa35f94967ba750209537ec39bf0&hash=4967592231009bbe3d220f4c1e13622d0277dfd5)
Post by: KFhunter on March 28, 2013, 05:46:46 PM
Nothing jiives with what the WDFW say's. Any cattle rancher could tell this right away.
Post by: Curly on March 28, 2013, 06:05:16 PM
a) dumb
b) A liar
c) some other option
:dunno:
If he is lying, then is he lying so that WDFW doesn't have to pay the rancher for his losses? Or does he just love wolves so much that he doesn't want to admit that it was a wolf kill? hmm....
Post by: KFhunter on March 28, 2013, 06:16:38 PM
So, assuming this is a wolf kill (which is highly likely), is the bio:
a) dumb
b) A liar
c) some other option
:dunno:
If he is lying, then is he lying so that WDFW doesn't have to pay the rancher for his losses? Or does he just love wolves so much that he doesn't want to admit that it was a wolf kill? hmm....
c) Some other option (pressure from his chain of command)
It's likely the evidence wasn't conclusive enough as cause of death to satisfy his chain of command. In the case of the McIrvins for every "confirmend wolf kill" they had many more probable but inconclusive.
being that I don't need to have the same evidence to form my opinion of cause of death I'm going to say a wolf killed it ;)
edit: I'd like to see the evidentary requirements for what it takes to have confirmed a wolf kill.
I'd also like to know why that determination cannot be made in the field (if that is indeed the case)
Post by: buckfvr on March 28, 2013, 06:22:34 PM
Post by: Curly on March 28, 2013, 06:24:55 PM
Post by: KFhunter on March 28, 2013, 06:27:02 PM
Ok, so somebody sitting behind a desk in Olympia told him to say it wasn't a wolf kill. :o
From what I understand, yes.
A decision maker in Olympia must approve all confirmend wolf kills.
Post by: winshooter88 on March 28, 2013, 06:29:38 PM
Post by: dontgetcrabs on March 28, 2013, 06:56:18 PM
those dont look much like wolves to me.
Definitely coyotes. ;) :mgun: :IBCOOL:
Post by: NoImpactNoIdea on March 28, 2013, 07:49:46 PM
Ok, so somebody sitting behind a desk in Olympia told him to say it wasn't a wolf kill. :o
From what I understand, yes.
A decision maker in Olympia must approve all confirmend wolf kills.
It will be just like crime stats or any other controvercial subject. Deny, deny, deny, till they are caught in the act.
Post by: Alan K on March 28, 2013, 07:50:27 PM
This one of them?
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=79244.0;attach=151798;image (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=79244.0;attach=151798;image)
Did they ever even bother to find these when you last reported them?
Those must be uh . . . Hybrid uh. . . Hybrid wolves that people raised and then escaped and then bred in the wild. . .
C'mon people! Anymore there is so much damn propoganda out there that you have to take everything with a grain of salt and decide for yourself whether you believe what you're seeing/hearing anymore! Having just graduated from a natural resources college nearly two years ago I can say that every wildlife major I encountered at the University of IDAHO ( :yike:) was a bleeding heart wolf hugging liberal. Hell, most of them hated hunting! All they cared about the animals, in the context of fuzzy friendly animals, not conservation. I have no reservation whatsoever looking at anything any DFW (be it WA, ID, or even WY) announces skeptically because I know the type of crop they're introducing to their departments.
Taking the WDFW's word on anything is just naive. Look at the facts presented and make your own decision, don't just take someones word for it! No doubt in my mind there is bias within WDFG any for that matter every game department, government, private company etc. in this world!
Post by: jackelope on March 28, 2013, 10:34:36 PM
Post by: KelseyH on March 28, 2013, 10:34:54 PM
End Rant.
Post by: 250savage on March 29, 2013, 08:15:42 AM
Post by: Fowlweather25 on March 29, 2013, 08:40:09 AM
It was wolves. All those who are in denial need to wake up and come back to reality.
Post by: mulehunter on March 29, 2013, 09:15:03 AM
:rolleyes:
Post by: bearpaw on March 29, 2013, 09:15:22 AM
The article in the Wen. World also says that " Ross Hurd the rancher who Owens the cattle with 2 brothers said he disagrees with the agency's conclusion. he said the agency investigators talked about the path of the struggle over some 30 yards, and the disturbed ground, and the bloody wound on the back of the cow's neck. This was in the article.
So here is what I think is going on and I guarantee I am not the only person thinking this. I think WDFW agents conferred back and forth with Olympia and were told to call it something other than a wolf kill. This is why agents must be able to call wolf kills on the spot. If a person requested the cell phone records of the agents involved, I would bet the calls are going to Olympia Managers rather than to other agents who know how to identify wolf kills.
This is the exact same path followed in Idaho and Montana early on. In Idaho they had to figure out who the problem people were within the IDFG and they had to make personnel changes to resolve the problem. Idaho is finally on a better path with wolf management.
Post by: Northway on March 29, 2013, 09:20:16 AM
QuoteNo wolves need to be on the Peninsula or even the westside of the southern cascades for delisting. If I get a chance I'll pull up the .pdf of the wolf plan and quote the verbiage.
Thanks
Bobcat,
From the Wolf Management Plan:
Page 64 of 301
"Mountains contain much of the “significant portion of the historical range” that would ensure the
long-term survival of the population. However, despite the presence of considerable high quality
habitat for wolves on the Olympic Peninsula and in southwestern Washington (Figure 10), wolves
would not need to occupy these areas to achieve recovery if they were present in both halves of the
Cascades and eastern Washington in sufficient numbers to satisfy the recovery objectives for each of
the three recovery regions. Eastern Washington is currently being recolonized from adjacent
populations in neighboring states and British Columbia, whereas the Olympic Peninsula and
southwestern Washington are distant from colonizing sources and separated by additional potential
barriers inhibiting natural dispersal. Recovery is therefore likely to happen more quickly through the
reoccupation of eastern Washington than waiting for wolves to reach far western Washington."
Page 68 of 301
"Recovery Objectives
The following recovery objectives have been identified to transition from one listed status to the
next:
1. The gray wolf will be considered for downlisting from state endangered to threatened
when 6 successful breeding pairs are present for 3 consecutive years, with:
• 2 successful breeding pairs in the Eastern Washington region,
• 2 successful breeding pairs in the Northern Cascades region, and
• 2 successful breeding pairs distributed in the Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast
region.
2. The gray wolf will be considered for downlisting from state threatened to sensitive when
12 successful breeding pairs are present for 3 consecutive years, with:
• 4 successful breeding pairs in the Eastern Washington region,
• 4 successful breeding pairs in the Northern Cascades region, and
• 4 successful breeding pairs distributed in the Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast
region.
3. The gray wolf will be considered for delisting from state sensitive when:
15 successful breeding pairs are present for 3 consecutive years, with:
• 4 successful breeding pairs in the Eastern Washington region,
• 4 successful breeding pairs in the Northern Cascades region,
• 4 successful breeding pairs distributed in the Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast
region, and
• 3 successful breeding pairs anywhere in the state.
Or:
In addition to the delisting objective of 15 successful breeding pairs distributed in the three
geographic regions for 3 consecutive years, an alternative delisting objective is also established
whereby the gray wolf will be considered for delisting when:
18 successful breeding pairs are present with the following distribution:
• 4 successful breeding pairs in the Eastern Washington region,
• 4 successful breeding pairs in the Northern Cascades region, and
• 4 successful breeding pairs distributed in the Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast
region, and
• 6 anywhere in the state."
So the plan doesn't address your questions about southwestern Cascades vs. southeastern Cascades with the level of specificity that you might be looking for, but I do believe it generally answers the question of whether breeding pair benchmarks could be achieved for the Coastal and Southern Cascades region entirely by BP's on the east slopes.
Post by: wolfbait on March 29, 2013, 09:32:57 AM
By Michelle McNiel
World staff writer
Originally published March 28, 2013 at 8:21 a.m., updated March 28, 2013 at 10:17 a.m.
WENATCHEE — State wildlife experts have concluded that a pregnant cow found dead south of Wenatchee on Tuesday was not killed by a wolf.
However they are still worried about the two gray wolves that appear to be establishing territory on or near a cattle ranch in Pitcher Canyon.
“We’re just kind of on pins and needles hoping that this livestock operator doesn’t have any more issues with dead cows,” said Matt Monda, regional wildlife program manager for the state Department of Fish and Wildlife. “Once wolves learn that livestock is a meal, then we will have to go in and take action.”
In extreme cases, the action may require killing wolves, which are protected under federal and state endangered species laws.
“But that’s a very volatile path to take,” he added.
Pictures of the wolves have been captured on remote camera feeding on elk carcasses on the ranch for the last week and a half, though wildlife experts also concluded that the wolves had not killed at least one of those elks.
Monda said if the wolves had just come across a dead elk, they could feed on it for a week or more. So the agency doesn’t know if the wolves are just lingering in the canyon right now because they’ve found dead animals to eat or whether they’ve established a territory that now includes the ranch.
“As long as they have something to eat, there’s no reason for them to go somewhere else,” he said.
State biologists and enforcement officers dissected the dead cow in Pitcher Canyon on Tuesday with the ranchers present. Monda said they did not find any puncture holes, crushing bruises or internal bleeding that are characteristic of wolves or other predators having killed an animal.
“Something did eat the cow, but all evidence indicated that it was fed upon after it died,” he said. “But there was no sign of a scuffle, no torn-up ground, no blood. There was absolutely no sign that it was killed by a predator of any kind.”
Ross Hurd, the rancher who owns the cattle with his two brothers, said he disagrees with the agency's conclusions. He said the agency's iunvestigators talked about the path of the struggle over some 30 yards, and the disturbed ground, and the bloody wound on the back of the cow's neck. He also said he understands that the agency needs specific evidence to confirm it was a wolf kill, but he doesn't understand how the agency can conclude a wolf did not kill his cow.
For now, he's more concerned about wolves still lingering on his ranch. This morning, a wolf came right through their calving area, traveling up through their lowest field from below. They were able to chase it away, he said.
The agency hopes to trap one or both of the wolves this spring. Once the animals are outfitted with tracking collars, the agency can get a better idea of their territory and movement patterns.
Monda said the two closest wolf packs to Wenatchee — the Teanaway pack near Cle Elum and the Lookout pack in the Methow Valley — have very different territory patterns. The Teanaway pack tends to stay at lower elevations year round as it follows the deer and elk populations. The Lookout pack in the Methow Valley moves from lower, more populated elevations in the winter to higher, more backcountry locations in the summer, with the migration of the deer..
“So we don’t know if these (Wenatchee) wolves will move further and further away from Wenatchee as the summer progresses,” Monda said.
Pitcher Canyon is on the fringe of the Colockum elk habitat, “in an area where we would expect a wolf pack to do well,” he said.
Monda said the agency has no prediction on how large a pack could grow near Wenatchee. He said the Lookout pack to the north is “tenuous at best” with just two known wolves right now.
“They are just barely hanging on up there,” he said, adding that while the territory in North Central Washington is prime for wolves, “They aren’t taking off (in numbers) here like they have in other areas.”
The state agency had expected wolves to have established themselves more by now in the area between Wenatchee and the Methow Valley, he said.
If the two wolves spotted near Wenatchee are establishing a pack here, then Wenatchee would be the largest city in the state to have a wolf pack so close. However, many smaller communities do have wolves routinely nearby, including Winthrop and Twisp.
If the wolves hang around, Monda said the agency will make a “concerted effort” to educate people in the area about them.
The most likely interactions between people and wolves are either ranches or people who are hiking or working in wolf territory.
But Monda said it’s no different than the expectation that you might encounter a black bear, coyote, cougar or bobcat in the same areas.
“Is there any added risks with the wolves? I would say probably not,” he said. http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2013/mar/28/wolves-didnt-kill-cow-state-says/ (http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2013/mar/28/wolves-didnt-kill-cow-state-says/)
"State biologists and enforcement officers dissected the dead cow in Pitcher Canyon on Tuesday with the ranchers present. Monda said they did not find any puncture holes, crushing bruises or internal bleeding that are characteristic of wolves or other predators having killed an animal."
“Something did eat the cow, but all evidence indicated that it was fed upon after it died,” he said. “But there was no sign of a scuffle, no torn-up ground, no blood. There was absolutely no sign that it was killed by a predator of any kind.”
Top wolf managers in Olympia have made their minds up, not wanting to go with "it was probably a cougar" again, Conservation NW and WDFW have concluded "anything but their wolves killed the cow"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“By the time we got to the carcass it was too old for me to say yay or nay if it was killed by a wolf,” said Scott Fitkin, wildlife biologist with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. “It was clearly fed on by something, but not much was left but a lot of maggots.” Fitkin and a USDA Wildlife Services agent inspected the carcass on Friday (May 22).
http://www.conservationnw.org/pressroom/press-clips/proof-of-wolf-kill-may-elude-investigators (http://www.conservationnw.org/pressroom/press-clips/proof-of-wolf-kill-may-elude-investigators)
When experts examined the decomposing cow May 22, it had been so worked over by scavengers that there was little left but hide and hip bones.
Even so, "there was nothing about the carcass to indicate that wolves had anything to do with it," said Doug Zimmer, a spokesman for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009307261_wolves06m.html (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009307261_wolves06m.html)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Hurd, the rancher who owns the cattle with his two brothers, said he disagrees with the agency's conclusions. He said the agency's iunvestigators talked about the path of the struggle over some 30 yards, and the disturbed ground, and the bloody wound on the back of the cow's neck. He also said he understands that the agency needs specific evidence to confirm it was a wolf kill, but he doesn't understand how the agency can conclude a wolf did not kill his cow.
Post by: Northway on March 29, 2013, 09:33:28 AM
The article in the Wen. World also says that " Ross Hurd the rancher who Owens the cattle with 2 brothers said he disagrees with the agency's conclusion. he said the agency investigators talked about the path of the struggle over some 30 yards, and the disturbed ground, and the bloody wound on the back of the cow's neck. This was in the article.
So here is what I think is going on and I guarantee I am not the only person thinking this. I think WDFW agents conferred back and forth with Olympia and were told to call it something other than a wolf kill. This is why agents must be able to call wolf kills on the spot. If a person requested the cell phone records of the agents involved, I would bet the calls are going to Olympia Managers rather than to other agents who know how to identify wolf kills.
This is the exact same path followed in Idaho and Montana early on. In Idaho they had to figure out who the problem people were within the IDFG and they had to make personnel changes to resolve the problem. Idaho is finally on a better path with wolf management.
I would agree that they will probably be conservative in how quickly they list this pack as depredating. To bios this pack is much more important than the Smackout Pack because of it's location and contribution to recolonising the Cascades. It's the same thing with the Teanaway pack; they wouldn't remove either pack until **** really hit the fan in terms of depredations.
For a specific example in a nother state: The ODFW has given the Imnaha Pack a lot more leeway that maybe it should have because they believed it to be a cornerstone of Oregon wolf recovery.
Post by: wolfbait on March 29, 2013, 09:40:38 AM
Post by: bearpaw on March 29, 2013, 09:51:14 AM
Post by: wolfbait on March 29, 2013, 09:52:26 AM
Monda said the agency has no prediction on how large a pack could grow near Wenatchee. He said the Lookout pack to the north is “tenuous at best” with just two known wolves right now.
“They are just barely hanging on up there,” he said, adding that while the territory in North Central Washington is prime for wolves, “They aren’t taking off (in numbers) here like they have in other areas.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds like Fitkin, Wolves are now fattening up on the deer of the Golden Doe deer habitat we just bought (2009)
Every wolf sighting within miles around will be part of the Wenatchee pack, and if they have to take a couple wolves out for killing livestock, it will set the wolf pack back for years, just part of the plan.
I see they are still lying about the Lookout pack, you will notice they don't mention any of the other packs in the Methow.
How can they say the wolves aren't taking off they can't see that from their office in Olympia? How many wolf sightings in the last five years have been reported to WDFW and ignored?
Post by: Curly on March 29, 2013, 09:53:06 AM
Quote
Now the deaths of ungulates is next. Hunters kill approx 300,000 deer yearly in the US. How many are killed by wolves across this country? The less than 100 wolves in this state?
Who deserves the animals? The actual animal predators who need the meat for the literal survival of their species? Or is it the hunters who have plenty of $$$ to spend on pretzels and potato chips, tags, camps, weapons, ammo, beer and free time frolicking with their buds in the boonies?
I'd go with the wolves.
This is the kind of mentality we are up against. ???
Post by: wolfbait on March 29, 2013, 09:59:04 AM
We have a serious problem, two areas of the state are going to be over run with wolves before we get wolves confirmed in the 3rd wolf area. Nobody in WDFW seems to care what happens in the other two wolf areas, all they seem to care about is getting lots of wolves everywhere. :bash:
We have had a serious problem for a long time BP, and it's about to get a whole lot worse. Bobcat doesn't want wolves too bad in his part of WA, but he is a bit too late in the complant department. I was talking to a friend of mine the other night, he said he knew of a WDFW bio who wanted to confirm some wolf packs on the wetside, WDFW said NO.
Wolves double in size every year and if they are in good eating even more, this is the same *censored* that ID, MT, and Wyoming went through. State game agencies who hide wolves and lie right up to the point that it is useless, at which time they leap to their feet and cry wolf.
Post by: wolfbait on March 29, 2013, 10:07:28 AM
A comment on the Wenatchee World article by a guy going by the name "antzrus":QuoteNow the deaths of ungulates is next. Hunters kill approx 300,000 deer yearly in the US. How many are killed by wolves across this country? The less than 100 wolves in this state?
Who deserves the animals? The actual animal predators who need the meat for the literal survival of their species? Or is it the hunters who have plenty of $$$ to spend on pretzels and potato chips, tags, camps, weapons, ammo, beer and free time frolicking with their buds in the boonies?
I'd go with the wolves.
This is the kind of mentality we are up against. ???
The USFWS started their wolf propaganda in the 1950's and they are still spouting the same lies, they have brain-washed a whole generation of people. WDFW<Conservation NW, Defenders of Wildlife, mainstream media, have and still are contributing to the same propaganda.
But more people are starting to see through the lies, the wolf issue isn't that easy especially when you have state game agencies lying to the people.
Post by: JLS on March 29, 2013, 10:20:39 AM
[, this is the same *censored* that ID, MT, and Wyoming went through. State game agencies who hide wolves and lie right up to the point that it is useless, at which time they leap to their feet and cry wolf.
And this is the mentality that makes hunter look ridiculous, the continuous accusations of lies about wolves. I lived in MT for a long time during the wolf population boom, and there were no lies from that state. And, contrary to Bearpaw's assertion there were no hunts created to skew numbers to keep harvest stats high. Lots of cow elk died because of a legislative mandate that all elk populations would be reduced to "objectives" or else.
Post by: MR5x5 on March 29, 2013, 10:24:44 AM
Trap them, move them to the Capital Forest, cross one west side pack off the list.
Why do they need to establish packs through natural migration?
Post by: huntnphool on March 29, 2013, 10:28:31 AM
I may have missed it but I don't think Dale ever suggested they skewed the harvest numbers, is this what you are referring too? http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,121068.msg1609065.html#msg1609065 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,121068.msg1609065.html#msg1609065)[, this is the same *censored* that ID, MT, and Wyoming went through. State game agencies who hide wolves and lie right up to the point that it is useless, at which time they leap to their feet and cry wolf.
And this is the mentality that makes hunter look ridiculous, the continuous accusations of lies about wolves. And, contrary to Bearpaw's assertion there were no hunts created to skew numbers to keep harvest stats high
Post by: bobcat on March 29, 2013, 10:32:25 AM
So they want to trap an collar the wolves....
Trap them, move them to the Capital Forest, cross one west side pack off the list.
Why do they need to establish packs through natural migration?
No wolves are needed on the westside in order to meet the minimum requirements for delisting. So, let's keep the wolves "over there" please! :tup:
Post by: JLS on March 29, 2013, 10:34:59 AM
I may have missed it but I don't think Dale ever suggested they skewed the harvest numbers, is this what you are referring too? http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,121068.msg1609065.html#msg1609065 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,121068.msg1609065.html#msg1609065)[, this is the same *censored* that ID, MT, and Wyoming went through. State game agencies who hide wolves and lie right up to the point that it is useless, at which time they leap to their feet and cry wolf.
And this is the mentality that makes hunter look ridiculous, the continuous accusations of lies about wolves. And, contrary to Bearpaw's assertion there were no hunts created to skew numbers to keep harvest stats high
[/quote]When I spoke I spoke to the audience, it was apparent the WDFW was there to preach but not to listen to local concerns, when I did ask them questions they actually seemed to not even hear my questions, I had to emphasize "this is a question". I told the audience that WDFW was following the same path that Idaho and Montana followed by using misleading data to hide the damage done by wolves. I told the audience that Idaho had to get rid of certain pro-wolf managers before real wolf management could begin in Idaho. Idaho and Montana increased cow harvest and season length in areas unaffected by wolves to make the elk harvest look stable across the state [/quote]
Post by: huntnphool on March 29, 2013, 10:41:01 AM
When I spoke I spoke to the audience, it was apparent the WDFW was there to preach but not to listen to local concerns, when I did ask them questions they actually seemed to not even hear my questions, I had to emphasize "this is a question". I told the audience that WDFW was following the same path that Idaho and Montana followed by using misleading data to hide the damage done by wolves. I told the audience that Idaho had to get rid of certain pro-wolf managers before real wolf management could begin in Idaho. Idaho and Montana increased cow harvest and season length in areas unaffected by wolves to make the elk harvest look stable across the state [/quote]I may have missed it but I don't think Dale ever suggested they skewed the harvest numbers, is this what you are referring too? http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,121068.msg1609065.html#msg1609065 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,121068.msg1609065.html#msg1609065)[, this is the same *censored* that ID, MT, and Wyoming went through. State game agencies who hide wolves and lie right up to the point that it is useless, at which time they leap to their feet and cry wolf.
And this is the mentality that makes hunter look ridiculous, the continuous accusations of lies about wolves. And, contrary to Bearpaw's assertion there were no hunts created to skew numbers to keep harvest stats high
[/quote]
I did not read that, thanks. In Dales defense though, Montana did increase their elk seasons two consecutive years into the middle of December. ;)
Post by: JLS on March 29, 2013, 10:44:14 AM
Post by: wolfbait on March 29, 2013, 10:58:05 AM
[, this is the same *censored* that ID, MT, and Wyoming went through. State game agencies who hide wolves and lie right up to the point that it is useless, at which time they leap to their feet and cry wolf.
And this is the mentality that makes hunter look ridiculous, the continuous accusations of lies about wolves. I lived in MT for a long time during the wolf population boom, and there were no lies from that state. And, contrary to Bearpaw's assertion there were no hunts created to skew numbers to keep harvest stats high. Lots of cow elk died because of a legislative mandate that all elk populations would be reduced to "objectives" or else.
The Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd
http://idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20a (http://idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20a) … 20herd.pdf
Post by: JLS on March 29, 2013, 11:07:36 AM
Post by: wolfbait on March 29, 2013, 11:13:11 AM
Your link doesn't work, :sry: and yes I know all about the Northern Yellowstone elk herd. I also know that the herd level was way too high for the winter range, and that hunters were killing elk by the hundreds and thousands every year during the late elk hunt. I also know that wolves have had an impact on the numbers.
The Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd
http://idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2017%20Feb-Mar%202006%20The%20Northern%20Yellowstone%20elk%20herd.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2017%20Feb-Mar%202006%20The%20Northern%20Yellowstone%20elk%20herd.pdf)
Post by: bearpaw on March 29, 2013, 11:14:08 AM
MFWP completely shut down most of the Yellowstone late hunts due to a lack of elk and harvest has dropped in other wolf affected areas. The seasons have been greatly reduced in affected areas in Idaho and more harvest is coming from unaffected areas. So it was very misleading for WDFW to show a graph indicating there were little impacts caused by wolves.
It was especially frustrating for everyone who had to sit there and listen to irrelevant data from all over the state of WA when we were all there to hear what WDFW was going to do to protect ungulate herds in NE WA. Definitely a poor excuse for a dog and pony show. As someone else mentioned, WDFW has already started increasing other permits and seasons in other areas. This will hide the low harvest in NE WA when you compare year to year harvest on a statewide level.
Post by: bearpaw on March 29, 2013, 11:17:11 AM
Post by: JLS on March 29, 2013, 11:22:52 AM
Data can be skewed in many ways to say what you want it to say. All things must be taken in context, or else one can easily be misled. I would certainly agree that simply focusing on statewide elk harvest is not an accurate indicator of the impact that wolves may have on localized hunter harvest.
Post by: wolfbait on March 29, 2013, 11:35:51 AM
I wasn't at the meeting and won't even try to speak to it. However, your continued assertion that the motive for increasing elk harvest in other areas was to hide or mask the affect of wolves is patently false. I will again refer you to the 2003 legislation in MT that directed FWP to reduce elk numbers in many elk management units. Debbie Barrett out of Dillon was the sponsor.
Data can be skewed in many ways to say what you want it to say. All things must be taken in context, or else one can easily be misled. I would certainly agree that simply focusing on statewide elk harvest is not an accurate indicator of the impact that wolves may have on localized hunter harvest.
Just one more thing JLS> "And this is the mentality that makes hunter look ridiculous, the continuous accusations of lies about wolves."
What makes hunters look "rediculous" is after 17 years of wolf promoters proven to be Liars by their own wolves, hunters can't seem to come together as One and fight for their hunting.
Post by: 6x6in6 on March 29, 2013, 11:38:06 AM
I wasn't at the meeting and won't even try to speak to it. However, your continued assertion that the motive for increasing elk harvest in other areas was to hide or mask the affect of wolves is patently false. I will again refer you to the 2003 legislation in MT that directed FWP to reduce elk numbers in many elk management units. Debbie Barrett out of Dillon was the sponsor.
Data can be skewed in many ways to say what you want it to say. All things must be taken in context, or else one can easily be misled. I would certainly agree that simply focusing on statewide elk harvest is not an accurate indicator of the impact that wolves may have on localized hunter harvest.
The wolf plan specifically states, and I quote form said wolf plan..... "During recovery stages, while wolves are listed in Washington, it is unlikely that they will have a significant negative effect on ungulate populations in the state. However, if WDFW determined that wolf predation was a primary limiting factor for an “at-risk” ungulate population, and the wolf population in that wolf recovery region was at least 4 successful breeding pairs, WDFW could consider reducing wolf abundance in the localized area occupied by the ungulate population before state delisting occurs.
I may be wrong in my interpretation of the bold above, but 4 successful breeding pairs within the wolf recovery region COULD CONSIDER reducing.......
Nothing at all about State numbers.
Need to get to 4 to begin with in North Cascade Region. Then they need to have puppies for 3 consecutive years. And then the WDFW COULD CONSIDER reducing.......
It's BS!!! Nothing here clearly states that the WDFW has to do squat, except consider. :bash:
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 29, 2013, 11:46:02 AM
Post by: 6x6in6 on March 29, 2013, 12:05:09 PM
First of all that RED is an obnioxious color to read can you tone it to say a more readable color. Thanks. The State will and has jumbled the numbers as they have already done in the pastYeah, that was a little annoying wasn't it.
Post by: wolfbait on March 29, 2013, 12:40:16 PM
Specifically at the Colville meeting the WDFW presented a graph which depicted elk harvest in Idaho as steady indicating ungulates were not affected much by wolves. I challenged their graph, Idaho and Montana increased harvest in other areas to hide the impacts of wolves and I mentioned the Lolo, Bitterroot, Yellowstone, Payette, and other impacted herds. It is a fact that more elk are being harvested in areas unaffected by wolves in Montana and Idaho. I suppose I cannot prove that was their purpose of increasing harvest in unaffected areas, but the end affect is exactly as I specified. On a statewide harvest level it gives the appearance that wolves do not impact harvest, but the truth is that local harvest levels have been severely impacted.
MFWP completely shut down most of the Yellowstone late hunts due to a lack of elk and harvest has dropped in other wolf affected areas. The seasons have been greatly reduced in affected areas in Idaho and more harvest is coming from unaffected areas. So it was very misleading for WDFW to show a graph indicating there were little impacts caused by wolves.
It was especially frustrating for everyone who had to sit there and listen to irrelevant data from all over the state of WA when we were all there to hear what WDFW was going to do to protect ungulate herds in NE WA. Definitely a poor excuse for a dog and pony show. As someone else mentioned, WDFW has already started increasing other permits and seasons in other areas. This will hide the low harvest in NE WA when you compare year to year harvest on a statewide level.
Good Job BP, I couldn't make it as planned, but I'm happy you softened them up for me :chuckle: I'm sure they will hit the Okanogan packing their same bucket of BS, and their same I could give a chit attitude. Remember the meetings over the wolf plan? they came, lied laughed and left. Same/same.
WDFW are going to have to clearcut to reach their goal of the Methow. What happens when six hunters show up and they kill five bucks? WDFW's tool will run to the local paper and say for the amount of hunters we had, the Methow deer season was a great sucess? This will be the new WA Hunting report in every county before long.
I talk to a friend of mine who lives at Grand Coulee, he said there have been wolves seen in the Tri-cities area chasing deer. I wonder how long it will be before WDFW's wolves kill some cows around there? More wolves are being reported around Deer Park also.
WDFW are going to need several million for the sudden increase in wolves, just think in 2008 according to WDFW we were just starting wolf recovery, in a few years we will have a worse wolf problem then Idaho. Wait in see.
Post by: mountainman on March 30, 2013, 09:36:00 AM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on March 30, 2013, 11:03:58 AM
Why do people on this site think that these animals are wolf kills? Wolves are 500 yards from the body, that is why. Everywhere the wolves show up this happens, the game becomes nonexistent and yet the wolves never have anything what so ever to do with it. (((Bullblank!))) I find it amazing the level of proof that must be visible to determine a wolf kill. Why not just demand that there must be 3 WDFW biologist eyewitnesses to any kill. There would be little difference in the outcome. Unbelievable. (I'd say stop with the fake CIS investigation but that would mean no photo op with the Wenatchee World showing how WDFW works with ranchers for a viable solution. That solution BTW is screw you ranchers!)
If WDFW were to have gone with the rest of the States and ended wolf protection and started a season, none of this would be an issue. At the very least not an issue to the level that it is.
Like the rest of government these days the only people who benefit from this is government employee's and special interests, nobody else benefits.
People who work with WDFW are fools if they think they have any interests in anything other than promoting their wolf agenda.
Post by: Gringo31 on March 30, 2013, 11:39:58 AM
So...where from here?
Post by: nwwanderer on March 30, 2013, 12:39:20 PM
Post by: huntnphool on March 30, 2013, 01:14:02 PM
I would like to see this agent of a dishonest government agency take a lie detector test that he honestly can determine this is not in fact a wolf kill.
I could be wrong but I don't think they ever make a statement that concludes its not a wolf kill, rather they leave themselves a out by saying "they can't confirm it is a wolf kill". It's politics pure and simple, a play on words that leaves them wiggle room in either direction. ;)
Post by: bobcat on March 30, 2013, 01:16:34 PM
I would like to see this agent of a dishonest government agency take a lie detector test that he honestly can determine this is not in fact a wolf kill.
I could be wrong but I don't think they ever make a statement that concludes its not a wolf kill, rather they leave themselves a out by saying "they can't confirm it is a wolf kill". It's politics pure and simple, a play on words that leaves them wiggle room in either direction. ;)
:yeah:
Post by: boneaddict on March 30, 2013, 01:44:23 PM
My opinion, for what its worth. I dont believe too much of what the department claims, and zero when it comes to the topic of wolves. Just looking at the pictures of the cow..why does there need to be punctures and bone crushing bites to the carcass for it to be a wolf? Yes, they kill that way, but they also run the animal to exhaustion, move in and hamstring, then open the bowels and begin feeding as the animal slowly dies. Look at the rear right hoof/pastern of the cow killed. Typical of a hamstring wound.. my 2 cents
100% my thoughts as well
Post by: Wenatcheejay on March 30, 2013, 06:40:15 PM
I would like to see this agent of a dishonest government agency take a lie detector test that he honestly can determine this is not in fact a wolf kill.
I could be wrong but I don't think they ever make a statement that concludes its not a wolf kill, rather they leave themselves a out by saying "they can't confirm it is a wolf kill". It's politics pure and simple, a play on words that leaves them wiggle room in either direction. ;)
:yeah:
Perhaps, I am not direct enough. WDFW is a joke. They have no intention of being honest. They never have and they never will. Those that work with them will be screwed without lubricant every time on every thing. We all know it, end of story. I am so sick and tired of hope that there is 1% of reasonable cooperation. (In anything government related these days.) But the wolf issue? I can not even begin to understand why any of the WDFW agenda supporters even bother to pretend that any investigation or science is used where they are concerned. Just laugh at us. We all know WDFW has no intent of doing anything other than destroying the realistic hunting opportunities and limit paying for ranching losses as much as possible. They win, we loose, game over. :dunno:
Post by: Gringo31 on March 31, 2013, 01:33:33 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 31, 2013, 02:00:59 PM
Those of you that have faith in this process......just wait for how long it will take to actually delist. I'm talking about once the requirement has been made and they are actually delisted.
I have faith the process will work similar to the way it worked in other states. When they first try to delist wolves there will be lawsuits by the wolf lovers. The state will spend millions of dollars fighting those lawsuits. Then maybe, after many years, they will be delisted. And who knows how many more years after that before there will be a hunting season for wolves. By that time there will be very few deer and elk left to hunt in this state, and hunting will be by draw only.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 31, 2013, 02:48:37 PM
Post by: wolfbait on March 31, 2013, 08:39:25 PM
Those of you that have faith in this process......just wait for how long it will take to actually delist. I'm talking about once the requirement has been made and they are actually delisted.
I have faith the process will work similar to the way it worked in other states. When they first try to delist wolves there will be lawsuits by the wolf lovers. The state will spend millions of dollars fighting those lawsuits. Then maybe, after many years, they will be delisted. And who knows how many more years after that before there will be a hunting season for wolves. By that time there will be very few deer and elk left to hunt in this state, and hunting will be by draw only.
I think we will delist a little sooner, but it really won't make any difference because WA will be so stuffed with wolves that they will be impossible to control in time to save the decimation of our wildlife.
Post by: 6x6in6 on March 31, 2013, 08:47:09 PM
:yeah:Those of you that have faith in this process......just wait for how long it will take to actually delist. I'm talking about once the requirement has been made and they are actually delisted.
I have faith the process will work similar to the way it worked in other states. When they first try to delist wolves there will be lawsuits by the wolf lovers. The state will spend millions of dollars fighting those lawsuits. Then maybe, after many years, they will be delisted. And who knows how many more years after that before there will be a hunting season for wolves. By that time there will be very few deer and elk left to hunt in this state, and hunting will be by draw only.
I think we will delist a little sooner, but it really won't make any difference because WA will be so stuffed with wolves that they will be impossible to control in time to save the decimation of our wildlife.
And then there is the lawsuits that will be filed. The legal battle and barrage of lawsuits will make ID and MT's battles seem puny.
Post by: groundhog on April 02, 2013, 09:37:26 AM
Stuart has 70 pictures of wolves and the dead animals. The elk that died in the pond was a huge bull that wintered on their place every year. They named this bull split ear. He had already shed his antlers when he was chased into the pond by wolves. He died in the pond and there were fresh bite marks all over his head and neck and fresh wolf tracks surrounding the pond! Lots of pics to prove the above statement.
He also has incredible trail cam pics of wolves feeding on a mature bull that sure appears to have been killed by wolves. The Cow had bite marks all over her neck and head yet the WDFW maintains it was not a wolf kill..... I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that they have to pay for wolf damage.....
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 02, 2013, 09:55:53 AM
Of course they're eating elk and deer.
The cow is the animal in question. If wolves killed the cow, they need dealt with. The pictures of the cow don't show much, so we have to go with what the people trained to determine the cause say.
I VERY HIGHLY doubt there is any direction from Oly to deny wolf depredations. I think they did the best they could and if they could have determined it to be a wolf kill they would have worked on a plan to fix the situation. It likely would have been some kind of nonlethal the exscalate to lethal control if needed.
:twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 02, 2013, 10:00:55 AM
The bull elk in the pictures is so far gone its impossible to know how it died. If it was wolves, big deal. Do you think they're eating Alpo out there?
Of course they're eating elk and deer.
The cow is the animal in question. If wolves killed the cow, they need dealt with. The pictures of the cow don't show much, so we have to go with what the people trained to determine the cause say.
I VERY HIGHLY doubt there is any direction from Oly to deny wolf depredations. I think they did the best they could and if they could have determined it to be a wolf kill they would have worked on a plan to fix the situation. It likely would have been some kind of nonlethal the exscalate to lethal control if needed.
:twocents:
Really, we can trust them beyond a shadow of a doubt? The WDFW denied wolves in several areas of the state for years when we all know they were there. Have they suddenly found their conscience and are telling us the complete truth? The entire wolf plan is one of deception and maneuvering. Having the WDFW lie or hide facts about wolves is nothing new.
Post by: JLS on April 02, 2013, 10:02:22 AM
:yeah:Those of you that have faith in this process......just wait for how long it will take to actually delist. I'm talking about once the requirement has been made and they are actually delisted.
I have faith the process will work similar to the way it worked in other states. When they first try to delist wolves there will be lawsuits by the wolf lovers. The state will spend millions of dollars fighting those lawsuits. Then maybe, after many years, they will be delisted. And who knows how many more years after that before there will be a hunting season for wolves. By that time there will be very few deer and elk left to hunt in this state, and hunting will be by draw only.
I think we will delist a little sooner, but it really won't make any difference because WA will be so stuffed with wolves that they will be impossible to control in time to save the decimation of our wildlife.
And then there is the lawsuits that will be filed. The legal battle and barrage of lawsuits will make ID and MT's battles seem puny.
I'll say it again, the least of our worries is in the courtroom. The lawsuits would be won easily. What you should fear is the ballot box and citizen's initiatives.
Post by: AspenBud on April 02, 2013, 10:06:14 AM
:yeah:Those of you that have faith in this process......just wait for how long it will take to actually delist. I'm talking about once the requirement has been made and they are actually delisted.
I have faith the process will work similar to the way it worked in other states. When they first try to delist wolves there will be lawsuits by the wolf lovers. The state will spend millions of dollars fighting those lawsuits. Then maybe, after many years, they will be delisted. And who knows how many more years after that before there will be a hunting season for wolves. By that time there will be very few deer and elk left to hunt in this state, and hunting will be by draw only.
I think we will delist a little sooner, but it really won't make any difference because WA will be so stuffed with wolves that they will be impossible to control in time to save the decimation of our wildlife.
And then there is the lawsuits that will be filed. The legal battle and barrage of lawsuits will make ID and MT's battles seem puny.
I'll say it again, the least of our worries is in the courtroom. The lawsuits would be won easily. What you should fear is the ballot box and citizen's initiatives.
:yeah:
Post by: Gringo31 on April 02, 2013, 10:08:06 AM
Quote
I VERY HIGHLY doubt there is any direction from Oly to deny wolf depredations. I think they did the best they could and if they could have determined it to be a wolf kill they would have worked on a plan to fix the situation. It likely would have been some kind of nonlethal the exscalate to lethal control if needed.
Wish I could believe that.....
Just don't.
Post by: snowpack on April 02, 2013, 10:12:56 AM
Post by: bobcat on April 02, 2013, 10:17:19 AM
Quote
Really, we can trust them beyond a shadow of a doubt? The WDFW denied wolves in several areas of the state for years when we all know they were there. Have they suddenly found their conscience and are telling us the complete truth? The entire wolf plan is one of deception and maneuvering. Having the WDFW lie or hide facts about wolves is nothing new.
I don't believe the WDFW flat out denies wolves exist in certain areas of the state. They simply don't accept as fact when a person claims to have seen a wolf. Do you blame them? They need to confirm the presence of wolves with 100% certainty.
While I don't agree with the wolf plan, and I feel people who care more about wolves than they do about maintaining deer and elk populations had too much influence in writing it, I also don't feel it's fair to say the agency as a whole is lying to the public.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 02, 2013, 10:18:12 AM
I think they are in over their heads, but I don't think they are intentionally denying things. I also don't believe that they "denied wolves exisistence". I think they get TONS of totally BS wolf sightings and they have to remain skeptical about them. The wolf plan wasn't just a WDFW document. It's imperfect (ok, ok...it kinda sucks) but it is at least providing some guidance. We should be at the level to delist before long and maybe things can happen then.The bull elk in the pictures is so far gone its impossible to know how it died. If it was wolves, big deal. Do you think they're eating Alpo out there?
Of course they're eating elk and deer.
The cow is the animal in question. If wolves killed the cow, they need dealt with. The pictures of the cow don't show much, so we have to go with what the people trained to determine the cause say.
I VERY HIGHLY doubt there is any direction from Oly to deny wolf depredations. I think they did the best they could and if they could have determined it to be a wolf kill they would have worked on a plan to fix the situation. It likely would have been some kind of nonlethal the exscalate to lethal control if needed.
:twocents:
Really, we can trust them beyond a shadow of a doubt? The WDFW denied wolves in several areas of the state for years when we all know they were there. Have they suddenly found their conscience and are telling us the complete truth? The entire wolf plan is one of deception and maneuvering. Having the WDFW lie or hide facts about wolves is nothing new.
I do think the WDFW is being WAY more proactive and working on the wolf issue to the best of their ability right now.
Post by: AspenBud on April 02, 2013, 10:20:15 AM
I'll say it again, the least of our worries is in the courtroom. The lawsuits would be won easily. What you should fear is the ballot box and citizen's initiatives.
Here's what should really bother everyone. If a citizen initiative supporting wolf reintroduction had come up for vote before wolves came back to this state, how many can say they think it would have failed with a straight face?
My bet is if a hunting season happens, the next day an initiative against it will be up for vote and I won't at all be surprised it passes if more isn't done to educate the public about them.
Too much focus on WDFW and not enough on getting the word out smartly to the voters of this state.
Post by: bobcat on April 02, 2013, 10:21:46 AM
Post by: AspenBud on April 02, 2013, 10:23:01 AM
We need a new law that says voters have no say in wildlife management decisions.
I absolutely agree.
Post by: Curly on April 02, 2013, 10:24:23 AM
It is also a shame that WDFW is not supposed to give their opinion on initiatives. Bigtex has mentioned before about the baiting and hound initiatives that the reason we didn't see WDFW speaking out against them is because they aren't allowed. :(
Post by: huntnphool on April 02, 2013, 11:12:47 AM
Really? Have you not been paying attention to our fiscal problems JLS? How much are these courtroom battles going to cost....and who do you think is going to have to pay for them?:yeah:Those of you that have faith in this process......just wait for how long it will take to actually delist. I'm talking about once the requirement has been made and they are actually delisted.
I have faith the process will work similar to the way it worked in other states. When they first try to delist wolves there will be lawsuits by the wolf lovers. The state will spend millions of dollars fighting those lawsuits. Then maybe, after many years, they will be delisted. And who knows how many more years after that before there will be a hunting season for wolves. By that time there will be very few deer and elk left to hunt in this state, and hunting will be by draw only.
I think we will delist a little sooner, but it really won't make any difference because WA will be so stuffed with wolves that they will be impossible to control in time to save the decimation of our wildlife.
And then there is the lawsuits that will be filed. The legal battle and barrage of lawsuits will make ID and MT's battles seem puny.
I'll say it again, the least of our worries is in the courtroom.
In the grand scheme of government spending its not a piss drop in the bucket ill give you that, but it all continues to add up, and up, and up.
The fact that we have to worry at all about the courts is ridiculous in its own right, "the least of our worries" should be wolves in the first place. :twocents:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on April 02, 2013, 11:43:53 AM
Post by: JLS on April 02, 2013, 12:03:54 PM
In the grand scheme of government spending its not a piss drop in the bucket ill give you that, but it all continues to add up, and up, and up.
The fact that we have to worry at all about the courts is ridiculous in its own right, "the least of our worries" should be wolves in the first place. :twocents:
[/quote]
Of course I've been paying attention to our fiscal problems. That's irrelevant, because the likelihood of an injunction and/or lawsuit being granted is very low unless there is a direct violation of the WDFW wolf plan. Whether you like the plan or not, it's been scientifically accepted and peer reviewed, so it is a highly defensible document in court.
Any lawsuit filed has to show that the wolf population would be jeopardized by the act of hunting or the wolf plan was not being followed. Given that wolf populations in MT and ID have withstood a high degree of hunting and trapping, there is very little danger of that.
Honestly, I think there is a very real chance that when wolves are delisted from the state ESA and reclassified as a game animal there will be zero lawsuits. There is a very real chance it will show up in the first election.
How many lawsuits were filed when the Wedge pack was being shot?
Post by: 6x6in6 on April 02, 2013, 03:14:28 PM
We all know we have to get to the breeding pair head count and that head count has to do the successful tango for 3 years.
Did you know that then, and only then, the WDFW will BEGIN the process of delisting? Sure, there is language that gives them there "can" and could" do so earlier but nothing rigid like "will". So how long do you think that will take, the delisting process?
Go read the wolf plan and page 68 Delisting. Probably should also read the referenced WAC on page 68 of the plan. Yep, you got it. The Commission gets to ultimately say delist or not to delist. Isn't that just a nice warm fuzzy right there!
Now, fast forward to page 70 of the wolf plan beginning with Section C. Management after Delisting
So, the WDFW finally got around to doing what they had to do on page 68, with the blessing of the Commission.
Low and behold, now they don't have to call them a game animal after they have been delisted.
Guess what? No game animal = no hunting season.
That language on page 70 is their for a reason. So the WDFW can do what they see fit. Nothing more.
Go look at the last sentence on page 70 and Section C. Potentially another plan for managing wolves after delisting? And there goes the anchor out again, slowing down the process some more. You don't think they won't use this one also to slow the process down? Right..............
Folks, mark my words, the wolf will not be managed as a game animal in this state anytime soon (this present decade). Sure, they may be delisted. Big deal. Can't hunt them until that management plan is done, delisted or not.
Here, wolf plan.......... http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00001/wdfw00001.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00001/wdfw00001.pdf)
And the WAC referenced on page 68........ http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-297 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-297)
I made it simple for ya. :chuckle:
Essentially, the meat and potatoes to get to hunting of wolves is contained on pages 68-71. If you read nothing else, familiarize yourself with these 4 pages.
Post by: huntnphool on April 02, 2013, 03:28:55 PM
All this talk about delisting, lawsuits, votes......Exactly what I have been saying. All these guys that believe we will be hunting them "in the next few years" or "in 5-10 years" are delusional, and even if hunting starts, its already been proven that hunting doesn't work for controlling their numbers.
We all know we have to get to the breeding pair head count and that head count has to do the successful tango for 3 years.
Did you know that then, and only then, the WDFW will BEGIN the process of delisting? Sure, there is language that gives them there "can" and could" do so earlier but nothing rigid like "will". So how long do you think that will take, the delisting process?
Go read the wolf plan and page 68 Delisting. Probably should also read the referenced WAC on page 68 of the plan. Yep, you got it. The Commission gets to ultimately say delist or not to delist. Isn't that just a nice warm fuzzy right there!
Now, fast forward to page 70 of the wolf plan beginning with Section C. Management after Delisting
So, the WDFW finally got around to doing what they had to do on page 68, with the blessing of the Commission.
Low and behold, now they don't have to call them a game animal after they have been delisted.
Guess what? No game animal = no hunting season.
That language on page 70 is their for a reason. So the WDFW can do what they see fit. Nothing more.
Go look at the last sentence on page 70 and Section C. Potentially another plan for managing wolves after delisting? And there goes the anchor out again, slowing down the process some more. You don't think they won't use this one also to slow the process down? Right..............
Folks, mark my words, the wolf will not be managed as a game animal in this state anytime soon (this present decade). Sure, they may be delisted. Big deal. Can't hunt them until that management plan is done, delisted or not.
Here, wolf plan.......... http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00001/wdfw00001.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00001/wdfw00001.pdf)
And the WAC referenced on page 68........ http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-297 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-297)
I made it simple for ya. :chuckle:
Essentially, the meat and potatoes to get to hunting of wolves is contained on pages 68-71. If you read nothing else, familiarize yourself with these 4 pages.
Post by: JLS on April 02, 2013, 03:35:14 PM
3-year requirement for the recovery objectives. Review under the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) and public review are also required as part of the delisting process. Delisting is based only
on the biological status of the species in Washington. Information from the status review is then
presented to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission to make the final determination on
delisting. The Commission would not consider final action until after achieving the recovery
objectives.
If a year occurred where there were 18 successful breeding pairs of wolves and the distribution
criteria for delisting were met, then WDFW could begin the process to write a status review to
prepare a delisting recommendation at that time
This is right out of the wolf plan.
My personal belief is that wolves will be delisted in three years. I certainly could be wrong.
Edit: And, I will stand behind my prediction of no lawsuits filed. Why the heck would PETA or whoever file a lawsuit when they can go right to the ballot box?
Post by: 6x6in6 on April 02, 2013, 03:51:03 PM
WDFW can initiate a status review prior to achieving the
3-year requirement for the recovery objectives. Review under the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) and public review are also required as part of the delisting process. Delisting is based only
on the biological status of the species in Washington. Information from the status review is then
presented to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission to make the final determination on
delisting. The Commission would not consider final action until after achieving the recovery
objectives.
If a year occurred where there were 18 successful breeding pairs of wolves and the distribution
criteria for delisting were met, then WDFW could begin the process to write a status review to
prepare a delisting recommendation at that time
This is right out of the wolf plan.
My personal belief is that wolves will be delisted in three years. I certainly could be wrong.
Did you miss the "can" and "could" JLS?
Did you see that the Commission gets to make a final determination?
Do you think the Commission will actually vary from their own recommended wolf plan and approve a status review that the WDFW "can" initiate?
So what is your interpretation of delisting? What does it mean to you, as it relates to the language of the wolf plan? To me, it's just a step in the right direction with 2 more bigger steps to go, pending lawsuits and a public vote.
Post by: huntnphool on April 02, 2013, 03:54:36 PM
WDFW can initiate a status review prior to achieving theWe will see
3-year requirement for the recovery objectives. Review under the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) and public review are also required as part of the delisting process. Delisting is based only
on the biological status of the species in Washington. Information from the status review is then
presented to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission to make the final determination on
delisting. The Commission would not consider final action until after achieving the recovery
objectives.
If a year occurred where there were 18 successful breeding pairs of wolves and the distribution
criteria for delisting were met, then WDFW could begin the process to write a status review to
prepare a delisting recommendation at that time
This is right out of the wolf plan.
My personal belief is that wolves will be delisted in three years. I certainly could be wrong.
Edit: And, I will stand behind my prediction of no lawsuits filed. Why the heck would PETA or whoever file a lawsuit when they can go right to the ballot box?
Post by: JLS on April 02, 2013, 04:05:48 PM
WDFW can initiate a status review prior to achieving the
3-year requirement for the recovery objectives. Review under the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) and public review are also required as part of the delisting process. Delisting is based only
on the biological status of the species in Washington. Information from the status review is then
presented to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission to make the final determination on
delisting. The Commission would not consider final action until after achieving the recovery
objectives.
If a year occurred where there were 18 successful breeding pairs of wolves and the distribution
criteria for delisting were met, then WDFW could begin the process to write a status review to
prepare a delisting recommendation at that time
This is right out of the wolf plan.
My personal belief is that wolves will be delisted in three years. I certainly could be wrong.
Did you miss the "can" and "could" JLS?
Did you see that the Commission gets to make a final determination?
Do you think the Commission will actually vary from their own recommended wolf plan and approve a status review that the WDFW "can" initiate?
So what is your interpretation of delisting? What does it mean to you, as it relates to the language of the wolf plan? To me, it's just a step in the right direction with 2 more bigger steps to go, pending lawsuits and a public vote.
No, I didn't see any of that :rolleyes:
Can and could are very different from shall and should. No, the Commission will not vary from the plan and I never said they would. It says very clearly that the Commish would not consider final action until after recovery objectives.
Delisting to me is removing wolves from a status that guarantees them protection, i.e they are not still considered sensitive or threatened. There are mountains of data that can support the biological basis for allowing wolf hunting. I do not see that being the hurdle.
We can argue until we're blue in the face. Neither of us can "prove" our arguments, so it's pointless for me to continue.
In the interim, we can choose to do two things. We can continue to wring our hands and spew forth the propoganda of Toby Bridges and Lobowatch, or we can speak to the scientific facts that clearly show that wolves can withstand a very high degree of hunting pressure without any significant danger to their population.
Post by: 6x6in6 on April 02, 2013, 04:18:13 PM
Post by: JLS on April 02, 2013, 04:22:55 PM
I certainly hope that you are not thinking that I am some how aligned with the views of Toby and Lobo are you?
:chuckle:
If I did, I wouldn't even be trying to discuss this with you. It was a rather general shot across the bow to those that do espouse his rhetoric.
Post by: mulehunter on April 02, 2013, 04:25:57 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 02, 2013, 04:29:18 PM
Post by: huntnphool on April 02, 2013, 04:34:01 PM
Who's scientific facts are going to be used though? How many agree with the science based opinion WDFW adopted for their cougar plan, suggesting that we are over harvesting cougars in this state?WDFW can initiate a status review prior to achieving the
3-year requirement for the recovery objectives. Review under the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) and public review are also required as part of the delisting process. Delisting is based only
on the biological status of the species in Washington. Information from the status review is then
presented to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission to make the final determination on
delisting. The Commission would not consider final action until after achieving the recovery
objectives.
If a year occurred where there were 18 successful breeding pairs of wolves and the distribution
criteria for delisting were met, then WDFW could begin the process to write a status review to
prepare a delisting recommendation at that time
This is right out of the wolf plan.
My personal belief is that wolves will be delisted in three years. I certainly could be wrong.
Did you miss the "can" and "could" JLS?
Did you see that the Commission gets to make a final determination?
Do you think the Commission will actually vary from their own recommended wolf plan and approve a status review that the WDFW "can" initiate?
So what is your interpretation of delisting? What does it mean to you, as it relates to the language of the wolf plan? To me, it's just a step in the right direction with 2 more bigger steps to go, pending lawsuits and a public vote.
No, I didn't see any of that :rolleyes:
Can and could are very different from shall and should. No, the Commission will not vary from the plan and I never said they would. It says very clearly that the Commish would not consider final action until after recovery objectives.
Delisting to me is removing wolves from a status that guarantees them protection, i.e they are not still considered sensitive or threatened. There are mountains of data that can support the biological basis for allowing wolf hunting. I do not see that being the hurdle.
We can argue until we're blue in the face. Neither of us can "prove" our arguments, so it's pointless for me to continue.
In the interim, we can choose to do two things. We can continue to wring our hands and spew forth the propoganda of Toby Bridges and Lobowatch, or we can speak to the scientific facts that clearly show that wolves can withstand a very high degree of hunting pressure without any significant danger to their population.
Post by: 6x6in6 on April 02, 2013, 04:38:34 PM
:chuckle:I certainly hope that you are not thinking that I am some how aligned with the views of Toby and Lobo are you?
:chuckle:
If I did, I wouldn't even be trying to discuss this with you. It was a rather general shot across the bow to those that do espouse his rhetoric.
Thank goodness. People have been banned for such types of alignment.