Post by: Scottystyle on April 16, 2013, 10:19:29 AM
Post by: vandeman17 on April 16, 2013, 10:28:57 AM
Post by: Elkrunner on April 16, 2013, 11:12:56 AM
Post by: C-Money on April 16, 2013, 11:14:12 AM
Post by: uplandhunter870 on April 16, 2013, 11:27:17 AM
as frustrating an issue as the wolves are to us hunters, this is exactly what needs to happen to get the "general" public in an outcry for more wolf management. if more wolves start taking down more deer in more yuppy's backyards and show no fear of people and a brazen attitude the yuppy elites will begin to not want them around.
its always great to have something that sounds so good in someone else's backyard but once the gruesome details of how wolves live are shown up close and personal the less they will be liked eventually
Post by: jackelope on April 16, 2013, 11:34:26 AM
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on April 16, 2013, 12:02:03 PM
If there is a good in this, it's that the deputy saw the wolf. So no reports will come from WDFW claiming otherwise.:yeah:
Post by: Elkrunner on April 16, 2013, 12:08:17 PM
Sorry missed that section in the story...that it had a broken leg due to possible contact with a car.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 16, 2013, 12:10:45 PM
and it begins
as frustrating an issue as the wolves are to us hunters, this is exactly what needs to happen to get the "general" public in an outcry for more wolf management. if more wolves start taking down more deer in more yuppy's backyards and show no fear of people and a brazen attitude the yuppy elites will begin to not want them around.
its always great to have something that sounds so good in someone else's backyard but once the gruesome details of how wolves live are shown up close and personal the less they will be liked eventually
Some of the Yuppies need to be taken down in the Yuppies' back yards.
Post by: Elkrunner on April 16, 2013, 12:12:23 PM
and it begins
as frustrating an issue as the wolves are to us hunters, this is exactly what needs to happen to get the "general" public in an outcry for more wolf management. if more wolves start taking down more deer in more yuppy's backyards and show no fear of people and a brazen attitude the yuppy elites will begin to not want them around.
its always great to have something that sounds so good in someone else's backyard but once the gruesome details of how wolves live are shown up close and personal the less they will be liked eventually
Some of the Yuppies need to be taken down in the Yuppies' back yards.
Or their friendly labradoodle.
Post by: Scottystyle on April 16, 2013, 12:18:17 PM
Post by: Scottystyle on April 16, 2013, 01:28:16 PM
I'm sure that a report will come out tomorrow that will state that they were mistaken and that the deer had already been hit by a car therefore it would have died anyways.No need to wait for tomorrow... the lying aholes have said it was hitby a car and broke its leg and the wolf just found it. $&@&$&@&)&@ !!!!
Sorry missed that section in the story...that it had a broken leg due to possible contact with a car.
Post by: bobcat on April 16, 2013, 01:34:42 PM
I'm sure that a report will come out tomorrow that will state that they were mistaken and that the deer had already been hit by a car therefore it would have died anyways.No need to wait for tomorrow... the lying aholes have said it was hitby a car and broke its leg and the wolf just found it. $&@&$&@&)&@ !!!!
Sorry missed that section in the story...that it had a broken leg due to possible contact with a car.
And how do you know that's not true?
Post by: Scottystyle on April 16, 2013, 01:44:02 PM
Post by: JLS on April 16, 2013, 01:55:06 PM
Madonna Luers, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, said Tuesday that the deer attacked up No. 2 Canyon had a broken leg, possibly from contact with a car.
"The wolf was keying in on very vulnerable prey, which is what they do," she said. "It was probably in the process of killing it and was going to eat it."
Leurs said Fish and Wildlife biologist Scott Becker performed a necropsy on the deer, and found it had been attacked by the wolf. "It had the deer pinned up against a fence," Leurs said.
I'm a parent too, and there are many more things that concern me than wild animals. How many registered sex offenders live near your kids school? Your house? Near their soccer field?
Post by: jackelope on April 16, 2013, 01:57:57 PM
so far all these animals have been hit by cars. probably. its the default deflection from the WDFW.
No offense but I'm pretty sure nobody said the cow up Pitcher canyon got hit by a car. Deer do get hit by cars, then they wander off and when they're injured become easy prey for predators like lions and coyotes and wolves.
Post by: Scottystyle on April 16, 2013, 02:17:30 PM
Post by: jackelope on April 16, 2013, 02:27:35 PM
be thankful they arent in your back yard. the fact is they are in mine, and you will not discount my concern about this.
I make no attempt to discount your concern and that was not the intention. Your backyard is a short drive from my backyard and I spend a fair amount of time there. I have family in e-wa and the wolves have literally been in their front yard(pasture) chasing deer.
Post by: wolfbait on April 16, 2013, 06:41:30 PM
be thankful they arent in your back yard. the fact is they are in mine, and you will not discount my concern about this.
I make no attempt to discount your concern and that was not the intention. Your backyard is a short drive from my backyard and I spend a fair amount of time there. I have family in e-wa and the wolves have literally been in their front yard(pasture) chasing deer.
Lets just all calm down and wait for delisting or jack will delete the thread as it is getting to informative. :chuckle: How's that working for you now jack? Are you going to delete this thread?
Who has been supplying wolves to WDFW for their releases. :yike: Who started the wolf introduction in Idaho and the Yellowstones ;) Hint, Hint.
Post by: Scottystyle on April 16, 2013, 06:52:29 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on April 16, 2013, 06:53:25 PM
Post by: Dan-o on April 16, 2013, 07:28:33 PM
Seems logical to me.
Post by: wolfbait on April 16, 2013, 07:35:22 PM
im just frustrated, it seems like they are trying to paint a rosy picture that wolves are friendly fluffy doggies and only consume i jured animals, or as with the Wenatchee Pack... only eat animals that have died from other causes. These wolves arent affraid of people and stick around and are now killing animals in peoples yards... wounded or not. Its going to take someones kid getting snatched before something will be done. I dont want to pick a fight with anyone here, just have trouble channeling my frustration... thanks for hearing me out !
Really Scottstyle? I think you are a bit behind the times, I would suggest everyone read the info below and check out the date, 1998! Read it All because you now have the USFWS and WDFW wolves in your backyard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Illusion of the Endangered Wolf and Corrective Actions
The illusion of the endangered wolf has gone on for 26 years. This is in spite of the fact that there is much information available to show that wolves are far from being an endangered species. Other information shows that wolves are not needed in the ecology of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan and that the three states are better off ecologically and economically without wolves. The benefactors of the wolf situation we have are the bureaucrats of the USFWS and the state DNRs as they spend the taxpayer's money on their very counterproductive wolf restoring activities. Support from misguided animal rights, anti hunting, environmental organizations together with not enough people getting informed and involved makes this possible.
Behind the misinformation the endangered wolf is the Endangered Species Act. Just because in 1974 wolves had been eliminated from Wisconsin and Michigan and there were only 500 to a 1,000 in northern Minnesota does not imply that wolves were going to vanish as the passenger pigeon did. There were 50,000 to 60,000 wolves in Canada then as there are today. They cross over into Minnesota and Michigan at will.
To illustrate the current situation, US citizens can to into Ontario and buy a $50 small game license with which they can take an unlimited number of wolves. And that is only a short ways to the north into Canada. Does that sound like wolves are an endangered species? Why aren't people questioning that endangered wolf classification.
How does the USFWS get away with calling wolves an endangered species? To counter the people finding out about all those Canadian wolves, in 1983 the USFWS got congress to amend the Endangered Species Act so Distinct Population Segments could be set up These DPSs are supposed to be distinct and discrete. In no way are the wolves of Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan discrete and distinct from the 60,000 Canadian wolves. But a geographical separation such as the Canada-US boundary can also be used for setting up a DPS. These DPSs could then be regarded a completely separate and classified as endangered. So the Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan wolves are being called and endangered DPS and there is nothing we can do about it. Of course in 1983 congress said that these DPSs should be used sparingly, but the USFWS is using them whenever they can get away with it.
Actually a lot can be done to bring about the needed changes. It has to start with people getting informed and taking the actions that our great system allows. So far the USFWS is not being questioned as they need to be. That is the starting point. Has anybody heard of a Minnesota legislator doing this?
It may startle a lot of people, but if there are 3,000, 1,500 or no wolves at all in Minnesota has little effect on North American wolf survival when the huge Canadian wolf wilderness and huge number of wolves that live there are considered. Eventually this will be understood. There is no need to be so careful about how many wolves people kill as they protect their property. It really does not make any difference. This too will be understood. The USFWS and their incredible failed wolf policy has to be thrown out. The states have to be weaned from that wolf restoration money that the USFWS dishes out. So far Wisconsin and Michigan have come with wolf management plans that are based on this continuing for a long time to come. Somehow common sense has to prevail and all this has to be brought to an end.
The only solution that will really do what is required is to have the USFWS completely delist wolves, stop interfering with the way the states manage wolves and stop spending public money on wolf restoration which is not needed. People need to be made aware of the fact that $3,286,000 was spent in 1955 on restoring and propagandizing in favor of wolves by the USFWS. Figures taken from the Oct 29, 1999 Wisconsin Wolf Plan show that from 1979 thru 1998 a total of $,1,547,373 federal and state money was spent on wolves.
The following petitions to do this and the USFWS response illustrates that the people and their US Representatives and Senators will need to change that 1983 amendment to the Endangered Species Act so that Distinct Population Segments cannot be used to force wolves in on states without their people having a choice in that matter.
Presently the way the Endangered Species Act is implemented allows the USFWS to declare a species is an endangered Distinct Population Segment and follow with spending taxpayer money on their bureaucrats to restore it. Further they also have the power to deny petitions to bring this activity to an end. This is a very flagrant conflict of interest which congress must bring to an end. The function of declaring something endangered and the implementing of the restoration has to be split between independent independent organizations. Congress must recognize this problem and correct it.
So please study the following petitions, their supportive materials and the USFWS response. The 90 days for the USFWS response to the April 22, 2000 is still in the future as of this writing.
Your US Senators and Representatives need to become aware of this web site as well as the Abundant Wildlife Society web site at www.vcn.com/business/AWS/default.html (http://www.vcn.com/business/AWS/default.html) for seeing the need to correct Endangered Species Act excesses.
The wolf delisting petitions, supportive materials and USFWS responses follow.
1st Petition to Dept. of the Interior
PO Box 145
Gilman,WI '54433
Feb 9,1998
Mr. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary
U.S. Dept. of the Interior,
Washington, D.C. 20240
Dear Secretary Babbitt,
As set forth in the Act Endangered Species I petition that timber wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan be delisted immediately. When declared endangered in 1974 these wolves were thought to be a separate subspecies. Since then studies of the travels of collared wolves have shown that Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan together with Canadian wolves are all an interconnected population with at least 65,000 members. Surely they never were nor are they now an endangered species. Therefore they should be delisted immediately. Revisions of the Act allow for such changes in listings when mistakes were made in wrongly declaring something to be endangered or threatened. And the USFWS condition of at least 100 wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan for 5 consecutive should be set aside.
This wolf delisting will rightfully return wolf management to each of the three states giving them the ability to make regulations which will give relief :to their citizens where there are too many wolves. As you well know, the Act calls for restoring wolves to their former range where practicable. Common sense dictates it is not practicable to restore wolves to parts of this former range such as downtown Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Madison, Lansing or Detroit. The problems now experienced with wolves in agricultural, deer hunting areas and other smaller cities and towns show that it is also not practicable to restore them there as well.
I enclosed a copy of a Chicago Tribune article for you to see first hand what is going on where wolves have been restored.
Sincerely Yours,
Lawrence Krak
Chicago Tribune Wolf Article
They're telling big bad wolf stories these
days all over Minnesota.
Scary tales of wolfpacks staring people
down, eating dogs in back yards off the
leash like popsicles."One fellow came home from work to find
three wolves eating his dog in the middle of
the road. In the middle of the day. Just a
mile east of town," noted Department of
Natural Resources wildlife specialist Bill
Peterson from his office in Grand Marais.
The operator of a local day-care center
routinely sees wolves hunkering at the edge
of her property, watching kids cavort on the
playground equipment.
"She doesn't know what to do," Peterson
said. "She has to keep an eye on the kids
outside as well as those inside. She doesn't
dare leave them alone."
Another woman was entertaining a neighbor
when they heard a thump at the back door.
She opened the door and found a bloody
splotch on the back porch at the end of her
dog's leash and saw a wolf carting off the
carcass of Fifi.
In northeast Minnesota's primary wolf
range, some parents refuse to let their
younger children stand alone at rural bus
stops.
"But that's not new," said L. David Mech,
co-founder of the International Wolf Center
in Ely, Minn., and arguably the world's
foremost wolf scientist. "People have been
saying things like that for 30 years."
It was Mech (pronounced "Meech") who
began tracking wolves as a federal biologist
more than 30 years ago--and he literally
wrote the book (several books, actually) on
wolfpack behavior. His work contributed to
the end of bounty hunting for timber wolves
and their eventual protection as an
endangered species.
Thanks to the nurturing of federal law--and
the explosion of succulent deer populations
throughout the North Country--wolves have
rebounded admirably. Minnesota scientists
estimate the wolf population at well over
2,000 animals and growing steadily at the
average rate of six pups per reproducing
female.
Furthermore, the animals have spread nicely
into neighboring Wisconsin and Michigan,
with each state now harboring well over
200 wolves.
And they keep on expanding. Wolves
reportedly crossed the ice-clogged Straits
of Mackinac last winter to enter Michigan's
Lower Peninsula. Three radio-tagged packs
thrive in the forests around Tomah in central
Wisconsin. And wolves have been seen
even farther south.
"One radio-collared wolf went from
northeastern Minnesota past Duluth and
wound up 30 miles north of Madison,
Wis.," Mech said last week. "Another went
from northeast Minnesota across Wisconsin
and ended up in Upper Michigan. So they
go pretty much where they want."
This remarkable recovery--a triumph in
wildlife circles--has changed the profile of
wolves in some Minnesota areas.
Approximately 100 farmers annually
complain of livestock depredations. Hunters
are antsy about the volume of deer killed by
wolves. Since an average wolf requires 16
to 20 deer a year, that amounts to nearly
40,000 whitetails.
While this ordinarily might not be a
problem, the last two severely harsh winters
have cut deeply into deer herds in northern
Minnesota, probably reducing them by a
third. Nowadays, with fewer deer and
thinner snow making deer hard to catch,
biologists think wolves simply find it easier
to feast on back-yard pets.
They also wonder if years of protection
might teach adaptive wolves to regard man
benignly, encouraging them to approach
folks who never seem to harm them. And if
these kindly people also provide a lot of
tasty treats on leashes, so much the merrier.
For four years now, wolves in Minnesota,
Wisconsin and Michigan have exceeded
federal population goals. If this continues
one more year, guidelines call for removing
wolves from endangered and threatened
lists--effectively declaring them recovered.
When and if that happens, Minnesota hopes
to have a wolf-management plan in place
that will reduce the the wolf population to a
less threatening level in terms of
depredations.
"By any biological means you choose to
name, this means killing some wolves,"
Mech said. "To manage this population, to
keep it strong while minimizing any negative
impacts upon people, a certain number of
animals must be removed each year."
Not that this hasn't been done for years.
Federal biologists have trapped and killed
problem wolves in Minnesota since 1978.
A record 216 wolves were eliminated in
1997--about a tenth of the Minnesota
population.
"That really isn't much," Mech said. "Studies
have shown we can take up to 30 percent
each year without reducing the population.
In Alaska, where they are actively trying to
reduce wolf numbers, 50 to 75 percent
must be taken each year just to have an
impact."
To prepare for the day when federal wolf
management is formally dropped into
Minnesota's lap, the DNR has begun testing
political winds. A series of 12 public
meetings around the state ended last week
with more than 3,500 people giving their
opinions.
"That's probably a record for public input
on any issue," said Mike DonCarlos, a
DNR wildlife specialist who organized the
meetings. "We've heard from
everyone--farmers, hunters, parents, wolf
advocates, scientists, educators,
animal-rights people, people with every
conceivable interest."
The next step will be to boil down this
mountain of suggestions so a round table of
key organizations can refine them into
concrete proposals. Then the state will
draw a tentative plan.
The political hot potato concerns how
wolves will be managed--whether through
expensive government culling, a limited and
regulated hunting and trapping season, or
simply by letting landowners defend their
properties.
DonCarlos said he hopes the round tables
will recommend comfortable population
levels and decide if management should
differ by region or be uniform statewide.
Meanwhile, even though no human yet has
been molested by healthy wolves in
Minnesota (an 11-year-old camper was
injured by food-seeking wolves in Canada
two years ago), Mech recommends caution.
"Certainly, in an area where a pet has been
eaten, I wouldn't recommend allowing a
toddler to play alone outside," he said.
USFWS and Dept. of Interior 1st Response to 1st Petition
United States Department of the Interior
Read more @
http://home.centurytel.net/PAW/illusion.htm (http://home.centurytel.net/PAW/illusion.htm)
Post by: bobcat on April 16, 2013, 07:45:37 PM
Quote
Other information shows that wolves are not needed in the ecology of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan and that the three states are better off ecologically and economically without wolves.
Wolfbait, who wrote that? The word "ecology" that I put in bold is not the proper use of that word. The word "ecosystem" would be much better.
Sorry, just had to point that out. Kind of a pet peeve of mine. However, I do agree with that statement.
Post by: waterdoctor on April 16, 2013, 07:50:40 PM
I could care less about the wolves eating deer... thats what they do. What has me pissed as all getout is this is not even a mile from my house, IN Town. I have a little child and now do I have to take my gun with me everytime I take him out to play in the yard??? This wolf has demonstrated that its not affraid of people... its just a matter of time before "what us paranoid people" say will happen.... WILL happen
Welcome to my world. I know what you are feeling now and until someone has a wolf in their yard it does not register with them. The comments of keep the wolves on the east side drive me nuts. At this point there are or will be wolves everywhere in the state. I worry about my dog every time I let him outside. My wife carries a .357 when she walks the creek by the house. But oh I forgot they killed all the wolves in the wedge. Every one on this site who lives in the west will have to deal with wolves in their life time. A war was waged on the wolves for almost a hundred years here and only chemical and biological warfare finally got rid of them. They are still trying to wipe out the wolves in Russia after 300 years. Wolves will never get wiped out now, and yes they will end up taking a human at some point in time. But there is a karma to it as the cities will have them running the streets at night.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on April 16, 2013, 07:58:36 PM
It's a proven fact that wolves only kill the sick and lame deer. Ergo, that one had to have been hit by a car.
Seems logical to me.
Yes, and it explains the only reason that wolf was near a populated area, (and next to a gun range.) That poor wolf must have been so afraid after being tricked by that vicious deer. (We all know how dangerous wounded deer are.) Thank God the wolf was there to protect everyone from a wounded deer!
Sad thing is I used to enjoy seeing the deer in that canyon. So much for that. THANK YOU SO MUCH WDFW, THANK YOU SEATTLE, THANK YOU USDFW, THANK YOU DFW :hello: >:( :stup:
Post by: Dan-o on April 16, 2013, 08:10:12 PM
I'm with ya, bud.
I was hoping folks would catch the satire dripping from my keyboard.
Really, a wolf in your back yard, but no problem..... let your toddlers play out there..... :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: NOCK NOCK on April 16, 2013, 09:12:51 PM
1. Behind the gun club up #2 is not "in town" nor is it like most peoples "backyard"(most yards have grass, not sagebrush)
2. Everyone seems to think an attack on a human is imminent and apparently most fear wolves taking
their child or pet (cougars kill wayyyyy more people and pets- and we have survived them.)
I have a very Hate/interest stance in local wolves.(know they kill a lot of game, but would love to be able to shoot one:) Whether we like it or not, they are gonna be here, we need to learn to deal with them.
Think about this....Because we humans interfeared with the recent wolf/deer kill up #2 cyn....those wolves will move on to kill another animal. Had they been left alone to feed on that deer...we may have saved the life of another deer or two.
Please don't get me wrong...I'm not a wolf lover...Just think everyone is freaking out about what happens in nature. Let em populate so we can start shootin em. :guns: :mgun2:
Post by: JLS on April 16, 2013, 09:21:24 PM
Alberta has thousands of wolves and how often do you hear of a kid getting packed off and eaten?
Post by: wolfbait on April 16, 2013, 09:24:59 PM
It's a proven fact that wolves only kill the sick and lame deer. Ergo, that one had to have been hit by a car.
Seems logical to me.
Yes, and it explains the only reason that wolf was near a populated area, (and next to a gun range.) That poor wolf must have been so afraid after being tricked by that vicious deer. (We all know how dangerous wounded deer are.) Thank God the wolf was there to protect everyone from a wounded deer!
Sad thing is I used to enjoy seeing the deer in that canyon. So much for that. THANK YOU SO MUCH WDFW, THANK YOU SEATTLE, THANK YOU USDFW, THANK YOU DFW :hello: >:( :stup:
What you are seeing is wolves that have ate their way out of prey. The USFWS and WDFW knew this would happen eventually, they just didn't realize how time flies. When there aren't as many elk as the Yellowstone and their wolves go through deer like they aren't even there.
The one thing about WA, and the hidden wolf releases, the herds will all crash about the same time, I wonder how globle warming will affect the wolverines?
Even if everyone of you who cared about what the wolves would do to WA had fought back in 09, it would not have mattered. Wa was already full of wolves, you can thank the USFWS and WDFW.
Take all the emotion out and all you have is a lot of wolf chit and no hunting. Welcome to the USFWS, WDFandWolves.
People need to be made aware of the fact that $3,286,000 was spent in 1955 on restoring and propagandizing in favor of wolves by the USFWS. Figures taken from the Oct 29, 1999 Wisconsin Wolf Plan show that from 1979 thru 1998 a total of $,1,547,373 federal and state money was spent on wolves.
The USFWs brainwashed a gerneration, what chance did WA have or any state for that matter?
Post by: NOCK NOCK on April 16, 2013, 09:34:03 PM
:yeah:
Alberta has thousands of wolves and how often do you hear of a kid getting packed off and eaten?
And excellent Whitey hunting.
Post by: wolfbait on April 16, 2013, 09:41:42 PM
:yeah:
Alberta has thousands of wolves and how often do you hear of a kid getting packed off and eaten?
What is the population, per vast wilderness JLS. I will give you a few days to calculate that one.
Post by: JLS on April 16, 2013, 09:43:56 PM
:yeah:
Alberta has thousands of wolves and how often do you hear of a kid getting packed off and eaten?
What is the population, per vast wilderness JLS. I will give you a few days to calculate that one.
Don't need to do any calculations, here's another example. Idaho and Montana combined have about 1500 wolves. How many kids have been packed off and eaten?
Post by: wolfbait on April 16, 2013, 09:57:18 PM
:yeah:
Alberta has thousands of wolves and how often do you hear of a kid getting packed off and eaten?
What is the population, per vast wilderness JLS. I will give you a few days to calculate that one.
Don't need to do any calculations, here's another example. Idaho and Montana combined have about 1500 wolves. How many kids have been packed off and eaten?
I think you should answer your first question, as far as your second one, I would have to calculate how many wolves were shot around home first. You need to understand ID, MT and WY people are not as stupid as WA people, that is the main reason the wolf introduction was conducted in those states. They would be the hardest to shove wolves on once the truth was known. And yes they had their share of Jackelopes, and Wacoyotes and still do. :chuckle:
Read this JLS:
What They Didn't Tell You About Wolf Recovery
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf)
FWS Biologist Says Wolf Numbers Underestimated
Mech Says 3,000 Wolves Exist in ID, MT & WY http://rliv.com/pic/TheOutdoorsmanMay.pdf (http://rliv.com/pic/TheOutdoorsmanMay.pdf)
Post by: Wenatcheejay on April 16, 2013, 10:08:05 PM
Post by: mkcj on April 17, 2013, 12:25:32 AM
Post by: jackelope on April 17, 2013, 07:26:33 AM
be thankful they arent in your back yard. the fact is they are in mine, and you will not discount my concern about this.
I make no attempt to discount your concern and that was not the intention. Your backyard is a short drive from my backyard and I spend a fair amount of time there. I have family in e-wa and the wolves have literally been in their front yard(pasture) chasing deer.
Lets just all calm down and wait for delisting or jack will delete the thread as it is getting to informative. :chuckle: How's that working for you now jack? Are you going to delete this thread?
Who has been supplying wolves to WDFW for their releases. :yike: Who started the wolf introduction in Idaho and the Yellowstones ;) Hint, Hint.
Hint, Hint.... because you've obviously forgot what I have said in the past...Just for clarification the comments I have made in the past regarding wolfbait's claims where I have said just sit back and wait for delisting...What I have said several times in the past, maybe even dozens of times, that WB is trying to put a spin on was to report wolf sightings. Don't just sit back and complain. Every confirmed wolf, wolf pack, breeding pair, etc is 1 step closer to delisting. Delisting is management on the state level. I'm not sure what Washington would do if/when that ever happens, but if anything is ever going to happen, us folks who are out there and seeing the wolves in the woods need to do our part and report them. I have never said anything about "just waiting for delisting". Just wanted to clear up Wolfbait's spin on my statements.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 17, 2013, 07:46:06 AM
WA has a land mass of 71,362 sq miles and a population of 6.9 million = pop. density of 96.7 people per sq mile.
WA has a population density 6.77 times greater than Alberta. Human/wolf conflict, using these numbers alone, is far more likely in WA than in AB. This is a great example of the serious mistake the commission has made with their aggressive wolf plan, not only the number of breeding pairs, but the lapse of time required once the target of 15 is met - 3 years - before management is to take place. Keep in mind that we have 16 times the population density of MT, yet have 50% more packs required before state delisting and the countdown to management. MT is having severe problems, especially near the GYA. ID is having some of the same problems. The stage is set for WA to have problems unmatched in these other states. Not only the number of packs required, but the ridiculous 3 year waiting period before statewide management can start is unprecedented. If you're concerned about the problems in MT and ID, you've seen nothing yet. WA's ungulates will disappear, as will our hunting opportunities, to feed these critters. Costs to the state for reimbursement to ranchers and private citizens may double or triple every year, as may the cost of maintaining the program. We know that last year, the cost was $750K. This year, they're predicting a cost of $2.3 million, an increase of 3 times.
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on April 17, 2013, 07:52:59 AM
Post by: JLS on April 17, 2013, 07:53:17 AM
MT is having severe problems, especially near the GYA. ID is having some of the same problems.
What type of problems are you referring to?
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 17, 2013, 07:56:53 AM
Post by: AspenBud on April 17, 2013, 09:35:50 AM
Alberta has a land mass of 255,500 sq miles and a population of 3.65 million = pop. density of 14.29 people per sq mile
WA has a land mass of 71,362 sq miles and a population of 6.9 million = pop. density of 96.7 people per sq mile.
A better comparison is Minnesota.
Land mass around 87,000 square miles and a population of 5,344,861 people. Or 61 people per square miles They have a wolf population of around 3000 and growing and even at their lowest point they've had more wolves than Washington does now. At least according to official records. If you play your cards right you can kill five deer a season in Minnesota I believe. They are rats with antlers the farther east you go.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 17, 2013, 10:30:12 AM
Alberta has a land mass of 255,500 sq miles and a population of 3.65 million = pop. density of 14.29 people per sq mile
WA has a land mass of 71,362 sq miles and a population of 6.9 million = pop. density of 96.7 people per sq mile.
A better comparison is Minnesota.
Land mass around 87,000 square miles and a population of 5,344,861 people. Or 61 people per square miles They have a wolf population of around 3000 and growing and even at their lowest point they've had more wolves than Washington does now. At least according to official records. If you play your cards right you can kill five deer a season in Minnesota I believe. They are rats with antlers the farther east you go.
No, that's not a great comparison. The geography and the animal mix in Minnesota is completely different from WA. A comparison to MT and ID is much more valid and those states are not doing well with the wolves they have. We also know that whitetails (MN) are far more abundant and reproduce faster than either blackies or mule deer. There are also no elk to speak of in Minnesota - very small population there.
Post by: Special T on April 17, 2013, 10:45:01 AM
That also means that we should push/force the documentation of wolf packs, especially since people have known where wolves are for some time. :twocents:be thankful they arent in your back yard. the fact is they are in mine, and you will not discount my concern about this.
I make no attempt to discount your concern and that was not the intention. Your backyard is a short drive from my backyard and I spend a fair amount of time there. I have family in e-wa and the wolves have literally been in their front yard(pasture) chasing deer.
Lets just all calm down and wait for delisting or jack will delete the thread as it is getting to informative. :chuckle: How's that working for you now jack? Are you going to delete this thread?
Who has been supplying wolves to WDFW for their releases. :yike: Who started the wolf introduction in Idaho and the Yellowstones ;) Hint, Hint.
Hint, Hint.... because you've obviously forgot what I have said in the past...Just for clarification the comments I have made in the past regarding wolfbait's claims where I have said just sit back and wait for delisting...What I have said several times in the past, maybe even dozens of times, that WB is trying to put a spin on was to report wolf sightings. Don't just sit back and complain. Every confirmed wolf, wolf pack, breeding pair, etc is 1 step closer to delisting. Delisting is management on the state level. I'm not sure what Washington would do if/when that ever happens, but if anything is ever going to happen, us folks who are out there and seeing the wolves in the woods need to do our part and report them. I have never said anything about "just waiting for delisting". Just wanted to clear up Wolfbait's spin on my statements.
Post by: denali on April 17, 2013, 11:00:08 AM
Alberta has a land mass of 255,500 sq miles and a population of 3.65 million = pop. density of 14.29 people per sq mile
WA has a land mass of 71,362 sq miles and a population of 6.9 million = pop. density of 96.7 people per sq mile.
A better comparison is Minnesota.
Land mass around 87,000 square miles and a population of 5,344,861 people. Or 61 people per square miles They have a wolf population of around 3000 and growing and even at their lowest point they've had more wolves than Washington does now. At least according to official records. If you play your cards right you can kill five deer a season in Minnesota I believe. They are rats with antlers the farther east you go.
No, that's not a great comparison. The geography and the animal mix in Minnesota is completely different from WA. A comparison to MT and ID is much more valid and those states are not doing well with the wolves they have. We also know that whitetails (MN) are far more abundant and reproduce faster than either blackies or mule deer. There are also no elk to speak of in Minnesota - very small population there.
also MN has few cougars and a smaller bear population.
Post by: MR5x5 on April 17, 2013, 11:02:11 AM
This westsider says I demand a Capitol Forest pack be transplanted to so richly fulfill the local lives of those who impose upon others....
Post by: AspenBud on April 17, 2013, 11:12:25 AM
Alberta has a land mass of 255,500 sq miles and a population of 3.65 million = pop. density of 14.29 people per sq mile
WA has a land mass of 71,362 sq miles and a population of 6.9 million = pop. density of 96.7 people per sq mile.
A better comparison is Minnesota.
Land mass around 87,000 square miles and a population of 5,344,861 people. Or 61 people per square miles They have a wolf population of around 3000 and growing and even at their lowest point they've had more wolves than Washington does now. At least according to official records. If you play your cards right you can kill five deer a season in Minnesota I believe. They are rats with antlers the farther east you go.
No, that's not a great comparison. The geography and the animal mix in Minnesota is completely different from WA. A comparison to MT and ID is much more valid and those states are not doing well with the wolves they have. We also know that whitetails (MN) are far more abundant and reproduce faster than either blackies or mule deer. There are also no elk to speak of in Minnesota - very small population there.
From the angle you're talking about, I'll agree. But if we're talking about babies getting snatched by wolves in peoples' back yards, which is what the original argument was about, it's a great comparison. Minnesota has always had wolves, a large number of them, and to the best of my knowledge there hasn't been a fatality caused by them in the last 100 years unless you count "pet" wolves. Bear on the other hand...
That should not be construed to mean they are fluffy and trustworthy animals. They are predators and the danger is there. But in the grand scheme of things people appear to have more to fear from bear and cougars, for now. But even if it happens, I very much doubt most people will see it any differently than when a bear or cougar kills someone, and why should they, dead is dead. Unless it becomes a very common thing, don't expect people to get too worked up about it.
Side note, part of the reason Minnesota has so few elk is farmers out there see them as pests that destroy crops. Their population has been heavily managed for years for that reason. Sound familiar?
**********************
There are very good reasons to be managing/hunting wolves in this state, I am not arguing that point.
Post by: AspenBud on April 17, 2013, 11:13:35 AM
Alberta has a land mass of 255,500 sq miles and a population of 3.65 million = pop. density of 14.29 people per sq mile
WA has a land mass of 71,362 sq miles and a population of 6.9 million = pop. density of 96.7 people per sq mile.
A better comparison is Minnesota.
Land mass around 87,000 square miles and a population of 5,344,861 people. Or 61 people per square miles They have a wolf population of around 3000 and growing and even at their lowest point they've had more wolves than Washington does now. At least according to official records. If you play your cards right you can kill five deer a season in Minnesota I believe. They are rats with antlers the farther east you go.
No, that's not a great comparison. The geography and the animal mix in Minnesota is completely different from WA. A comparison to MT and ID is much more valid and those states are not doing well with the wolves they have. We also know that whitetails (MN) are far more abundant and reproduce faster than either blackies or mule deer. There are also no elk to speak of in Minnesota - very small population there.
also MN has few cougars and a smaller bear population.
Cougar, yes. Bear, the last time I checked we had about 10,000 more. But they can still hunt them with hounds out there I believe.
Post by: AspenBud on April 17, 2013, 11:25:43 AM
No, that's not a great comparison. The geography and the animal mix in Minnesota is completely different from WA. A comparison to MT and ID is much more valid and those states are not doing well with the wolves they have. We also know that whitetails (MN) are far more abundant and reproduce faster than either blackies or mule deer.
That highlighted part from your post, this is the point that needs to made and wolf supporters need to be whacked over the head with it over and over in this state.
Forget arguments about attacks on humans or attacks on dogs or attacks on livestock, other predators do that exact same thing and you will never get traction with that. But how Canadian grey wolves are throwing the ecosystem into disarray, that can be both proven and argued.
Why should an over population of wolves in one corner of the state be allowed to ravage the landscape while people wait for them to expand into others? How is that fair or, frankly, good science? It's not, and we all know it.
If they want wolves in all three zones, let's put them there and get it over with so we can start managing their numbers. Period.
Post by: bobcat on April 17, 2013, 11:45:58 AM
But as for "putting wolves into regions where they are not already present," I don't agree with that. The wolves are doing that on their own and I don't think they need our help.
What is needed is for wolves to be counted where they already are. I don't want the state spending even more money on the relocation of wolves, into areas they may not ever inhabit without our help.
Post by: denali on April 17, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
Alberta has a land mass of 255,500 sq miles and a population of 3.65 million = pop. density of 14.29 people per sq mile
WA has a land mass of 71,362 sq miles and a population of 6.9 million = pop. density of 96.7 people per sq mile.
A better comparison is Minnesota.
Land mass around 87,000 square miles and a population of 5,344,861 people. Or 61 people per square miles They have a wolf population of around 3000 and growing and even at their lowest point they've had more wolves than Washington does now. At least according to official records. If you play your cards right you can kill five deer a season in Minnesota I believe. They are rats with antlers the farther east you go.
No, that's not a great comparison. The geography and the animal mix in Minnesota is completely different from WA. A comparison to MT and ID is much more valid and those states are not doing well with the wolves they have. We also know that whitetails (MN) are far more abundant and reproduce faster than either blackies or mule deer. There are also no elk to speak of in Minnesota - very small population there.
also MN has few cougars and a smaller bear population.
Cougar, yes. Bear, the last time I checked we had about 10,000 more. But they can still hunt them with hounds out there I believe.
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/blackbear.html (http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/blackbear.html) est. 20,000- WA population est. 25-30,000
Post by: JLS on April 17, 2013, 11:59:16 AM
Side note, part of the reason Minnesota has so few elk is farmers out there see them as pests that destroy crops. Their population has been heavily managed for years for that reason. Sound familiar?
**********************
It sounds VERY familiar. Not only in Washington, but also Montana.
Maybe the reason Minnnesota has so many whitetails is they have the kind of wolves that live in harmony with everything else?
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 17, 2013, 12:13:03 PM
Alberta has a land mass of 255,500 sq miles and a population of 3.65 million = pop. density of 14.29 people per sq mile
WA has a land mass of 71,362 sq miles and a population of 6.9 million = pop. density of 96.7 people per sq mile.
A better comparison is Minnesota.
Land mass around 87,000 square miles and a population of 5,344,861 people. Or 61 people per square miles They have a wolf population of around 3000 and growing and even at their lowest point they've had more wolves than Washington does now. At least according to official records. If you play your cards right you can kill five deer a season in Minnesota I believe. They are rats with antlers the farther east you go.
No, that's not a great comparison. The geography and the animal mix in Minnesota is completely different from WA. A comparison to MT and ID is much more valid and those states are not doing well with the wolves they have. We also know that whitetails (MN) are far more abundant and reproduce faster than either blackies or mule deer. There are also no elk to speak of in Minnesota - very small population there.
also MN has few cougars and a smaller bear population.
Cougar, yes. Bear, the last time I checked we had about 10,000 more. But they can still hunt them with hounds out there I believe.
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/blackbear.html (http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/blackbear.html) est. 20,000- WA population est. 25-30,000
Yes, so MN has up to 33% fewer bears with 20% bigger land mass than WA. Cougars? Substantially fewer. Maybe none?
Post by: Wenatcheejay on April 17, 2013, 01:58:34 PM
:chuckle: It would be grrreat! To see people switch their opinion if they had any skin in this game.
Post by: denali on April 17, 2013, 02:28:18 PM
By DAN WHEAT
Capital Press
WENATCHEE, Wash. -- The Hurd brothers started seeing tracks on their ranch last year. They were from wolves or really large dogs, they weren't sure.
Then last fall the Hurds held four miles of fire line during the Wenatchee wildfires, and Oregon hot shot fire crews told them they found wolf tracks on the ridge five to six miles southwest of Wenatchee.
In November, a neighbor's remote camera caught an image of a wolf.
The wolf probably split from the Teanaway Pack about 30 miles to the southwest, said David Volsen, a biologist with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
In March, the Hurds found a large bull elk that they'd known for a split ear floating dead in their stock pond. Wolf tracks were abundant on the pond bank.
"Wolves probably chased it and it finally went into cold water to get away from them and drowned," Ross Hurd said.
It had been fed on after it was dead, and there were wolf tracks but a necropsy showed no evidence wolves killed it, Volsen said.
The Hurds placed a camera that caught images of two wolves feeding on the elk's carcass.
"Two wolves traveling together is the definition of a pack," Volsen said.
That was the end of March. Fish and Wildlife officials asked the Hurds if they wanted to name the pack. They chose Wenatchee Pack.
One of the Hurd's cows was killed. There was evidence of wolves around it and it had been fed upon after death, but again a necropsy did not show a wolf killed it, Volsen said.
But they were nearby, he said.
"We saw wolves on the hillside behind us during the necropsy," he said.
Two other bull elk and 14 deer died on the 5,000-acre ranch, suspected but unconfirmed wolf kills, Hurd said.
At the recommendation of Fish and Wildlife, the Hurds brought their 60 mother cows in from open range to an acre holding area near their ranch house up Pitcher Canyon, some five miles southwest of town.
The idea is to protect cows while calving, but six cows were so traumatized that they would run away and couldn't be brought in, Hurd said. They may have already lost their calves to wolves, he said.
"We have 24 calves right now when we normally have 35," he said. "It could be the cows are just calving late, but why would wolves not be eating our calves out there?"
The Hurds have signed an agreement with Fish and Wildlife, fencing the calving pasture, electrifying the fence and getting rid of old bone yards, Volsen said. The department will contribute close to $5,000 toward fencing and extra feed, he said.
If there are more problems, the department will flag the fence to deter the wolves, Volsen said.
The plan is to hold the cattle in the pasture until deer migrate into the high country on the theory the wolves will follow the deer, Hurd said.
But Hurd and his brothers, Scott and Doug, all in their 50s, are apprehensive.
"I am not out to anger wolf people," Ross Hurd said. "I'm not here to say we need to kill the wolves, but what do we have to do to continue in the cattle business? What business model supports that? We will have increased feed costs and losses.
"We'd like to keep ranching. We're doing the best we can. I don't understand the goal of Fish and Wildlife. If the pack becomes 10 does it make it easier for us?"
The brothers are the fourth generation in the family that has owned the ranch for more than 100 years.
http://www.capitalpress.com/content/djw-wolves-w-art-041713 (http://www.capitalpress.com/content/djw-wolves-w-art-041713)
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on April 17, 2013, 02:28:37 PM
There is an area called SaddleRock right between these two canyons where the wolf pack is. Granola crunching potheads love to hike around up there with their dogs. (Some normal people as well.) It's a likely spot for an altercation. The solution would be to close the area to human interaction. People do not need to be up there.
:chuckle: It would be grrreat! To see people switch their opinion if they had any skin in this game.
The Sherriff's Deputies euthanized the deer and took it away. That means wolfie will have to kill something else to eat. Granola-crunching Pothead--YUK! :chuckle:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on April 17, 2013, 03:09:38 PM
It is impossible that wolves have anything to do with anything. The bio's make sure of it. I am sure many WDFW bio's are good guys just trying to do their job... But, they suck at it.
Wolves are making the kills. It's common sense and, it is also easy to conclude WDFW and the general public doesn't really care. :twocents:
Post by: wolfbait on April 18, 2013, 10:55:50 AM
Remember the first wolf pack in 70 years lie? And the fact that Oregon came out with a new wolf pack the very same day. Whether it is the USFWS and Idaho, or MT or WA etc. it is still the same game, the only difference is the wolf introduction has been hidden releases in WA and other startes. The outcome will be the same as Idaho etc., wolf impacts are and will continue to be covered until they start killing livestock to the point that confirming is their only choice and game herds will be slaughtered to the point of no return.
The USFWS had to foot the bill for Wyoming's wolf recovery for several years, only because WY's state legistlators refuse to bow down to the USFWS wolf plans. The USFWS discovered long ago the only way to handle livestock killing wolves was to take out the entire pack. Now we see OR and WA preserving wolves in every way possible including hurting ranchers by letting wolves continue to kill their cows, when they already know the end results will be more dead cows, more $$$$$ and eventually the end results will be tha pack will either be killed or relocated somewhere else. The public won't care until the wolves are affecting them directly, we have already seen that.
There is probably only one solution to delisting sooner, and that is to cofirm wolf packs privately and go public. Reporting wolves to WDFW is worthless.
Post by: Special T on April 18, 2013, 11:03:45 AM
Post by: mulehunter on April 18, 2013, 11:43:24 AM
BIO. :pee:
Post by: wolfbait on April 18, 2013, 03:24:17 PM
Can't believe BIO kept saying Wolves didnt kill it. Whatever.... I KNOW ALL of Wolves has done everyday is chase chase chase till they catch it to eat meat to get more fuel for their body for next kill.
BIO. :pee:
Post by: wolfbait on April 18, 2013, 03:36:10 PM
Can't believe BIO kept saying Wolves didnt kill it. Whatever.... I KNOW ALL of Wolves has done everyday is chase chase chase till they catch it to eat meat to get more fuel for their body for next kill.
BIO. :pee:
Biologists need to call Olympia and talk to the USWFS, WDFW and find out what to tell the public. It doesn't matter which biologists are on the scene, they need to follow protocol.
As time goes on and more people start seeing what the wolves leave behind, and how the cover-up continues, perhaps things will change for WA's game herds and livestock. One thing is for sure WA will be in far worse shape then any other state in a shorter amount of time, considering the fact that WDFW said WA just started wof recovery in 2008.
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on April 18, 2013, 10:14:55 PM
Post by: Special T on April 19, 2013, 07:14:43 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 19, 2013, 07:35:04 AM
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on April 19, 2013, 07:38:46 AM
As messed up as this sounds.... I think Wolves close to Wenatchee is GREAT! Wenatchee is the kind of place where the west side meets East side reality.... LOTS of westsiders recreate in the wenatchee valley and play. Many have moved to there for the better weather. Now i don't want anyone to get hurt but the sooner these oblivious people are enlightened the better. :twocents:
:yeah: In the 40+ years I've lived here, I've seen Wenatchee go from a bastion of conservatism to a haven for bunny-huggers. I would hate to see anyone get hurt, but these liberals need a wake-up call to see what they have created.
Post by: Special T on April 19, 2013, 07:40:44 AM
Post by: Elkrunner on April 19, 2013, 08:25:31 AM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on April 19, 2013, 08:26:12 AM
Post by: wolfbait on April 19, 2013, 08:44:31 AM
Why would the native americans speak up. Aren't wolves seen as a sacred animal by Natives?
Ask the Colville's
Post by: Wenatcheejay on April 19, 2013, 09:22:36 AM
Post by: AspenBud on April 19, 2013, 10:42:15 AM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on April 19, 2013, 10:53:46 AM
If a wolf attacks someone about the only thing that might happen is the state will come out and shoot it. Won't be any different than when a cougar or bear does that. It won't be special.
Nobody will care. Hell, there will probably be a defense fund for the orphaned pups.
Post by: JLS on April 19, 2013, 10:55:51 AM
. In addition, all people who build or own personal residential property outside of an Urban Growth Boundary which is not in active farming use and have unnatural vegetation or irrigation of said property must surround their property with an 8'ft high fence to keep wildlife out of their boundaries. Failure to comply would result in a loss of a Certificate Of Occupancy for the residence and property.
So much for American freedoms huh?
Post by: Wenatcheejay on April 19, 2013, 12:56:38 PM
. In addition, all people who build or own personal residential property outside of an Urban Growth Boundary which is not in active farming use and have unnatural vegetation or irrigation of said property must surround their property with an 8'ft high fence to keep wildlife out of their boundaries. Failure to comply would result in a loss of a Certificate Of Occupancy for the residence and property.
So much for American freedoms huh?
American Freedom? Watchout, words like that will put you on a DHS watchlist. ;)
Post by: wolfbait on April 19, 2013, 06:04:17 PM
The Wenatchee World also states that people need to stop feeding deer, as predators follow prey. I propose a $5000.00 fine and one year in jail, (Gross Misdemeanor) for anyone who feeds deer near a residential area. In addition, all people who build or own personal residential property outside of an Urban Growth Boundary which is not in active farming use and have unnatural vegetation or irrigation of said property must surround their property with an 8'ft high fence to keep wildlife out of their boundaries. Failure to comply would result in a loss of a Certificate Of Occupancy for the residence and property.
Post by: Dan-o on April 19, 2013, 06:13:05 PM
The Wenatchee World also states that people need to stop feeding deer, as predators follow prey. I propose a $5000.00 fine and one year in jail, (Gross Misdemeanor) for anyone who feeds deer near a residential area. In addition, all people who build or own personal residential property outside of an Urban Growth Boundary which is not in active farming use and have unnatural vegetation or irrigation of said property must surround their property with an 8'ft high fence to keep wildlife out of their boundaries. Failure to comply would result in a loss of a Certificate Of Occupancy for the residence and property.
Wow, I hope you're kidding.....
Post by: NOCK NOCK on April 19, 2013, 09:21:34 PM
I doubt a person will be physically hurt. Pets yes, livestock yes, Game will be dead or ran off. What I want is to see SaddleRock and Sage Hills closed to hiking & Horseback recreating. These people need to give up something for the good of the wolves.
I totally agree :yeah: :tup:
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on April 19, 2013, 09:37:13 PM
I doubt a person will be physically hurt.
You mean the wolves here are kinder and gentler than the ones in Alaska that chased down a female jogger, killed her and ate part of her. Then while the Indians were waiting for the Alaska state Patrol to come investigate the incident, the wolves dragged the body into the brush and ate some more. :dunno:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on April 19, 2013, 10:42:10 PM
;)The Wenatchee World also states that people need to stop feeding deer, as predators follow prey. I propose a $5000.00 fine and one year in jail, (Gross Misdemeanor) for anyone who feeds deer near a residential area. In addition, all people who build or own personal residential property outside of an Urban Growth Boundary which is not in active farming use and have unnatural vegetation or irrigation of said property must surround their property with an 8'ft high fence to keep wildlife out of their boundaries. Failure to comply would result in a loss of a Certificate Of Occupancy for the residence and property.
Wow, I hope you're kidding.....
And wolfbait, you stole my thunder with that photo!
Post by: wolfbait on April 20, 2013, 08:18:23 AM
In ID and MT there have been several close calls with wolves attacking people, the wolves lost and these incidents never hit the paper. WA has had several close calls already also, it's just a matter of time before someone gets chomped on. And just like everything else the wolves have done, the USFWS and WDFW will have some sort of excuse for their wolves.
Post by: NOCK NOCK on April 20, 2013, 08:34:07 AM
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on April 20, 2013, 05:50:48 PM
Today(Sat.) they are doing a "hands across saddlerock" This would be a perfect time for a wolf to attack/pick off a slow,old,or weak hiker. Huggers could get an up close and personal reality check with a wolf. :chuckle:
Too soon--there are still plenty of deer for cars to hit and wolves to feed on.... :chuckle: Besides, WDFW would only say that the hiker was hit by a mountain biker, and the wolves just happened to be feeding on the dead hiker! :chuckle: