Post by: wolfbait on June 27, 2013, 04:51:54 PM
Jun 25, 2013 • 10:27 pm WDFW says no, but conservationists concerned
An image from a video taken in May of a female wolf in the Lookout Pack territory shows teats that appear to be filled with milk, indicating she has given birth. Photo courtesy of WDFW
BY ANN McCREARY
Removing gray wolves from federal endangered species protection – as proposed earlier this month by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – would have little impact on the way they are managed in Washington state, according to Donny Martorello, carnivore manager for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).
But conservation advocates who have promoted recovery of gray wolves in Washington say removing federal protection could jeopardize the “fragile” population of wolves in the Cascade Mountains – including the Methow Valley’s Lookout Pack.
It appears the Lookout Pack may be making a comeback after near extermination by poachers. Wildlife officials have been monitoring two remaining wolves in the Lookout Pack territory, and Martorello said last week that it appears they produced pups this spring.
“We believe there are pups in the Lookout Pack,” Martorello said. “We have photographs of the female before she gave birth and after.” A video captured by a trail camera indicates that the female is lactating, he said.
A trapper for WDFW was in the Lookout Pack territory earlier this month attempting to capture and collar the wolves, but was not successful, Martorello said. He said the trapper did not attempt to locate a den “because he didn’t want to disturb the animals.”
Martorello said state biologists believe that pups may also have been born this spring in the Teanaway, Huckleberry, Diamond and Smackout packs.
The 2008 discovery of the Lookout Pack, the first gray wolf pack identified in Washington since the 1930s, launched the creation of the state’s wolf management plan. The plan calls for recovery of gray wolves throughout the state before they can be removed from state protection as an endangered species.
Martorello said an annual survey of wolves estimated there were 27 wolves, five wolf packs and three breeding pairs at the end of 2011. Last year’s survey indicated there were 51 wolves in nine packs with a total of five successful breeding pairs.
“The population nearly doubled from 2011 to 2012,” Martorello said. “Taking into account pack sizes, we believe the population is around 100 individuals. Now it’s June and there are pups on the ground.”
State protection
Wolves in Washington would remain under state protection even if federal officials take them off the endangered species list. The announcement by the federal Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) opens a 90-day comment period on the proposal, which would turn management of gray wolves over to the states.
In Washington, wolves in the eastern third of the state were taken off the endangered species list in 2007. However, wolves in the western two-thirds of Washington (including the Methow Valley) – with the Okanogan River and Highway 97 as the eastern boundary – remained under federal protection as endangered.
Conservation Northwest, a Bellingham-based organization that has monitored wolves in the North Cascades and advocated for their recovery, is urging federal wildlife officials to maintain protection for wolves in the North Cascades and Pacific Coast areas, arguing they are a “distinct population segment” of wolves that differ significantly from wolves in other areas of the country and therefore qualify for continued protection under the Endangered Species Act.
“If Fish and Wildlife Service delists wolves in the lower 48 states, a distinct population segment should be designated and protected in the Pacific Northwest,” Dave Werntz, science and conservation director for Conservation Northwest, said in a letter sent to FWS.
In announcing its proposal to delist wolves, FWS singled out Mexican wolves in southern Arizona and New Mexico as a population that should retain endangered species designation.
Wolves in the Pacific Northwest should likewise retain protection, argues Conservation Northwest, because they have characteristics that make them different from the wolves in the Rocky Mountain area to the east.
DNA obtained from Lookout Pack wolves has shown they are descendents of wolves living in coastal British Columbia, who lived separately from inland wolves for many generations, Conservation Northwest said in a press release.
“Over time, the coastal wolves adapted to local climatic and habitat conditions, creating a unique genetic profile. … Cascade wolves are different than those in the Rockies in other ways too – they are smaller in size; more reddish brown in color; and eat more salmon when available,” Conservation Northwest’s release said.
Federal officials are ignoring the logic they used in 2007 when they lifted protection for eastern Washington wolves, which are considered part of the Rocky Mountain distinct population segment, but retained protection for wolves in the western part of the state, said Jasmine Minbashian, communications director of Conservation Northwest.
“Either Cascades wolves are part of the Rockies population or they’re not,” Minbashian said. “It’s flip-flopping the argument. In a sense they’re claiming that because we have wolves in the northern Rockies, that’s good enough.”
Additionally, Minbashian said, it would make more sense to downgrade classification of endangered wolves to a “threatened” or “sensitive” species that would still retain some protections, rather than remove all protections and consider the species entirely recovered.
Fanning the flames
Wolves have been controversial in Washington and nearby Rocky Mountain states, pitting ranchers and hunters against conservationists who want to see wolves become re-established in their former habitats. Since federal protections were removed for wolves in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana, those states now permit wolves to be hunted.
The proposal to remove protection for wolves in the lower 48 states “fans the flames of controversy,” Minbashian said. “It almost encourages people to be more polarized.”
Martorello said because wolves will still remain endangered throughout Washington under state law, they will remain protected until the population meets the numbers required by the state wolf management plan. That plan calls for 15-18 successful breeding pairs, distributed throughout the state, before protection is lifted.
Removing federal protection will give the state the power to kill wolves that attack livestock or pets, as wildlife officials did last year with the Wedge Pack in Stevens County. Because the pack was in the eastern part of the state where wolves are not federally protected, state wildlife officials were able to shoot six of the Wedge Pack wolves after repeated attacks on cattle.
“It does allow that tool to be used and allows for more consistent management. As wolves expand westward, and they are rapidly … if you have that scenario we want the ability to deal with it,” Martorello said. “This year we’ve had no depredations other than the attack on the dog in Okanogan County.” He was referring to an incident in March in which a wolf injured a dog at a home near Carlton.
Penalties for killing an endangered species are considerably less under state law than federal law. Federal law provides for fines up to $100,000 and up to a year in prison for taking an endangered animal. State law provides for up to $5,000 in fines and and/or a year in jail.
Martorello said Washington state is seeing a “wave of recovery by viable (wolf) populations starting in the eastern part and moving westward.”
Three gray wolf packs have been confirmed in the North Cascades area – the Lookout Pack, the Teanaway Pack and the Wenatchee Pack.
USFW will accept comments from the public until Sept. 11 on the proposal to remove gray wolves from the endangered species list. Comments can be submitted online at www.regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov) and entering FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0073 in the search box. Comments may be mailed to Public Comments Processing, Att: FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0073; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/ (http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/)
Post by: Special T on June 27, 2013, 04:58:57 PM
At least the penalties for those who defend thier property and but don't jump through all of the states BS rules will have a much lower Penalty
Post by: wolfbait on June 27, 2013, 09:00:27 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun 25, 2013
DNA obtained from Lookout Pack wolves has shown they are descendents of wolves living in coastal British Columbia, who lived separately from inland wolves for many generations, Conservation Northwest said in a press release.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 25, 2008
Lookout Pack
DNA tests showed that the wolves originated from a population in the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada.
"This is a natural colonization," said Fitkin. "The wolves are naturally immigrating."
"I've been waiting for this for 18 years," said Fitkin, who said he was very excited by the findings of the investigation. Fitkin has been involved in wolf research in the North Cascades since 1991.
Though Washington state has not been home to a wolf pack since the 1930s, state wildlife officials have been expecting them to cross the border from Canada and disperse into the state from recovered populations in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. http://myyellowstonewolves.typepad.com/myw/2008/07/gray-wolves-are.html (http://myyellowstonewolves.typepad.com/myw/2008/07/gray-wolves-are.html)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992
State wildlife agents already have identified six packs of wolves in Washington's Cascades, and more are expected to migrate from Canada to the state's protected forests. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920417&slug=1486887 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920417&slug=1486887)
2011 Methow Valley wolf
Post by: Special T on June 28, 2013, 07:27:51 AM
Post by: AspenBud on June 28, 2013, 09:53:12 AM
1992
State wildlife agents already have identified six packs of wolves in Washington's Cascades, and more are expected to migrate from Canada to the state's protected forests. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920417&slug=1486887 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920417&slug=1486887)
Six packs in 1992? Wait, I thought wolves were secretly introduced by way of black helicopters and I thought wolves being back in the state was supposed to be an ecological apocalypse. After 21 years there must not be a deer or elk or cow left in the state. :tinfoil:
Talk about contradictory....
Post by: Special T on June 28, 2013, 10:09:41 AM
You may not believe in the reintroduction of wolves into this state, however it IS a fact that they were reintroduced into ID and YNP from way up north in the Canadian makensy valley. There are LOTS of statements made by the WDFW that don't line up. Many seem to think that because we question the wdfw we wear tinfoil hats. MANY good honest questions have been asked of the WDFW and we get fed cock and bull answers. This either means the WDFW is full if Inept people that can't do their job, OR they are a bunch of liars. In either case its not good for hunters OR citizens of washington.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 28, 2013, 10:30:33 AM
Post by: AspenBud on June 28, 2013, 10:37:20 AM
The contradiction is in the fact that wolves have been absent from this state for 70 years, and that is what the WDFW has been selling. I be live that it was in this same time period that the WDFW made coyote hunting illegal in the Psyaden because of the presence of wolves.
You may not believe in the reintroduction of wolves into this state, however it IS a fact that they were reintroduced into ID and YNP from way up north in the Canadian makensy valley. There are LOTS of statements made by the WDFW that don't line up. Many seem to think that because we question the wdfw we wear tinfoil hats. MANY good honest questions have been asked of the WDFW and we get fed cock and bull answers. This either means the WDFW is full if Inept people that can't do their job, OR they are a bunch of liars. In either case its not good for hunters OR citizens of washington.
I honestly don't care where they came from. They're here, not likely to go away, and I just wish the state would let everyone protect themselves and what's theirs from them when necessary.
I'll say this, it is interesting that the state said there were SIX packs back in '92 and today they recognize only 10-12 packs. That either means they're seriously low balling the number or they aren't quite as prolific as everyone makes them out to be. My gut feeling is the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Post by: wolfbait on June 28, 2013, 10:45:30 AM
STAY on em Wolfbait!!
;)
“Over time, the coastal wolves adapted to local climatic and habitat conditions, creating a unique genetic profile. … Cascade wolves are different than those in the Rockies in other ways too – they are smaller in size; more reddish brown in color; and eat more salmon when available,” Conservation Northwest’s release said."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimageshack.us%2Fscaled%2Fmedium%2F109%2Ft1x8.jpg&hash=ea4da8cada5eacfa4fa0c1c1bc505c7d932c98c9)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs22.postimage.org%2Fg3dw9lb1t%2FWDFW_s_Released_Wolves_kill_a_cow_and_calf.png&hash=aee2e187e0da4dd02ae9800062657ff10e97849f)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs16.postimage.org%2Foelkvn039%2FMay_19_2012_Thurlow_s_calf_killed_by_WDFW_s_wol.jpg&hash=74062f322128d1c2fa84e6c3ddcf68d111378a7e)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs22.postimage.org%2F3pw05kf1t%2FIMG_7709.jpg&hash=2693d4b582b1abd7c1b50a67fce342ac1112026b)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimageshack.us%2Fscaled%2Fmedium%2F189%2Fj5kg.jpg&hash=895abd0e4ddcc1df49d9aeabb8af1dec86bf9aa3)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs20.postimg.org%2Fj37i84jfh%2FIMG_3956.jpg&hash=e1a6c302012e2a22df0e85a0d92127a0341a6d92)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimageshack.us%2Fscaled%2Fmedium%2F407%2F2yqh.jpg&hash=58d5fce04f19fc300cb4903fbdb095c32ed6b1dd)
Post by: X-Force on June 28, 2013, 10:50:08 AM
Did they define a pack the way they do today?
Post by: wolfbait on June 28, 2013, 10:55:09 AM
Did they ever publish a map of the 1992 packs? It would be interesting to stomp around some of those pack areas?
Did they define a pack the way they do today?
In Washington, Feds Opt For Wolf Introduction Over Recovery http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/ (http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/)
Post by: AspenBud on June 28, 2013, 11:25:25 AM
Did they ever publish a map of the 1992 packs? It would be interesting to stomp around some of those pack areas?
Did they define a pack the way they do today?
In Washington, Feds Opt For Wolf Introduction Over Recovery http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/ (http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/)
This still lends credence to my point. If they had to introduce wolves to WA when packs were already known to exist that likely means they are not very prolific and that runs totally counter to what is being sold about them these days.
WDFW isn't going to admit to much of anything I suspect because they know a lot of folks don't want wolves around. So they'll wait until the numbers are so high that it becomes nearly impossible to eliminate them. It's probably sort of like how WSU has sent out people to work with farmers and ranchers to rebuild habitat etc in the past. Typically all communication is done on the sly and university employees work "under cover" because the farmers/ranchers that work with them don't want to be black balled by their neighbors.
Post by: Special T on June 28, 2013, 11:33:05 AM
The question that NONE of you are asking is WHY would WA want to protect wolves when the feds say the ESA goal has been fufilled? does it make any sence? NO! :bash:
Post by: wolfbait on June 28, 2013, 01:25:11 PM
Did they ever publish a map of the 1992 packs? It would be interesting to stomp around some of those pack areas?
Did they define a pack the way they do today?
In Washington, Feds Opt For Wolf Introduction Over Recovery http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/ (http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/)
This still lends credence to my point. If they had to introduce wolves to WA when packs were already known to exist that likely means they are not very prolific and that runs totally counter to what is being sold about them these days.
WDFW isn't going to admit to much of anything I suspect because they know a lot of folks don't want wolves around. So they'll wait until the numbers are so high that it becomes nearly impossible to eliminate them. It's probably sort of like how WSU has sent out people to work with farmers and ranchers to rebuild habitat etc in the past. Typically all communication is done on the sly and university employees work "under cover" because the farmers/ranchers that work with them don't want to be black balled by their neighbors.
Was WDFW Lying about their wolves of the 1980's and 90's? Surely knowing what we know today if we would have had six wolf packs in 1992 we wouldn't have any game herds left. Look at the elk herds in the Yellowstone and Idaho as an example.
In the 1980's and 90's WDFW was partnered up with Defenders of Wildlife and Conservation NW, known by a different name back then. The money for their wolf push went to the Idaho Yellowstone wolf introduction and somehow the wolves of the 80's and 90's disappeared also. Now all of a sudden wolves migrate to WA at a rapid rate?
We are seeing WDFW perform Genocide on WA's wildlife using wolves and other predators!
Post by: paytonma on June 28, 2013, 02:07:13 PM
Post by: wolfbait on July 01, 2013, 11:11:22 PM
Everyone should by now be aware of the fraud in WDFW!
What the hell is wrong with this state?
Voting and awareness, we do know how to read the truth don't WE????????? Or did I get that backwards?????
Or we could just calm down and wait for delisting, WD&Wolves knows best, more habitat will surely be the answer
Did WDFW and the USFWS lie about the wolves of the 1980's and 90's? If WDFW was lying about wolves back then, how big are their lies now?
Do you have any Questions as to how Washington is filled full of wolves now?
By the way I saw four tonight just before dark. Trail cams will be set this week.
Post by: bearpaw on July 01, 2013, 11:36:11 PM
That news story about the 6 packs back in 1991 also verifies that WDFW was claiming there were 6 packs of wolves then. They have lied to the people of Washington, either in 1991 or more recently, but one time or the other they clearly lied to us about wolves. :twocents:
Post by: wolfbait on July 04, 2013, 01:36:08 AM
July 25, 2008
Lookout Pack
DNA tests showed that the wolves originated from a population in the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada.
"This is a natural colonization," said Fitkin. "The wolves are naturally immigrating."
"I've been waiting for this for 18 years," said Fitkin, who said he was very excited by the findings of the investigation. Fitkin has been involved in wolf research in the North Cascades since 1991.
Though Washington state has not been home to a wolf pack since the 1930s, state wildlife officials have been expecting them to cross the border from Canada and disperse into the state from recovered populations in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. http://myyellowstonewolves.typepad.com/ (http://myyellowstonewolves.typepad.com/) … s-are.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservation NW took the last paragraph off of this article, my question is who took it off of the FUll article on the BB? http://www.methownet.com/bulletinboard.html (http://www.methownet.com/bulletinboard.html)
It shows them hiding from the lie of First Wolf Pack in 70 years, and where their wolves came from! Thank you, Conservation NW.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many people remember when the WDFW closed coyote hunting in the Pasayten Wilderness in the early 1990's because they were afraid someone would shoot one of their wolves.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both articles are the same, and the last paragraph on both have been removed. Who's packing WDFW's water? And What's One More Lie?
http://myyellowstonewolves.typepad.com/myw/2008/07/gray-wolves-are.html (http://myyellowstonewolves.typepad.com/myw/2008/07/gray-wolves-are.html)
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley (http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley)
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on July 04, 2013, 04:23:59 AM
Post by: stuckalot on July 04, 2013, 08:42:37 AM
The contradiction is in the fact that wolves have been absent from this state for 70 years, and that is what the WDFW has been selling. I be live that it was in this same time period that the WDFW made coyote hunting illegal in the Psyaden because of the presence of wolves.
You may not believe in the reintroduction of wolves into this state, however it IS a fact that they were reintroduced into ID and YNP from way up north in the Canadian makensy valley. There are LOTS of statements made by the WDFW that don't line up. Many seem to think that because we question the wdfw we wear tinfoil hats. MANY good honest questions have been asked of the WDFW and we get fed cock and bull answers. This either means the WDFW is full if Inept people that can't do their job, OR they are a bunch of liars. In either case its not good for hunters OR citizens of washington.
I honestly don't care where they came from. They're here, not likely to go away, and I just wish the state would let everyone protect themselves and what's theirs from them when necessary.
I'll say this, it is interesting that the state said there were SIX packs back in '92 and today they recognize only 10-12 packs. That either means they're seriously low balling the number or they aren't quite as prolific as everyone makes them out to be. My gut feeling is the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Or perhaps at the time there were 6 packs of Timber Wolves in the state, smaller in body, and pack size, and less prolific breeders. Those packs have now likely been exterpated by the infiltration of Canadian Gray Wolves.
Post by: Special T on July 04, 2013, 09:47:07 AM
WDFW closed hunting coyotes in the 90's in the N cascades YET they say we haven't had nay wolves in 70 years. How can both be true. THEY said both.
THEY say that DNA proves that they are coming from BC. So why have wolves migrated from the NE border of the state instead of the N Cascades south?
Since the WDFW admits that we had wolves in the N cascades and deer populations were relatively healthy, How come they are crashing now?
Since the WDFW says we had 6 packs in the 90s in the N cascades and NOW they only claim 3 (also including central cascades) how/ why are deer numbers crashing? (The reality is that the WDFW only claims 1.5 packs in the N cascades)
These are some basic questions that can't be BSed away. When you use THEIR own words and THEY contradict each other what should we think?
Post by: AspenBud on July 05, 2013, 05:11:26 PM
What the hell is wrong with this state?
That's easy, the money in this state is concentrated on the west side, where people think closely built subdivisions and houses on 2000-5000 square foot lots selling for $250,000-$500,000 is normal and ok.
Most folks don't see much wildlife in neighborhoods like that or on lots that small and if you look at hunter numbers in the state I think you'll see an even more disheartening trend since 1950.
We had barely more than 227,000 licensed hunters in this state back in 2001 and that number isn't substantially better today. Considering we have almost 7 million people in the state now I think the answer to your question lies right there.
Post by: wolfbait on July 06, 2013, 08:28:49 PM
What the hell is wrong with this state?
That's easy, the money in this state is concentrated on the west side, where people think closely built subdivisions and houses on 2000-5000 square foot lots selling for $250,000-$500,000 is normal and ok.
Most folks don't see much wildlife in neighborhoods like that or on lots that small and if you look at hunter numbers in the state I think you'll see an even more disheartening trend since 1950.
We had barely more than 227,000 licensed hunters in this state back in 2001 and that number isn't substantially better today. Considering we have almost 7 million people in the state now I think the answer to your question lies right there.
"That's easy, the money in this state is concentrated on the west side, where people think closely built subdivisions and houses on 2000-5000 square foot lots selling for $250,000-$500,000 is normal and ok."
Eidelweiss and The Lost River Airport>stacked on top of each other, why do people do that? I thought they came over here to get away from what they left behind? One good crown fire in either place would take them all out. Sad deal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Westsiders and others who have moved to the Methow are getting educated as to the lies of WDF&Wolves, I have met quite a few who just shake their heads in disgust, quite sure they tell the truth back home.
I saw four wolves earlly this morning trying to cross the road at Haltermans hole. I learned later in the day that several people had reported seeing wolves in the area. (less then a mile from down town Twisp) I wonder if they are dumpster diving behind Hank's Market again like the wolves of 09. So much for WDFW's lie of one maybe two wolves, agin. Why is WDFW considered a joke in the Methow Valley?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I met a new game warden a while back, he said the people on the westside love WDFW but the people on the eastside don't like them.
I mentioned that in 2009, I knew for a fact that wolves were released in the Methow Valley, and WDFW denied this. He said all the wolf releases were conspiracy theories. There were a few other people who backed my story up, I even offered to send "The New" warden information, I think he was less positive when we finished talking to him about where the wolves of WA really came from.
I am quite sure, from the Top down WDFW have their own story which they stress to their employees as to where Washington's wolves came from and what to tell the public if asked. You can bet they don't say that we are partners with the USFWS, sometimes they release wolves and sometime they supply us with wolves and we releases them where we wish.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we are seeing now WDFW have forgotten some of their lies or truths of the past? Was WDFW lying then or are they lying now?
Welcome to the the fraud and corruption of the WA wolf introduction, same as the Idaho-Yellowstone Wolf introduction.
Ghosts of the Rockies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Sl6NVXelb0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Sl6NVXelb0)
http://youtu.be/WtWNoJL5R9E (http://youtu.be/WtWNoJL5R9E)
It will Be Open Season on wolves once this documentary is released!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on July 07, 2013, 10:41:49 PM
Post by: Chuck83 on August 02, 2013, 05:32:57 PM
Post by: bearpaw on August 03, 2013, 07:37:57 PM
I was in attendance at the WDFW meeting when the commission voted to end coyote hunting to protect the wolves in the Paysaten back in the 90's, I remember that day well. Unless they have destroyed those recorded tapes it's on record, that certainly contradicts WDFW claims that the Lookout Pack is the first pack in 70 years. :twocents:
That news story about the 6 packs back in 1991 also verifies that WDFW was claiming there were 6 packs of wolves then. They have lied to the people of Washington, either in 1991 or more recently, but one time or the other they clearly lied to us about wolves. :twocents:
Post by: wolfbait on August 03, 2013, 09:09:07 PM
Tell us again about the UPS truck "release"... and about that big court case you had planned a year or so ago that was on the down low. What ever came of that?
As you know it wasn't a UPS truck but instead a USFWS truck. As for the lawsuits, there will be many I'm sure.
W-Coyote You have been packing water for WDFW for at least five years now, has Scott Fitkin offered you a job yet? You could be his head tracker, trapper. :chuckle: You would fit right in here in the Methow. I could even point you to where the Real wolf tracks are. But I suppose you would rather hunker down in the office with scotty, and shoot the chit about more habitat you could buy.
By the way W-coyote could you ask Fitkin about his lie of first wolf pack in seventy years, and get back to us! Think you can do that before obamacare kicks in?
BP>>I was in attendance at the WDFW meeting when the commission voted to end coyote hunting to protect the wolves in the Paysaten back in the 90's, I remember that day well. Unless they have destroyed those recorded tapes it's on record, that certainly contradicts WDFW claims that the Lookout Pack is the first pack in 70 years.
That news story about the 6 packs back in 1991 also verifies that WDFW was claiming there were 6 packs of wolves then. They have lied to the people of Washington, either in 1991 or more recently, but one time or the other they clearly lied to us about wolves.
Post by: bearpaw on August 04, 2013, 08:13:56 AM
Did they ever publish a map of the 1992 packs? It would be interesting to stomp around some of those pack areas?
Did they define a pack the way they do today?
In Washington, Feds Opt For Wolf Introduction Over Recovery http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/ (http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/)
This still lends credence to my point. If they had to introduce wolves to WA when packs were already known to exist that likely means they are not very prolific and that runs totally counter to what is being sold about them these days.
WDFW isn't going to admit to much of anything I suspect because they know a lot of folks don't want wolves around. So they'll wait until the numbers are so high that it becomes nearly impossible to eliminate them. It's probably sort of like how WSU has sent out people to work with farmers and ranchers to rebuild habitat etc in the past. Typically all communication is done on the sly and university employees work "under cover" because the farmers/ranchers that work with them don't want to be black balled by their neighbors.
I see your reasoning.
Consider this, the wolves that migrated in from southern BC to the Paysayten were a different wolf sub specie, not as big, not as large of packs, and not as successful at reproducing. The wolves migrating in from Idaho were planted in Idaho, they are from farther north, they are larger critters, they form larger packs, and they have been more successful at reproducing as is illustrated in ID/MT. This in a nutshell explains why wolf numbers are suddenly exploding compared to the 90's. Yesterday I had reports of wolves spotted again in Ruby Creek, Smackout, and Tacoma Creek.
There are two cow moose that people have been watching on Smackout, one cow had one calf and the other cow had two calves. It seems likely the Smackout wolves have gotten all three moose calves, neither cow has a calf now. People are also finding lots of deer kills. Last year there were lots of moose and elk kills found, this year more deer kills. That could indicate the wolves have eaten most of the elk and moose in that area and have turned more to deer. That's what happened in Idaho.
Right now in northeast WA we have a bunch of strangers running around following the wolves that are reportedly not employees of the government. Someone investigated and it's claimed they are eco-terrorists trying to save the wolves. Not sure if they are Earth First, Conservation Northwest, or some other group. Reportedly Mitch Friedman who started Conservation Northwest used to be an Earth Firster, he just figured out how to get in the pocket of more and richer donors with Conservation Northwest. They have the resources to fund a major effort and WDFW may have even provided them with detailed info about the wolves. It is common knowledge that WDFW is very friendly with Conservation Northwest, in fact one of our wildlife commissioners (Jay Kehne) works for Conservation Northwest, his boss is Mitch Friedman.
CN Staff: http://www.conservationnw.org/who-we-are/staff (http://www.conservationnw.org/who-we-are/staff)
http://www.conservationnw.org/who-we-are/staff/mitch-friedman (http://www.conservationnw.org/who-we-are/staff/mitch-friedman)
Quote
Among his best known stunts include:
- Organizing the first spotted owl protection protests
- Spending many hours in the canopy of ancient trees as one of the first tree-sitting protesters
- Conceiving and organizing the Ancient Forest Rescue Expedition, nationwide educational tours featuring a giant log towed by a semi-truck
- Executing the first non-logging high bid for a Forest Service timber sale (called Thunder Mountain)
- Spearheading the conservation acquisition of the Loomis State Forest wildlands, as well as the highly successful coalition effort, The Cascades Conservation Partnership
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on August 06, 2013, 07:49:14 AM
Tell us again about the UPS truck "release"... and about that big court case you had planned a year or so ago that was on the down low. What ever came of that?
As you know it wasn't a UPS truck but instead a USFWS truck. As for the lawsuits, there will be many I'm sure.
W-Coyote You have been packing water for WDFW for at least five years now, has Scott Fitkin offered you a job yet? You could be his head tracker, trapper. :chuckle: You would fit right in here in the Methow. I could even point you to where the Real wolf tracks are. But I suppose you would rather hunker down in the office with scotty, and shoot the chit about more habitat you could buy.
By the way W-coyote could you ask Fitkin about his lie of first wolf pack in seventy years, and get back to us! Think you can do that before obamacare kicks in?
BP>>I was in attendance at the WDFW meeting when the commission voted to end coyote hunting to protect the wolves in the Paysaten back in the 90's, I remember that day well. Unless they have destroyed those recorded tapes it's on record, that certainly contradicts WDFW claims that the Lookout Pack is the first pack in 70 years.
That news story about the 6 packs back in 1991 also verifies that WDFW was claiming there were 6 packs of wolves then. They have lied to the people of Washington, either in 1991 or more recently, but one time or the other they clearly lied to us about wolves.
You said it was a UPS truck... the feds or state in disguise. We all clearly remember you saying that.
The "first wolf pack in 70 years" thing is a difficult one. I think there were quite a few people that knew there were some wolves up there, but they couldn't (or wouldn't?) go survey and appropriately document the "pack". I have an old paper on the howling responses of coyotes to calls and they mention getting a response from wolves in the Pasayten sometime back in the 80's. It was never a secret. They just never went through any process of documentation.
Post by: bearpaw on August 06, 2013, 08:17:24 AM
Tell us again about the UPS truck "release"... and about that big court case you had planned a year or so ago that was on the down low. What ever came of that?
As you know it wasn't a UPS truck but instead a USFWS truck. As for the lawsuits, there will be many I'm sure.
W-Coyote You have been packing water for WDFW for at least five years now, has Scott Fitkin offered you a job yet? You could be his head tracker, trapper. :chuckle: You would fit right in here in the Methow. I could even point you to where the Real wolf tracks are. But I suppose you would rather hunker down in the office with scotty, and shoot the chit about more habitat you could buy.
By the way W-coyote could you ask Fitkin about his lie of first wolf pack in seventy years, and get back to us! Think you can do that before obamacare kicks in?
BP>>I was in attendance at the WDFW meeting when the commission voted to end coyote hunting to protect the wolves in the Paysaten back in the 90's, I remember that day well. Unless they have destroyed those recorded tapes it's on record, that certainly contradicts WDFW claims that the Lookout Pack is the first pack in 70 years.
That news story about the 6 packs back in 1991 also verifies that WDFW was claiming there were 6 packs of wolves then. They have lied to the people of Washington, either in 1991 or more recently, but one time or the other they clearly lied to us about wolves.
You said it was a UPS truck... the feds or state in disguise. We all clearly remember you saying that.
The "first wolf pack in 70 years" thing is a difficult one. I think there were quite a few people that knew there were some wolves up there, but they couldn't (or wouldn't?) go survey and appropriately document the "pack". I have an old paper on the howling responses of coyotes to calls and they mention getting a response from wolves in the Pasayten sometime back in the 80's. It was never a secret. They just never went through any process of documentation.
Are you thinking that possibly the WDFW said they had those wolves (6 packs or whatever they told the news media existed at the time), then requested a rule to close the coyote season in the Paysayten, the Wildlife Commission passed the rule closing coyote season in the Paysayten (I was at the WFW Commission meeting when this was passed), and all this happened without WDFW knowing for sure if those wolves existed?
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on August 06, 2013, 09:16:19 AM
I don't know who said the "6 packs" thing. We should all know better than to trust a newspaper report or to consider it any kind of official documentation.
Post by: wolfbait on August 06, 2013, 10:38:43 AM
I think it happened without the WDFW making the big effort to document the pack. Population, reproductive success, ect...
I don't know who said the "6 packs" thing. We should all know better than to trust a newspaper report or to consider it any kind of official documentation.
Do you ever think about what you Write WA-coyote? :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: Or do you just go with whatever flops into your brain at the time? :chuckle:
Answers like yours, show the treasures in documentation. In the 1980's and early 90's Defenders of Wildlife the USFWS and WDFW were doing the wolf push, article after article show this. But when confronted with the WDFW "first wolf pack" lie in 70 years, Conservation NW and WA-coyote pack water for WDFW and blame past history as phony? Where have I heard that phrase before?
I can post article after article on the early wolf push W-C, are you going to claim all of the newspaper article are phony? Guess where Tom Remington got the info for his article? ;)
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on August 06, 2013, 12:57:43 PM
The "6 wolf packs" was actually 6 reported wolf sightings that got misrepresented by an excitable reporter.
Do you have more information about the 6 packs, or just the single news report?
Post by: wolfbait on August 06, 2013, 03:58:41 PM
So, the one article is your evidence? That's the documentation needed to confirm 6 packs? :dunno:
The "6 wolf packs" was actually 6 reported wolf sightings that got misrepresented by an excitable reporter.
Do you have more information about the 6 packs, or just the single news report?
Sooo WA-Coyote, what you are saying is the six wolf packs of the early 1990's is just another Phony Scandal? And all the other wolf articles are what? More Phony reporters? How much does WDFW pay you?
Post by: wolfbait on August 06, 2013, 04:26:55 PM
Tell us again about the UPS truck "release"... and about that big court case you had planned a year or so ago that was on the down low. What ever came of that?
As you know it wasn't a UPS truck but instead a USFWS truck. As for the lawsuits, there will be many I'm sure.
W-Coyote You have been packing water for WDFW for at least five years now, has Scott Fitkin offered you a job yet? You could be his head tracker, trapper. :chuckle: You would fit right in here in the Methow. I could even point you to where the Real wolf tracks are. But I suppose you would rather hunker down in the office with scotty, and shoot the chit about more habitat you could buy.
By the way W-coyote could you ask Fitkin about his lie of first wolf pack in seventy years, and get back to us! Think you can do that before obamacare kicks in?
BP>>I was in attendance at the WDFW meeting when the commission voted to end coyote hunting to protect the wolves in the Paysaten back in the 90's, I remember that day well. Unless they have destroyed those recorded tapes it's on record, that certainly contradicts WDFW claims that the Lookout Pack is the first pack in 70 years.
That news story about the 6 packs back in 1991 also verifies that WDFW was claiming there were 6 packs of wolves then. They have lied to the people of Washington, either in 1991 or more recently, but one time or the other they clearly lied to us about wolves.
You said it was a UPS truck... the feds or state in disguise. We all clearly remember you saying that.
The "first wolf pack in 70 years" thing is a difficult one. I think there were quite a few people that knew there were some wolves up there, but they couldn't (or wouldn't?) go survey and appropriately document the "pack". I have an old paper on the howling responses of coyotes to calls and they mention getting a response from wolves in the Pasayten sometime back in the 80's. It was never a secret. They just never went through any process of documentation.
"You said it was a UPS truck... the feds or state in disguise. We all clearly remember you saying that."
Actually what I said was a driver in a UPS truck saw the Wolf release, you seem to have your wires crossed once agin W-Coyote.
I have talk to this driver four different times, his story never changes, and by the way it was a USFWS agent that shook his finger at him and said: You didn't see what you thought you saw, the UPS driver said BS I just saw you releaseing wolves.
In a week this same UPS driver was changed to a differant route. I have talk to other UPS drivers in our area who back this up.
If you are going to tout info. W-Coyote at least take the time to get your facts right.
One more thing if the releasing of wolves ever goes to court, this guy will testifie along with several others. And I think in the end this will all come out. And you W-Coyote among others will be exposed for what you knew back when and what you know now and what you have tried to hide from the public eye.
You should be ashamed of yourself!
Post by: CedarPants on August 06, 2013, 04:45:44 PM
it was a USFWS agent that shook his finger at him and said: You didn't see what you thought you saw, the UPS driver said BS I just saw you releaseing wolves.seriously happened, why the heck hasn't this
One more thing if the releasing of wolves ever goes to court, this guy will testifie along with several others. And I think in the end this will all come out.happened yet?
Post by: wolfbait on August 06, 2013, 04:52:02 PM
Honest question here and I'm not intending to take either side in this entertaining internet spat :chuckle:, but if thisit was a USFWS agent that shook his finger at him and said: You didn't see what you thought you saw, the UPS driver said BS I just saw you releaseing wolves.seriously happened, why the heck hasn't thisOne more thing if the releasing of wolves ever goes to court, this guy will testifie along with several others. And I think in the end this will all come out.happened yet?
I spent a half day with an Okanogan commissioner this spring, I told him of several releases in the Methow Valley, and he told me of several others I didn't know about. He said without pictures it is very hard to win a lawsuit aginst WDFW/USFWS as it is his/her/ words against theirs.
Their are other irons in the fire right now that may produce the truth.
Post by: bearpaw on August 06, 2013, 04:54:01 PM
I think it happened without the WDFW making the big effort to document the pack. Population, reproductive success, ect...
I don't know who said the "6 packs" thing. We should all know better than to trust a newspaper report or to consider it any kind of official documentation.
I know reporters can get things wrong, sometimes even by accident, I also know we cannot trust some poeple in WDFW. For what it's worth, I think this 90's wolf issue proves someone in WDFW is misrepresenting wolf information. I was at the WDFW Commission meeting where the commission closed coyote season, I know this happened and remember the WDFW testifying there were wolves in the Paysayten then, I cannot remember how many or if they specified. It should all be on tape, they recorded every meeting, unless it mysteriously disappeared.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 14, 2013, 02:08:53 PM
"Dear Mr. Wallace:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your support for the delisting of Gray Wolves from the Endangered Species Act. I appreciate having the benefit of your views on this matter.
The views of Washingtonians are very important to my work. I will keep your thoughts in mind, and I encourage you to stay in touch. If you would like to know more about my work in the Senate, please feel free to sign up for my weekly updates at http://murray.senate.gov/updates. (http://murray.senate.gov/updates.) Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me.
Sincerely,
Patty Murray
United States Senator "
I'm confident that our Senator in tennis shoes will advocate for delisting - NOT!
Post by: turkeyfeather on August 14, 2013, 02:13:33 PM
Senator Murray's response to an email asking to push for delisting:That couldn't be anymore of a canned kiss off letter if she tried.
"Dear Mr. Wallace:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your support for the delisting of Gray Wolves from the Endangered Species Act. I appreciate having the benefit of your views on this matter.
The views of Washingtonians are very important to my work. I will keep your thoughts in mind, and I encourage you to stay in touch. If you would like to know more about my work in the Senate, please feel free to sign up for my weekly updates at http://murray.senate.gov/updates. (http://murray.senate.gov/updates.) Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me.
Sincerely,
Patty Murray
United States Senator "
I'm confident that our Senator in tennis shoes will advocate for delisting - NOT!
Post by: Kain on August 14, 2013, 02:35:10 PM
http://www.nps.gov/noca/naturescience/wolves2.htm (http://www.nps.gov/noca/naturescience/wolves2.htm)
Quote
In 1990, adults with pups were seen in the Hozomeen area. This was the first known reproduction of wild wolves in Washington State in at least 50 years! Since 1990, biologists have seen three separate groups of adult wolves with pups in the Cascades. Wolves mate in February or March. About 63 days later a litter averaging six pups is born.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pacificbio.org%2Finitiatives%2FESIN%2FMapImages%2Fgraywolf.jpg&hash=4d601a3524e8253b18e8d73a6893338050ef1441)
Post by: AspenBud on August 14, 2013, 03:51:57 PM
1. Wolves have always crossed in from Canada.
2. Over the years there has been a significant number of wolf hybrids bred in this state. In fact the dog that was attacked in Twisp, this dog...
http://s20.postimage.org/j75l5gaql/IMG_7649.jpg (http://s20.postimage.org/j75l5gaql/IMG_7649.jpg)
is a wolf hybrid from what I understand.
To create a wolf hybrid means that someone out there had wolves on hand. Given that some breeders/owners aren't the most responsible folks around it wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that some got loose and were never found over the years. Look at Florida and their boa/python problem. Heck look at what someone ran over in Michigan...
http://d2om8tvz4lgco4.cloudfront.net/archive/x1806218720/g12c000000000000000bcbe2360fc1a1d147270214e92f6c6a93e79adf3.jpg (http://d2om8tvz4lgco4.cloudfront.net/archive/x1806218720/g12c000000000000000bcbe2360fc1a1d147270214e92f6c6a93e79adf3.jpg)
Yep, that's a python that someone turned loose before it was run over and shot by the state police there. Pet snakes aren't the only thing that owners release without thought.
In short, I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that they have been here all along. Wolves coming in from Idaho, Montana, et al probably just supercharged their reproduction rate and in some cases they probably arrived in areas more friendly to them in terms of food. Their discovery and the ESA also changed things since it meant a lot of guys probably stopped shooting them where before they were assumed to be coyotes or big dogs running deer since they weren't supposed to exist here. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 15, 2013, 01:59:20 PM
"Dear Mr. Wallace,
Thank you for contacting me regarding endangered species protections for the gray wolf. It is an honor to represent the people of Southwest Washington, and I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me.
After being afforded protections under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), we have seen gray wolf populations successfully increase. The goal for recovery of the wolf was a population of 300 wolves and 30 breeding pairs. Today there are over 1,700 wolves in the area. It is encouraging to see the restoration of a beautiful animal that was nearly extinct. Since the ultimate goal of the ESA is to get species to the point of no longer needing the level of protection provided under the Act, by definition the gray wolf should no longer be included on endangered species lists. The ESA should be reserved for animals that face a direct threat of extinction, otherwise the statute is weakened. Ultimately, I believe it is important to balance the need for famers and residents to protect their livestock and livelihoods with the level of protections afforded the gray wolf and other previously threatened species.
Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue. I invite you to visit my website at www.jaimehb.house.gov (http://www.jaimehb.house.gov) for additional information or to sign up to be kept up to date on these issues. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Jaime Herrera Beutler
Member of Congress"
Post by: bearpaw on August 15, 2013, 02:03:14 PM