Post by: Chase 1 on April 21, 2013, 12:21:00 AM
David has been the voice of Washington's many citizens who value passive recreation and wildlife protection. He is a strong proponent of watchable wildlife, fish and wildlife conservation, increasing the relevancy of the Department of Fish and Wildlife to more than just the hunters and fishers, and protecting the privilege of future generations to enjoy Washington's diverse fish and wildlife
I would urge you to take a moment and respond to the WFC request by using the link below to vote .."HELL NO"! :bdid: to Jenning's confirmation!
From the: Wild Fish Conservancy
Jennings to the Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission
April 18, 2013
David Jennings was appointed to the WA Fish & Wildlife Commission by Governor Gregoire in 2009. The nine-member Commission’s role is to establish policy and direction for fish and wildlife management in the state, and to monitor WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife’s implementation of those policies. During that time, David has been the voice of Washington's many citizens who value passive recreation and wildlife protection. He is a strong proponent of watchable wildlife, fish and wildlife conservation, increasing the relevancy of the Department of Fish and Wildlife to more than just the hunters and fishers, and protecting the privilege of future generations to enjoy Washington’s diverse fish and wildlife
David has been a longtime supporter of Wild Fish Conservancy and our efforts here in the Northwest. He has been especially influential as an advocate for bringing the science of conservation ecology to the Fish & Wildlife Commission.
The Problem ...(or solution)
David's presence on the Commission is coming to a vote at the Senate Natural Resources and Parks Committee. It appears that a small but vocal group of sportsfishers believe that Commissioner Jennings is too conservation-oriented and has thus mounted a campaign to encourage the Senate Committee to deny his confirmation.
How You Can Help (NOPE!)
It is urgent that you contact your Washington State Senator to express your support for David. David brings a crucial perspective to the F&W Commission ... a perspective that has historically been under-represented.
HOW CAN YOU ACTUALLY HELP??
Take a moment and respond to the WFC request by using the link at the bottom of the post with a vote of.."NO"! to Jenning's confirmation! :tup:
There will be no public testimony taken on Senate Gubernatorial Appointments. However, you may submit written comments to staff for distribution to the committee members at Katharine.Grimes@leg.wa.gov.
or directly to...
http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/ (http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/)
Full story:
http://wildfishconservancy.org/about/press-room/press-clips/action-required-support-the-confirmation-of-david-jennings-to-the-washington-fish-wildlife-commission (http://wildfishconservancy.org/about/press-room/press-clips/action-required-support-the-confirmation-of-david-jennings-to-the-washington-fish-wildlife-commission)
Post by: dreamingbig on April 21, 2013, 10:26:18 PM
Post by: Chase 1 on April 24, 2013, 12:18:36 AM
For all the... "let's make sure that the Commission is balanced and science based", I don't see much volume from the hunting community at all. Not only should we be asking that Jennings be removed, we should be telling Inslee who should replace him.
Please take a minute and tell you reps that Jennings should be politely thanked for his "service", and then he should be asked to turn in his pocket protector and his "let us pet fish" and "hear the howl" lapel pins on his way out the door! :twocents:
Post by: dreamingbig on April 24, 2013, 03:58:35 PM
Post by: snowpack on April 25, 2013, 11:17:12 AM
Post by: Chase 1 on April 25, 2013, 11:43:04 AM
Meanwhile, Inslee got rid of Douvia and Perry is on the way out. Thinking Inslee will appoint two more huggers. :yike:
Source for Douvia and Perry info?
Post by: snowpack on April 25, 2013, 11:47:10 AM
:yike: See how bad this turns out....might be moving to Montana or Alaska sooner rather than later.
Post by: Chase 1 on April 25, 2013, 11:50:42 AM
Post by: dreamingbig on April 25, 2013, 05:00:13 PM
Post by: whacker1 on April 25, 2013, 05:14:55 PM
Post by: 33 Winchester on April 27, 2013, 02:49:03 PM
I do not know Mr. Jennings, but I do know Mr. Douvia and he was a poor supporter of fish and wildlife conservation. County Commissioners in Stevens County are attempting to scuttle efforts by the Department of Fish and Wildlife to double the NE elk herd. They even attempted to employ the state growth management act to foil growth of the elk population. I don't care whether someone is a bunny hugger or not, as long as they have the courage to support wildlife instead of local politicians. We sportsmen couldn't depend on that support from Mr. Douvia.
Yes, wolves are eating machines. However, the management plan only calls for fifteen breeding pairs, maybe a few hundred animals. So the species has functioned largely as a red herring issue driving a destructive wedge between hunters and other wildlife advocates.
Post by: denali on April 27, 2013, 03:28:16 PM
Post by: 33 Winchester on April 29, 2013, 09:08:57 AM
The wolf management plan is a modest effort to meet the minimum objectives of endangered species legislation. Soon, we will have another game animal to hunt.
In the management plan, the WDFW makes a pretty strong commitment to maintain game herds, suggesting wolves would have little to no impact. It will, however, require some money and due diligence. Seems to me hunters would be wise to reinforce that commitment and help insure the Department gets the resources needed to meet game management objectives, rather than facilitating a self fulfilling prophesy just so we can say "we told you so" if game numbers fall. It wouldn't kill us to work with groups like Defenders of Wildlife to minimize the adverse impacts of wolves on game herds.
Additionally, hunting isn't a growth sport and wildlife watching is. We need help to move fish and wildlife habitat legislation. By continuously vilifying "bunny huggers" we make ourselves enemies of a rapidly growing social group that is educated and organized.
Post by: whacker1 on April 29, 2013, 10:18:26 AM
Interesting point denali. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is a "management by objectives" agency though, and I haven't seen anything in the plan that states or implies the management objective will be different than fifteen breeding pairs. The peer reviewers and critics of the plan assume fifteen breeding pairs is the objective. Just exactly what do you see in the plan, or any other document, that justifies your concern?
The wolf management plan is a modest effort to meet the minimum objectives of endangered species legislation. Soon, we will have another game animal to hunt.
In the management plan, the WDFW makes a pretty strong commitment to maintain game herds, suggesting wolves would have little to no impact. It will, however, require some money and due diligence. Seems to me hunters would be wise to reinforce that commitment and help insure the Department gets the resources needed to meet game management objectives, rather than facilitating a self fulfilling prophesy just so we can say "we told you so" if game numbers fall. It wouldn't kill us to work with groups like Defenders of Wildlife to minimize the adverse impacts of wolves on game herds.
Additionally, hunting isn't a growth sport and wildlife watching is. We need help to move fish and wildlife habitat legislation. By continuously vilifying "bunny huggers" we make ourselves enemies of a rapidly growing social group that is educated and organized.
33 - I don't feel that you have done a very good job educating yourself on the wolf plan. First, 15 breeding pairs is correct, but requires that number for 3 years continuously and spread of wolves in all 3 wolf regions. Currently there are 12 packs that have been identified and none in the SW region. So that means that the populations will continue to grow in the Eastern Wasghington and the Northern Cascades, and we will not see any delisting efforts until the SW region gets their 4 breeding pairs. So this is a greater number of breeding pairs than was used for Montana's original management plan, and we have roughly 10 times the human population and half the geography.
Douvia is a poor supporter of fish and wildlife conservation, really?....I believe on the particular wolf issue as we were discussing he is the member of the commission that included a cap of 18 breeding pairs as a set amount of breeding pairs to initiate delisting process for the other 2 regions of the state. I believe he knew that government beauracracy would sit on their proverbial hands once the 15 bp was met in the first year. and he knew that the population would grow faster than planned and 3 years would be too long to wait.
I do not know much about the County Commissioners trying to scuttle the WDFW efforts on NE elk heard growth other than the elk heard has been growing, is poorly docummented on actual size and the commissioners were frustrated by reduction in opportunities as they know that hurts tourism. Other efforts to scuttle the WDFW I know nothing about...., so please enlighten us as that would most definitiely would be news worthy.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 29, 2013, 10:33:38 AM
Post by: denali on April 29, 2013, 10:41:47 AM
Interesting point denali. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is a "management by objectives" agency though, and I haven't seen anything in the plan that states or implies the management objective will be different than fifteen breeding pairs. The peer reviewers and critics of the plan assume fifteen breeding pairs is the objective. Just exactly what do you see in the plan, or any other document, that justifies your concern?
After revision the plan calls for delisting after 18 BP if this number is reached regardless if quota is reached in all 3 zones.
In ID and MT wolf counts were 20-30% under count, I see no reason to expect WA would be any different.
The wolf management plan is a modest effort to meet the minimum objectives of endangered species legislation. Soon, we will have another game animal to hunt.
Modest... really?... we have a 30-40% higher objective with 1/2 the prey base with 3-5 times the human population of NRM states.
In the management plan, the WDFW makes a pretty strong commitment to maintain game herds, suggesting wolves would have little to no impact. It will, however, require some money and due diligence. Seems to me hunters would be wise to reinforce that commitment and help insure the Department gets the resources needed to meet game management objectives, rather than facilitating a self fulfilling prophesy just so we can say "we told you so" if game numbers fall. It wouldn't kill us to work with groups like Defenders of Wildlife to minimize the adverse impacts of wolves on game herds.
defenders of wildlife....??
Additionally, hunting isn't a growth sport and wildlife watching is. We need help to move fish and wildlife habitat legislation. By continuously vilifying "bunny huggers" we make ourselves enemies of a rapidly growing social group that is educated and organized.
wildlife watching is a great pastime, one of my favorites, however it provides little in direct revenue to to the WDFW
Post by: bearpaw on April 29, 2013, 10:46:03 AM
Washington is asking for 15 BPO's, this is twice the wolves in the Montana and Idaho plans. Montana is twice the size of Washington and has roughly 1/6 the human population.
33 Winchester you seriously need to get your facts straight. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on April 29, 2013, 10:47:19 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 29, 2013, 11:01:39 AM
Interesting point denali. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is a "management by objectives" agency though, and I haven't seen anything in the plan that states or implies the management objective will be different than fifteen breeding pairs. The peer reviewers and critics of the plan assume fifteen breeding pairs is the objective. Just exactly what do you see in the plan, or any other document, that justifies your concern?
The wolf management plan is a modest effort to meet the minimum objectives of endangered species legislation. Soon, we will have another game animal to hunt.
In the management plan, the WDFW makes a pretty strong commitment to maintain game herds, suggesting wolves would have little to no impact. It will, however, require some money and due diligence. Seems to me hunters would be wise to reinforce that commitment and help insure the Department gets the resources needed to meet game management objectives, rather than facilitating a self fulfilling prophesy just so we can say "we told you so" if game numbers fall. It wouldn't kill us to work with groups like Defenders of Wildlife to minimize the adverse impacts of wolves on game herds.
Additionally, hunting isn't a growth sport and wildlife watching is. We need help to move fish and wildlife habitat legislation. By continuously vilifying "bunny huggers" we make ourselves enemies of a rapidly growing social group that is educated and organized.
And a group which pays little or nothing into wildlife management. This is a group of people most of whom, if they were required to pay what we pay to hunt, would find something else to do, altogether. They don't mind pushing for legislation to limit my hunting opportunities, but very few of them would pay the kind of money we do to keep conservation going. That includes not only the license/tag fees, but the huge amount of money coming from Pittman Robertson volunteer taxes on ammo, guns, and archery equipment. This is the problem I have with the bunny huggers - they have 0 in the game.
Post by: huntnphool on April 29, 2013, 11:41:12 AM
In the management plan, the WDFW makes a pretty strong commitment to maintain game herds, suggesting wolves would have little to no impact.
You should understand that there are a few on this site that attended the meetings and have read through the wolf plan several times.
Post by: bullchaser on April 29, 2013, 12:02:58 PM
Interesting point denali. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is a "management by objectives" agency though, and I haven't seen anything in the plan that states or implies the management objective will be different than fifteen breeding pairs. The peer reviewers and critics of the plan assume fifteen breeding pairs is the objective. Just exactly what do you see in the plan, or any other document, that justifies your concern?
The wolf management plan is a modest effort to meet the minimum objectives of endangered species legislation. Soon, we will have another game animal to hunt.
In the management plan, the WDFW makes a pretty strong commitment to maintain game herds, suggesting wolves would have little to no impact. It will, however, require some money and due diligence. Seems to me hunters would be wise to reinforce that commitment and help insure the Department gets the resources needed to meet game management objectives, rather than facilitating a self fulfilling prophesy just so we can say "we told you so" if game numbers fall. It wouldn't kill us to work with groups like Defenders of Wildlife to minimize the adverse impacts of wolves on game herds.
Additionally, hunting isn't a growth sport and wildlife watching is. We need help to move fish and wildlife habitat legislation. By continuously vilifying "bunny huggers" we make ourselves enemies of a rapidly growing social group that is educated and organized.
And a group which pays little or nothing into wildlife management. This is a group of people most of whom, if they were required to pay what we pay to hunt, would find something else to do, altogether. They don't mind pushing for legislation to limit my hunting opportunities, but very few of them would pay the kind of money we do to keep conservation going. That includes not only the license/tag fees, but the huge amount of money coming from Pittman Robertson volunteer taxes on ammo, guns, and archery equipment. This is the problem I have with the bunny huggers - they have 0 in the game.
Well said.
Post by: 33 Winchester on May 04, 2013, 10:29:35 AM
A popular proposal in NE Washington to deal with the regional targets is, of course, to trap and transplant. That might not be such a popular proposal in the rest of the state.
As I understand it, wolf recovery is part of a world wide conservation trend based on scientific data pointing to ecological and genetic advantages (such as enlargement of brain size) to having viable populations of top tier predators in the environment. So we see efforts to recover and integrate lions and tigers, crocodiles and alligators, sharks and orcas, bears and wolves and so on into the environment, to the extent feasible. I don’t know where this experiment is going but I am guessing the endangered species act isn’t going away and neither are the scientists doing conservation biology.
When the smoke clears, we should have a modest number of wolves in the state. Numbers will be controlled largely by hunting There will be some local impacts which will not be as significant as winter kill, for instance; or the current inadequate elk numbers in NE Washington, far below what the habitat can support and too low to keep serious elk hunters in the state during elk season.
When WDFW staff came to Colville to present the proposal to double the elk herd there was a good but largely passive crowd in attendance. Don Dashiell, County Commission Chairman, gave a short speech about the county policy being pro agriculture and he questioned whether increasing elk numbers was consistent with county policy. Mr. Dashiell is a rancher. The local paper reported the commission sought to use the Growth Management Act to limit increases in the elk herd but the Attorney General ruled that the Act did not apply to elk. Now the commissioners are attempting to burden WDFW with data collection and obligations they hope the agency doesn’t have money or time to get around to. Hunters, too apoplectic over wolves or absorbed in their hatred for anti-hunters, will ignore more important things like improving elk population targets, they hope.
But this post is about Jennings, who I don’t know. But I do know Gary Douvia. Shortly after his appointment to the Commission I requested a meeting with him. We talked financial planning (Mr. Douvia’s profession), increasing elk numbers and the Kettle River. Mr. Douvia showed little interest in either fish or wildlife. Commissioner Douvia has been quoted several times in the local paper. I cannot recall a time when his interest was not driven by what local industry wanted. I have never heard him sound like an advocate for fish and wildlife. The Kettle River was listed as the most endangered river in British Columbia one recent year by the BC Outdoor Recreation Council, primarily due to legal and illegal existing and planned water withdrawals. Commissioner Douvia’s contribution to Kettle River conservation was a recommendation to suspend the selective gear rules for trout fishing, because that is what some local businesses wanted.
Hunters and anglers provide significant financial contribution to fish and wildlife habitat. However, it is not possible to deal with natural resource conservation through user fees, licenses, targeted taxes and so on. In order to conserve natural resources a land ethic is needed, sound conservation legislation is required and adequate public funding to execute the legislation. Additionally, fees, permits, licenses and so on act as a perturbation, chilling outdoor recreation participation.
Jennings I don’t know, but based on what I read I am guessing I could talk to him about Unit 117 and the four point rule; the Forest Service South End Motor Vehicle Recreation Plan (covering much of unit 117) prompted by the county commission wanting to focus on motorized recreation as a tourism strategy; the Colville Forest Plan to put a substantial portion of unit 117 into Restoration 3 land allocation with a road density target of an average of three miles per section on a watershed basis; the WDFW proposal to double the elk herd, with unit 117 being part of that proposal; and suggest there are some substantial conflicts between those objectives and the ability of the land to satisfy them and Mr. Jennings would get the point and try to do something about those contradictions to the advantage of wildlife. Yes or no?
Post by: bearpaw on May 05, 2013, 10:36:20 AM
OK, everyone knows there are problems with the wolf management plan. Wolves are the new predators on the block. Native ungulates are no more used to them than cattle are. There have been problems and there will be more. So what? You either have a state plan or the feds are back in the game.
A popular proposal in NE Washington to deal with the regional targets is, of course, to trap and transplant. That might not be such a popular proposal in the rest of the state.
As I understand it, wolf recovery is part of a world wide conservation trend based on scientific data pointing to ecological and genetic advantages (such as enlargement of brain size) to having viable populations of top tier predators in the environment. So we see efforts to recover and integrate lions and tigers, crocodiles and alligators, sharks and orcas, bears and wolves and so on into the environment, to the extent feasible. I don’t know where this experiment is going but I am guessing the endangered species act isn’t going away and neither are the scientists doing conservation biology.
When the smoke clears, we should have a modest number of wolves in the state. Numbers will be controlled largely by hunting There will be some local impacts which will not be as significant as winter kill, for instance; or the current inadequate elk numbers in NE Washington, far below what the habitat can support and too low to keep serious elk hunters in the state during elk season.
When WDFW staff came to Colville to present the proposal to double the elk herd there was a good but largely passive crowd in attendance. Don Dashiell, County Commission Chairman, gave a short speech about the county policy being pro agriculture and he questioned whether increasing elk numbers was consistent with county policy. Mr. Dashiell is a rancher. The local paper reported the commission sought to use the Growth Management Act to limit increases in the elk herd but the Attorney General ruled that the Act did not apply to elk. Now the commissioners are attempting to burden WDFW with data collection and obligations they hope the agency doesn’t have money or time to get around to. Hunters, too apoplectic over wolves or absorbed in their hatred for anti-hunters, will ignore more important things like improving elk population targets, they hope.
But this post is about Jennings, who I don’t know. But I do know Gary Douvia. Shortly after his appointment to the Commission I requested a meeting with him. We talked financial planning (Mr. Douvia’s profession), increasing elk numbers and the Kettle River. Mr. Douvia showed little interest in either fish or wildlife. Commissioner Douvia has been quoted several times in the local paper. I cannot recall a time when his interest was not driven by what local industry wanted. I have never heard him sound like an advocate for fish and wildlife. The Kettle River was listed as the most endangered river in British Columbia one recent year by the BC Outdoor Recreation Council, primarily due to legal and illegal existing and planned water withdrawals. Commissioner Douvia’s contribution to Kettle River conservation was a recommendation to suspend the selective gear rules for trout fishing, because that is what some local businesses wanted.
Hunters and anglers provide significant financial contribution to fish and wildlife habitat. However, it is not possible to deal with natural resource conservation through user fees, licenses, targeted taxes and so on. In order to conserve natural resources a land ethic is needed, sound conservation legislation is required and adequate public funding to execute the legislation. Additionally, fees, permits, licenses and so on act as a perturbation, chilling outdoor recreation participation.
Jennings I don’t know, but based on what I read I am guessing I could talk to him about Unit 117 and the four point rule; the Forest Service South End Motor Vehicle Recreation Plan (covering much of unit 117) prompted by the county commission wanting to focus on motorized recreation as a tourism strategy; the Colville Forest Plan to put a substantial portion of unit 117 into Restoration 3 land allocation with a road density target of an average of three miles per section on a watershed basis; the WDFW proposal to double the elk herd, with unit 117 being part of that proposal; and suggest there are some substantial conflicts between those objectives and the ability of the land to satisfy them and Mr. Jennings would get the point and try to do something about those contradictions to the advantage of wildlife. Yes or no?
33 Winchester your post is inaccurate.
The current WA wolf plan is a bogus bloated wolf plan based on faulty science from biased biologists which seeks to force more wolves into Washington (15 BP's) than in Montana (10 BP's). Montana is twice the size with one sixth the human population, a first grader can do the math and draw reasonable conclusions from the facts. Even wolf expert Dr David Mech is now trying to bring reality to this runaway train of wolf lover science that is strangling the rural west.
When the smoke clears, Washington will likely follow the path of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Sooner than later, wolves will turn up in I-5 suburbs and the Westside masses will experience the realities of wolves. Then WDFW will be forced to begin meaningful wolf management. I predicted what would happen in NE WA with wolves and it happened sooner than I predicted, most likely the Westside will see these same wolf impacts sooner than later and my prediction will occur.
This topic is about Commissioner Jennings, anyone watching his responses to the Senate Natural Resources Committee, anyone who knows Jennings voting record on hunting issues, and considering Jennings underhanded attempt to stop bottom fishing knows that Jennings is without doubt the worst commissioner for hunters and fishers. Jennings has clearly been the best commissioner for the anti-hunters and tree hugger groups thus the reason they support him and most sporting groups stand united in opposition to Jennings confirmation.
Your inaccurate misleading remarks about former Commissioner Douvia clearly display your own environmentalist agenda and seeming lack of game management knowledge. I am thankful for the many things Douvia has done for Washington hunters and fishers. For years the WDFW has ignored the declining deer herds and attempted to keep the NE WA elk herds from growing. With Douvia's influence the commission has reduced the antlerless and antlered whitetail harvest to let the herd grow. Anyone can understand basic husbandry and it's commonly understood that you remove females to maintain or reduce a herd, you reduce antlerless harvest to let a herd grow. In many NE WA units the buck ratio is also below objective, Douvia helped get a 4 pt plan in place for 5 years so that we could reduce the buck harvest in 2 GMU's to help improve the buck/doe ratio. The reduced deer harvest will help the NE deer herds recover and we will have more data available for future management decisions. Douvia also helped stop the over-the-counter cow elk tags in NE WA that have prevented the elk herds from growing. Douvia also pushed to get spring bear hunting in NE WA and more spring bear permits throughout Washington. The WDFW has been opposed to spring bear hunting due to their inability to stand up to the anti-hunters political pressure. Douvia pushed to bring reasonable wolf management to Washington, he also tried to bring more aggressive predator management for other overpopulated predator species.
Recreational fishing opportunity is another area that Douvia seemed to concentrate his efforts. During Douvia's time on the commission there have been many improvements for increasing recreational fishing opportunities throughout the state. Douvia has also been instrumental in arranging the purchase by Stevens County of the Colville Fish Hatchery which was shut down due to inefficiency. This fish hatchery will be brought back into production soon and will enhance local fishing opportunities.
Ranchers and farmers in NE WA are my friends and neighbors. You seem to dislike these people who are the backbone of our local economy. Sure they are concerned when there are herds of deer or elk eating their crops, it is the job of WDFW to find ways to keep wildlife from having excessive impacts while at the same time sustaining healthy herds with surplus animals available for hunters. No doubt there are no two people who think exactly alike so there may be an issue here and there that people will disagree on. But here in NE Washington we are very fortunate to have a very united community with leaders who represent us well. Your attempt to reduce my respect for our local leaders has been fruitless and I specifically thank Gary Douvia for his service to the hunters and fishers of Washington. There are certainly more hunting and fishing opportunities in Washington thanks to the efforts of Gary Douvia.
There certainly are not any more fishing and hunting opportunities due to the efforts of David Jennings. :twocents:
Post by: huntnphool on May 05, 2013, 11:06:13 AM
When the smoke clears, we should have a modest number of wolves in the state. Numbers will be controlled largely by hunting
There are so many inaccuracies to your statements on this subject it would take far too much time to address them all than I am willing to dedicate, the one above is a good example.
Hunting, as a tool to control wolf numbers, has been proven to be completely ineffective in these other states, and was a point of contention by Mr. Douvia at the proposal meetings. When asked by the commissioner why WDFW believed Washington would be any different, WDFW (Rocky) didn't have a answer, maybe you do?
What makes you think hunting in this state will be able to accomplish what the hunters in these other states could not?
Well said Dale! :tup:
Post by: JLS on May 05, 2013, 11:55:38 AM
Hunting, as a tool to control wolf numbers, has been proven to be completely ineffective in these other states
How then was Wyoming able to decrease wolf numbers such that they are looking in lowering the quota?
I'm not saying that hunting can drastically affect numbers, but to say it's completely ineffective is certainly not true. If it were, numbers would still be increasing when in fact they are trending downward in all three states.
Post by: bearpaw on May 05, 2013, 12:12:14 PM
Post by: JLS on May 05, 2013, 12:20:08 PM
In 80% of Wyoming wolves may be shot on sight, unprotected, no limit. Wyoming stood their ground and did it the right way. :twocents:
I understand that, but I'm referencing the controlled hunt area, not the other 80% of the state.
Post by: bearpaw on May 05, 2013, 12:36:05 PM
In 80% of Wyoming wolves may be shot on sight, unprotected, no limit. Wyoming stood their ground and did it the right way. :twocents:
I understand that, but I'm referencing the controlled hunt area, not the other 80% of the state.
I can't speak for him, but I suspect huntnphool was referencing the inability of ID/MT to harvest enough wolves with hunting and trapping combined. Of course if wolves are being killed that is providing some benefit, however it can be stated that overall hunting alone has not been affective at controlling wolf numbers in the NRM. :twocents:
Post by: huntnphool on May 05, 2013, 03:34:36 PM
In 80% of Wyoming wolves may be shot on sight, unprotected, no limit. Wyoming stood their ground and did it the right way. :twocents:+1, sorry JLS, I was away from the computer but Dale answered it nicely. "Hunting" as in controlled by a game dept. has proven to be ineffective, where as "shoot on sight" has shown some success, I don't consider "shoot on sight" as actively "hunting", and the states definition of "hunting" would mean tags with quota's and time limits, which doesn't translate to very high success rates compared to "shoot on sight". ;)
Post by: JLS on May 05, 2013, 04:56:57 PM
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/wyoming-game-and-fish-proposes-cutting-wolf-quotas-by-half/article_87e99bf8-0050-5dbc-935e-a30955ecb7bc.html (http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/wyoming-game-and-fish-proposes-cutting-wolf-quotas-by-half/article_87e99bf8-0050-5dbc-935e-a30955ecb7bc.html)
Post by: huntnphool on May 05, 2013, 05:08:13 PM
Looks like it was effective here:
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/wyoming-game-and-fish-proposes-cutting-wolf-quotas-by-half/article_87e99bf8-0050-5dbc-935e-a30955ecb7bc.html (http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/wyoming-game-and-fish-proposes-cutting-wolf-quotas-by-half/article_87e99bf8-0050-5dbc-935e-a30955ecb7bc.html)
:chuckle: Yeah, in 15% of the state for a decline of only 20%, in the other 85% not so much.
Quote
Wolves can be shot without a license during any time of the year in about 85 percent of the state. Thus far this year, hunters have killed 14 in that 85 percent, Nesvik said
Post by: JLS on May 05, 2013, 05:29:02 PM
Post by: bearpaw on May 05, 2013, 05:35:25 PM
In Washington we'll have a much tougher time controlling wolves as we have denser cover and no leg hold trapping seasons can be allowed. Once wolves inhabit western Washington they will be especially challenging to control.
It seems to me that WA will have to hire professional trappers or helicopter contractors to control wolves, thus the sportsman and/or tax payer will take another hit.
In addressing the original topic, I would add that Jennings has done nothing to help the wolf situation in Washington, in fact his vote is usually to increase wolves in WA.
Post by: blackdog on May 05, 2013, 06:04:43 PM