Post by: huntnphool on July 11, 2013, 11:25:30 AM
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/)
July 11, 2013
Contact: Wildlife Program, 360-902-2515
Experts from three western states to discuss
effects of wolves on hunting opportunities
OLYMPIA - Big game managers from Washington, Idaho and Montana will discuss their experiences managing game animals in areas populated by wolves during a live webcast July 18.
The event will take place from 6:30 to 9:30 p.m. via the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (WDFW) website ( http://wdfw.wa.gov/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/) ). Viewers will have an opportunity to provide questions via email at july18event@dfw.wa.gov .
Montana and Idaho have been managing wolves longer than Washington and their experience can provide context to inform the department and citizens on how to confront the challenges that lie ahead, said Phil Anderson, WDFW director.
"We’ve been consulting with a number of experts, including our counterparts from other states, since wolves began to reappear in Washington to better prepare us for meeting the many challenges that come with having wolves back in the state," said Anderson, who will participate in the discussion. "This will give the public an opportunity to hear directly from those who have been involved in wolf management in other areas of the west."
Jon Rachel, Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s state wildlife manager and Jim Williams, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks’ northwest wildlife program manager will discuss the impacts wolves have had on deer, elk and other big game animals in their states. They will also discuss strategies that successful big game hunters have adopted while hunting in their states.
Dave Ware, WDFW statewide game program manager, will describe the status of wolves and big game hunting in Washington.
For those unable to view the live webcast on July 18, it will remain available from the department’s webpage after the event.
Post by: huntnphool on July 11, 2013, 11:37:55 AM
Post by: CedarPants on July 11, 2013, 11:45:03 AM
They will also discuss strategies that successful big game hunters have adopted while hunting in their states.
Why do I have a feeling this will be the main topic to come out of this meeting?
"We're going to let the wolves take what they want ...... so here are some suggestions for what you're going to have to do with what's left ....."
Post by: huntnphool on July 11, 2013, 11:47:30 AM
Post by: norsepeak on July 11, 2013, 11:55:28 AM
Post by: huntnphool on July 11, 2013, 11:57:53 AM
Where are they gonna find some "experts"???? From what I've seen of the management of wolves in the other states, I see a serious shortage of "experts" :bash:Yeah, and what happened to the "we don't anticipate any effect on hunting" BS they were spewing in the proposal meetings!
Post by: CedarPants on July 11, 2013, 12:01:11 PM
Where are they gonna find some "experts"???? From what I've seen of the management of wolves in the other states, I see a serious shortage of "experts" :bash:
Here is the logic of one of Washington's appointed experts when it comes to wolves:
"In order to remain successful, hunters will have to adapt, which in turn will make them better hunters".
Jay Kehne. August 2011
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/theres-more-to-the-wolf-story (http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/theres-more-to-the-wolf-story)
Post by: asl20bball on July 11, 2013, 12:06:57 PM
With that in mind, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr once said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent abut things that matter most"
Flood 'em with emails fellas.....
Post by: bobcat on July 11, 2013, 12:15:29 PM
Post by: Special T on July 11, 2013, 12:19:50 PM
Post by: bobcat on July 11, 2013, 12:22:54 PM
Post by: huntnphool on July 11, 2013, 12:25:25 PM
Might still be some good bird hunting as well. Or do wolves eat grouse and pheasant too?i think they are equal opportunity preditors. ;)
Post by: wolfbait on July 11, 2013, 12:26:01 PM
Where are they gonna find some "experts"???? From what I've seen of the management of wolves in the other states, I see a serious shortage of "experts" :bash:Yeah, and what happened to the "we don't anticipate any effect on hunting" BS they were spewing in the proposal meetings!
obamacare wolf management team! mostly BS, but put a little frosting on for the people who haven't been paying attention/ welcome to another round of more BS.>>> SOS<<<<< :bfg:
Post by: CedarPants on July 11, 2013, 12:26:46 PM
Might still be some good bird hunting as well. Or do wolves eat grouse and pheasant too?
Coyotes do a pretty good job on those.
Then again, wolves eat coyotes :chuckle:
Post by: CedarPants on July 11, 2013, 12:34:52 PM
Post by: KNOPHISH on July 11, 2013, 12:36:47 PM
Post by: huntnphool on July 11, 2013, 12:43:43 PM
Here's how it will go. The bio's & experts make the decision to have a substantial quota & seasons. Leaf lickers whine about them being endangered. Maybe goes to a public vote like hound hunting/bear baiting & years of court appeals. :bash: Meanwhile deer, elk, & moose populations take a dive resulting in less revenue from tags & licenses in turn meaning jacked up prices for the rest. The end of hunting as we know it.Its written into the proposal that "hunting seasons may necessarily have to be adjusted"
Post by: Special T on July 11, 2013, 01:07:07 PM
Might still be some good bird hunting as well. Or do wolves eat grouse and pheasant too?Grouse huntign with dogs will be much more dangerouse since there have been several bad encounters in ID. I think in addition to the bird shot buckshot will come with me. SOME kinds of small game hunting MAY get better if they reduce the coyote population significantly, but there are always Hawks, Magpies, Ravens/crows and other avian predators may take up the slack. :twocents:
Post by: huntnphool on July 11, 2013, 03:12:01 PM
WDFW WILDLIFE PROGRAM
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
wildthing@dfw.wa.gov
Dear Hunters:
Over the past couple of years, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has received many questions about how wolves will affect big game hunting in our state. Often the questions we hear reference our neighboring states of Idaho and Montana, which were managing wolves at least a decade before they arrived in Washington. WDFW is offering hunters a chance to find out first hand from Washington, Idaho, and Montana managers about what they are experiencing. You can also ask your own questions during the live webcast, which will take place at http://wdfw.wa.gov/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/) on July 18 from 6:30 to 9:30 p.m. For more information about the webcast, see http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/jul1113a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/jul1113a/) .
Sincerely,
Nate Pamplin, Wildlife Program Assistant Director Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Post by: huntnphool on July 11, 2013, 03:14:39 PM
This is nothing more than a PR move aimed at appeasing sportsman that are understandably pissed off. :twocents:
Post by: woodswalker on July 11, 2013, 03:24:14 PM
Where are they gonna find some "experts"???? From what I've seen of the management of wolves in the other states, I see a serious shortage of "experts" :bash:
Here is the logic of one of Washington's appointed experts when it comes to wolves:
"In order to remain successful, hunters will have to adapt, which in turn will make them better hunters".
Jay Kehne. August 2011
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/theres-more-to-the-wolf-story (http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/theres-more-to-the-wolf-story)
Yup, likely learn how to snoop and poop and use a shovel. Esp with suppressors now legal to both own AND use.
Post by: crschralping on July 11, 2013, 03:24:40 PM
Post by: woodswalker on July 11, 2013, 03:28:23 PM
Got the same email, thought the same thing :bash:
:yeah:
Post by: asl20bball on July 11, 2013, 03:31:18 PM
I guess one question I would like answered is "They didn't listen to the "experts" from Montana and Idaho during the proposal meetings, so why are they trying to snow us with their "concern" now?"
This is nothing more than a PR move aimed at appeasing sportsman that are understandably pissed off. :twocents:
Since they said they will be discussing info from other states in this meeting I doubt they will present any of the facts that make WDFW look bad.
Post by: huntnphool on July 11, 2013, 03:44:41 PM
Why did they not discuss these facts before they pushed the current plan?I guess one question I would like answered is "They didn't listen to the "experts" from Montana and Idaho during the proposal meetings, so why are they trying to snow us with their "concern" now?"
This is nothing more than a PR move aimed at appeasing sportsman that are understandably pissed off. :twocents:
Since they said they will be discussing info from other states in this meeting I doubt they will present any of the facts that make WDFW look bad.
Post by: CementFinisher on July 11, 2013, 04:06:36 PM
Post by: huntnphool on July 11, 2013, 04:08:15 PM
sure wish this was a meeting we cold attend in person and be able to comment or ask questions to answeres they give to other questions. hopefully were able to clean house sooner than later, idaho did and montana has mostlyListen and take notes for email questions.
Post by: CementFinisher on July 11, 2013, 04:17:23 PM
Post by: Humptulips on July 11, 2013, 04:19:02 PM
Hey, I can hope.
Post by: CedarPants on July 11, 2013, 04:20:05 PM
yea they will pick and chose through the questions and comments to keep it going in a direction they want
That is exactly what happened at the last meeting I attended when Ware was speaking :tup:
Post by: CementFinisher on July 11, 2013, 04:20:24 PM
Post by: huntnphool on July 11, 2013, 04:23:12 PM
Ever think maybe this is equaly aimed at wolf lovers? Maybe try and show them the need to actually manage wolf numbers. Kind of soften them up for delisting.It doesn't matter, they will still tie things up in court for years.
Hey, I can hope.
Post by: Feanix on July 11, 2013, 04:23:58 PM
Will probably be alot of talking while dispensing no actual information.
Post by: Paxer on July 11, 2013, 06:00:12 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on July 11, 2013, 06:19:25 PM
Post by: CedarPants on July 11, 2013, 06:25:27 PM
They will also discuss strategies that successful big game hunters have adopted while hunting in their states.
Why do I have a feeling this will be the main topic to come out of this meeting?
"We're going to let the wolves take what they want ...... so here are some suggestions for what you're going to have to do with what's left ....."
I've given my original comment a little more thought. How great would it be if they blabbled on for a while then said "now ..... onto the strategies that successful big game hunters have adopted while hunting in their state. What they've done to be successful at big game hunting is .......... hunt wolves, because they can. And now you can, because it's open season. Meeting ajourned"
I can dream, right?
Post by: wolfbait on July 11, 2013, 09:20:47 PM
Why did they not discuss these facts before they pushed the current plan?I guess one question I would like answered is "They didn't listen to the "experts" from Montana and Idaho during the proposal meetings, so why are they trying to snow us with their "concern" now?"
This is nothing more than a PR move aimed at appeasing sportsman that are understandably pissed off. :twocents:
Since they said they will be discussing info from other states in this meeting I doubt they will present any of the facts that make WDFW look bad.
Your last comment has to be Sarcasm Right? The USFWS along with WDFW release wolves all over WA, and then WDFW picks a pro-wolf group to run around the state lying, laughing and leaving. And now after five years WDFW are having trouble hiding the fact that their wolves have multiplied to the point, lies like it was a coyote, it was probably a hybid, no there are no wolves where you live, it was clearly fed on by something, but by the time we got there there was nothing left but hide and hip bones or a pile of Maggots, arn't working anymore.
Some deer herds are already in a predator pit, and soon the elk herds etc. will be plummeting, and now WDFW are going to tell the people of WA they didn't have a clue as to what happened in MT, WY, and Idaho? But that their experts are working on it and they would like public opinion?
What you are looking at is a couple of corrupt agencies who have already accomplished what they set out to do, and now, as in the past it really doesn't matter what you say, as it is just for show.
Post by: KB88 on July 12, 2013, 08:02:08 AM
Post by: huntnphool on July 12, 2013, 09:14:38 AM
The USFWS along with WDFW release wolves all over WAWhy did they not discuss these facts before they pushed the current plan?I guess one question I would like answered is "They didn't listen to the "experts" from Montana and Idaho during the proposal meetings, so why are they trying to snow us with their "concern" now?"
This is nothing more than a PR move aimed at appeasing sportsman that are understandably pissed off. :twocents:
Since they said they will be discussing info from other states in this meeting I doubt they will present any of the facts that make WDFW look bad.
Prove it!
Post by: AspenBud on July 12, 2013, 10:07:56 AM
Might still be some good bird hunting as well. Or do wolves eat grouse and pheasant too?Grouse huntign with dogs will be much more dangerouse since there have been several bad encounters in ID. I think in addition to the bird shot buckshot will come with me. SOME kinds of small game hunting MAY get better if they reduce the coyote population significantly, but there are always Hawks, Magpies, Ravens/crows and other avian predators may take up the slack. :twocents:
Honestly it kind of depends on the hunter. A guy just putting his dog on the ground without checking out the surroundings a little is just asking for it.
Most bad encounters with dogs and wolves have involved hounds. That said, I've heard of several close calls with bird dogs for years from people out in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. That hasn't deterred anyone from still going out though.
Knowing where wolves are known to occur is a good way to avoid them. Looking for various aged tracks and droppings, especially any in the middle of the road is also a good way to keep your dogs out of trouble. Old tracks and poop don't necessarily mean wolves are in the area, fresh stuff is a problem.
But probably the most important thing to do is to note if the tracks are going both directions. That would indicate you are either on a pack boundary that is contested or a rendezvous area, both are HIGHLY dangerous areas for dogs and should be avoided if you intend to hunt grouse with your dog.
This is actually one of my biggest gripes with how WDFW and the state of Washington overall is handling the wolf situation. People have no idea of what to look for or how to avoid them and the state has done little to educate people on that.
Post by: Special T on July 12, 2013, 11:10:15 AM
Post by: AspenBud on July 12, 2013, 11:12:00 AM
You can bet wehn they work their way into my woods i'll be packing more than just bird shot.
I already do. Coyotes, bear, cougars, and meth heads warrant that already.
Post by: bearpaw on July 12, 2013, 12:11:22 PM
Is this just a dog and pony show, or are they really concerned about out game herds and hunters?
Post by: huntnphool on July 12, 2013, 12:18:47 PM
:chuckle:
Is this just a dog and pony show, or are they really concerned about out game herds and hunters?
Post by: CedarPants on July 12, 2013, 12:21:56 PM
Is this just a dog and pony show, or are they really concerned about out game herds and hunters?
I think that question was resoundingly answered when the recovery plan was implemented and science/legitimate feedback was ignored.
Post by: bearpaw on July 12, 2013, 12:40:42 PM
So I don't see ID/MT F&G Dept's helping us out much. For the most part when you talk to local people who live in ID/MT they say just shoot them year around and shut up about it.
Obviously I can't condone killing wolves and committing a felony, but as Rep Joel Kretz has said, the WDFW is forcing people in NE WA into a corner, do you let the wolves destroy your property or do you commit a felony?
One thing I can say for sure, WDFW is not making many friends in NE WA. It seems to me the best answer is to hope for the quick spread of wolves, I can guarantee as wolves move into new areas peoples attitudes will change. Sooner than you think I believe killing a wolf will be decriminalized.
(Remember when Idaho's Gov Otter instructed the IDFG that they could no longer take action or turn in wolf poachers to USFWS.)
As wolves spread there love eventually laws will change, and it will probably happen sooner than most people think. :twocents:
Post by: headshot5 on July 12, 2013, 12:43:03 PM
Quote
Is this just a dog and pony show, or are they really concerned about out game herds and hunters?
Nope more of a wolf and pony show, but the pony only has 3 legs. This probably a CYA (Cover your ...) move, so when the SHTF, they can claim the public was in on it and appraised of the situation. I don't believe anything new will come from the meeting. They are just testing the waters.
Post by: CementFinisher on July 12, 2013, 12:46:06 PM
Post by: bearpaw on July 12, 2013, 01:29:29 PM
aspenbud :puke: everytime i read asp :puke: oh god make it stooooo :puke: p! I think that most of us don't want to work around wolves. that their numbers should be so low we don't have to worry about our working dogs. To effectively hunt hounds you cant work around them. For bird dogs if everyone avoids them then the hunters are pushed into tighter and tighter concentrations leading to higher probabilities of accidents and also more quickly draining that areas game birds. I'm tired of pro wolf rhetoric, look that all sounds fine and dandy but in the real world it don't work. No need for these vermin
He simply needs to live around some wolves and learn the reality of the wolf love. :tup: :yike:
Post by: OOptics on July 12, 2013, 03:14:24 PM
Here's how it will go. The bio's & experts make the decision to have a substantial quota & seasons. Leaf lickers whine about them being endangered. Maybe goes to a public vote like hound hunting/bear baiting & years of court appeals. :bash: Meanwhile deer, elk, & moose populations take a dive resulting in less revenue from tags & licenses in turn meaning jacked up prices for the rest. The end of hunting as we know it.Great points. I see this playing out the same way unfortunately. Of course it seems as if anytime the government puts their hands on wildlife management (or anything else for that matter) it ends the same. Thanks for your thoughts!
Post by: ribka on July 13, 2013, 08:50:48 AM
They will also discuss strategies that successful big game hunters have adopted while hunting in their states.
Why do I have a feeling this will be the main topic to come out of this meeting?
"We're going to let the wolves take what they want ...... so here are some suggestions for what you're going to have to do with what's left ....."
Post by: ribka on July 13, 2013, 08:56:51 AM
I guess one question I would like answered is "They didn't listen to the "experts" from Montana and Idaho during the proposal meetings, so why are they trying to snow us with their "concern" now?"
This is nothing more than a PR move aimed at appeasing sportsman that are understandably pissed off. :twocents:
[/quote
Yep
There is no concern and only disdain for sportsmen in this state.
Now they can Check the box and claim that common sense and logical wolf management was done with input from sportsmen.
Post by: ribka on July 13, 2013, 09:02:04 AM
WDFW purposefully kept the public ignorant of their efforts so they could establish and expand wolf packs and they continually are doing so.
Might still be some good bird hunting as well. Or do wolves eat grouse and pheasant too?Grouse huntign with dogs will be much more dangerouse since there have been several bad encounters in ID. I think in addition to the bird shot buckshot will come with me. SOME kinds of small game hunting MAY get better if they reduce the coyote population significantly, but there are always Hawks, Magpies, Ravens/crows and other avian predators may take up the slack. :twocents:
Honestly it kind of depends on the hunter. A guy just putting his dog on the ground without checking out the surroundings a little is just asking for it.
Most bad encounters with dogs and wolves have involved hounds. That said, I've heard of several close calls with bird dogs for years from people out in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. That hasn't deterred anyone from still going out though.
Knowing where wolves are known to occur is a good way to avoid them. Looking for various aged tracks and droppings, especially any in the middle of the road is also a good way to keep your dogs out of trouble. Old tracks and poop don't necessarily mean wolves are in the area, fresh stuff is a problem.
But probably the most important thing to do is to note if the tracks are going both directions. That would indicate you are either on a pack boundary that is contested or a rendezvous area, both are HIGHLY dangerous areas for dogs and should be avoided if you intend to hunt grouse with your dog.
This is actually one of my biggest gripes with how WDFW and the state of Washington overall is handling the wolf situation. People have no idea of what to look for or how to avoid them and the state has done little to educate people on that.
Post by: huntnphool on July 13, 2013, 10:25:27 AM
What? Are you kidding? What about the $millions$ estimated to be generated (in the proposal) by tourists flocking to Washington State to view them. How is that supposed to happen if you can't actually see them? :chuckle:People have no idea of what to look for or how to avoid them and the state has done little to educate people on that.Might still be some good bird hunting as well. Or do wolves eat grouse and pheasant too?Grouse huntign with dogs will be much more dangerouse since there have been several bad encounters in ID. I think in addition to the bird shot buckshot will come with me. SOME kinds of small game hunting MAY get better if they reduce the coyote population significantly, but there are always Hawks, Magpies, Ravens/crows and other avian predators may take up the slack. :twocents:
$$$millions$$ mind you, $$$millions$$$ :chuckle:
Post by: CedarPants on July 13, 2013, 11:46:33 AM
If I'm hunting, I have to purchase a hunting license. I also have to purchase a Discover Pass depending on where I'll be. I have to contribute a good chunk of money to be allowed (legally) in the woods to do what I like to do.
If I'm 'wolf watching' and have no intent of hunting - other than a Discover Pass for state lands (and not even required if I'm on Federal land), are there any fees I'm required to pay for me to have the opportunity to watch wolves?
WDFW seems to be making a push toward "wildlife viewing" as a plausible objective for their department, but who is paying for those viewing opportunities?
Post by: AspenBud on July 13, 2013, 12:39:44 PM
aspenbud :puke: everytime i read asp :puke: oh god make it stooooo :puke: p! I think that most of us don't want to work around wolves. that their numbers should be so low we don't have to worry about our working dogs. To effectively hunt hounds you cant work around them. For bird dogs if everyone avoids them then the hunters are pushed into tighter and tighter concentrations leading to higher probabilities of accidents and also more quickly draining that areas game birds. I'm tired of pro wolf rhetoric, look that all sounds fine and dandy but in the real world it don't work. No need for these vermin
At an average of $500-$2000 for a quality gun dog (not counting training and any electronics hanging around the dog's neck), and not Joe Bob's latest back yard bred lab, most guys will want to avoid wolves where they can and the advice I gave is good to follow. You can't avoid all potential encounters, but you can try to minimize them and as long as this state does not allow a person to so much as shoot a wolf threatening harm to property like dogs or themselves for that matter, people should know what to look for and frankly should regardless. I'm not quite sure how any rational person can argue against that.
As for concentrations of hunters, I hear what you're saying, but in all honesty, it's not like people flock to this state to hunt grouse. Increased hunting pressure on the birds is some bored elk hunter taking a head shot at one with a .30-06 in the middle of the road. They are truly "fool hens" here compared to other parts of the country.
But you're welcome to disagree with, and ignore, my advice here. It's like sticking your finger in a light socket, but hey, it's a free country.
You are however correct about hounds. They run so far out it's hard to safeguard them. But then again, the voters of this state made using them virtually illegal so it's not really relevant to the discussion as it relates to WA. My point was that most bad encounters involve such dogs, where they can be used, and there is good reason for that. But folks with bird dogs can minimize such encounters.
Good luck out there cowboy.
Post by: bearpaw on July 13, 2013, 12:59:14 PM
I still think in a couple years when wolf problems continue to increase across Washington the people will start taking care of the problem if WDFW doesn't man up. No doubt about it, there actions over the next couple years to manage or not to manage problem wolves will determine how people respond. The way they presented their wolf meetings this spring and then the way they are handling wolf problems this year in NE WA is not working in their favor, they are losing ground fast with the locals.
Most people just laugh or shake their head when you mention anything about predators and WDFW in the same sentence. It's pretty much a joke. :twocents:
Post by: ribka on July 13, 2013, 01:33:11 PM
Two of my buddies in WI lost dogs bird hunting. There is a shoot on site attitude now in N WI regarding wolves. Can expect the same here in WA if they do address the problems and implement a way to manage them before the population explodes. As usual in thebstate of Washington the progressive wolf luvers from King County and other urban areas will control the debate, shutdown any talk of a common sense wolf management plan and sportsmen will pay more for less hunting opportunities.
ID WY and MT are fortunate that they have a stronger pro sportsmen lobby than WA.
aspenbud :puke: everytime i read asp :puke: oh god make it stooooo :puke: p! I think that most of us don't want to work around wolves. that their numbers should be so low we don't have to worry about our working dogs. To effectively hunt hounds you cant work around them. For bird dogs if everyone avoids them then the hunters are pushed into tighter and tighter concentrations leading to higher probabilities of accidents and also more quickly draining that areas game birds. I'm tired of pro wolf rhetoric, look that all sounds fine and dandy but in the real world it don't work. No need for these vermin
At an average of $500-$2000 for a quality gun dog (not counting training and any electronics hanging around the dog's neck), and not Joe Bob's latest back yard bred lab, most guys will want to avoid wolves where they can and the advice I gave is good to follow. You can't avoid all potential encounters, but you can try to minimize them and as long as this state does not allow a person to so much as shoot a wolf threatening harm to property like dogs or themselves for that matter, people should know what to look for and frankly should regardless. I'm not quite sure how any rational person can argue against that.
As for concentrations of hunters, I hear what you're saying, but in all honesty, it's not like people flock to this state to hunt grouse. Increased hunting pressure on the birds is some bored elk hunter taking a head shot at one with a .30-06 in the middle of the road. They are truly "fool hens" here compared to other parts of the country.
But you're welcome to disagree with, and ignore, my advice here. It's like sticking your finger in a light socket, but hey, it's a free country.
You are however correct about hounds. They run so far out it's hard to safeguard them. But then again, the voters of this state made using them virtually illegal so it's not really relevant to the discussion as it relates to WA. My point was that most bad encounters involve such dogs, where they can be used, and there is good reason for that. But folks with bird dogs can minimize such encounters.
Good luck out there cowboy.
Post by: wolfbait on July 13, 2013, 06:08:34 PM
Huntnphool among others say, prove the USFWS and WDFW have released wolves in WA! I know for a fact they have, and so do several others.
But go beyond all of the eye witnesses of wolf releases by either the USFWS or WDFW. After 70 years, all of a sudden WA and OR have their first wolf pack confirmed the very same day. And after 70 years, say from 2008 up till now>five years later WA is full of wolves. My guess is there aren't that many fools left when it comes to how wolves ended up in WA or OR. :chuckle:
Prove it they say, where's the pictures? How long will it take to prove pictures really arn't necessary? WDFW say they have never released wolves in WA, they refuse to confirm wolf killed livestock, they refuse to confirm wolf packs, they refuse to confirm the decimation of game herds, basically refuse to acknowledge the fact that wolves are having an impact at all.
If the USFWS and WDFW lies to everyone about wolves and where they came from, the impact they are having on game herds and livestock, how many fools still believe they want your advise? How many people believe WDFW didn't know what the wolves would do to WA when they started releasing them?
How many people now believe there will ever be any real management of wolves by WDFW?
Forget about wolves, how many counties have a major bear or cougar problem?
How many fools are there in WA? :dunno:
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on July 13, 2013, 06:43:39 PM
Post by: huntnphool on July 13, 2013, 08:30:40 PM
The USFWS, IDFG, MT, WY, WA, OR, CO, ND, and several other states all have one thing in common, the USFWS's wolf push. Wyoming legistlators stood up for the people of Wyoming, and now that state hunts wolves as a predator in parts of the state.Nobody is denying there are wolves here and you still have not proven a thing. ;)
Huntnphool among others say, prove the USFWS and WDFW have released wolves in WA! I know for a fact they have, and so do several others.
But go beyond all of the eye witnesses of wolf releases by either the USFWS or WDFW. After 70 years, all of a sudden WA and OR have their first wolf pack confirmed the very same day. And after 70 years, say from 2008 up till now>five years later WA is full of wolves. My guess is there aren't that many fools left when it comes to how wolves ended up in WA or OR. :chuckle:
Prove it they say, where's the pictures? How long will it take to prove pictures really arn't necessary? WDFW say they have never released wolves in WA, they refuse to confirm wolf killed livestock, they refuse to confirm wolf packs, they refuse to confirm the decimation of game herds, basically refuse to acknowledge the fact that wolves are having an impact at all.
If the USFWS and WDFW lies to everyone about wolves and where they came from, the impact they are having on game herds and livestock, how many fools still believe they want your advise? How many people believe WDFW didn't know what the wolves would do to WA when they started releasing them?
How many people now believe there will ever be any real management of wolves by WDFW?
Forget about wolves, how many counties have a major bear or cougar problem?
How many fools are there in WA? :dunno:
Post by: Special T on July 14, 2013, 10:28:05 AM
We are now living in a time where people have seen too many episodes of Law and Order, C.S.I. etc. Of course video is proof that is nearly impossible to refute. HOW have most legal cases been solves and prosecuted? The application of the tired and true Motive , Opportunity, Evidence. Video is just another form of evidence. Many court cases have been proven with scant evidence but LOTS of Motive and Opportunity.
The basic use of logic, powers of deduction, observation, and reason seem to escape most people today.
Proof by its self does NOTHING to change our situation. Our situation has to be changed politically, from pressure, or by legal recourse of lawsuit. We have few friends that want to stick their neck out on this issue, and many political enemies who embrace wolves. Short of Video that leaves a lawsuit. Lawsuits are expensive and uncertain, especially against an opponent with unlimited funds. Once a Suit is filed and played out, you only get ONE shot at proving your case. For MANY reasons you have to get it just right.
I don't have any info in depth on this issue like wolfbait. I can tell you with what has been posted here and elsewhere it seems likely that either the WDFW or USFS has transplanted wolves.
If Video is the only kind of proof you will accept, be thankful that our legal system does not make it a prerequisite. There would be a LOT of bad people running around if it was.
Post by: bearpaw on July 14, 2013, 02:40:55 PM
Post by: Simcoe hunter on July 14, 2013, 03:42:15 PM
Where are they gonna find some "experts"???? From what I've seen of the management of wolves in the other states, I see a serious shortage of "experts" :bash:
Here is the logic of one of Washington's appointed experts when it comes to wolves:
"In order to remain successful, hunters will have to adapt, which in turn will make them better hunters".
Jay Kehne. August 2011
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/theres-more-to-the-wolf-story (http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/theres-more-to-the-wolf-story)
Yeah. That means adapt to our will, give up hunting and become a granola munching, tree hugging wolf lover. Oh yeah, and if you want a steak go to Walmart. This doesn't bode well for hunters. I remember seeing demographics put out by the WDFW years ago describing how well they managed one of the smallest states versus larger populations, blah, blah, blah... They were patting themselves on the back for providing such good opportunities for hunters.
So what has changed? Is it really pressure from the Feds, or big money from wolf lovers?
Post by: ribka on July 14, 2013, 07:55:25 PM
Our new progressive culture intends to implement a many pronged approach to limit gun ownership and to end hunting on public lands. This is being pushed at the Fed level. No doubt about that.
Where are they gonna find some "experts"???? From what I've seen of the management of wolves in the other states, I see a serious shortage of "experts" :bash:
Here is the logic of one of Washington's appointed experts when it comes to wolves:
"In order to remain successful, hunters will have to adapt, which in turn will make them better hunters".
Jay Kehne. August 2011
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/theres-more-to-the-wolf-story (http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/theres-more-to-the-wolf-story)
Yeah. That means adapt to our will, give up hunting and become a granola munching, tree hugging wolf lover. Oh yeah, and if you want a steak go to Walmart. This doesn't bode well for hunters. I remember seeing demographics put out by the WDFW years ago describing how well they managed one of the smallest states versus larger populations, blah, blah, blah... They were patting themselves on the back for providing such good opportunities for hunters.
So what has changed? Is it really pressure from the Feds, or big money from wolf lovers?
Post by: wolfbait on July 15, 2013, 07:27:33 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishing In The Dark Is The Best Way To Describe How MT FWP Is Attempting To Control Wolves
And, so far, that approach has been an absolute horrible failure. What FWP has managed to accomplish through extremely inadequate management of wolves as a "big game animal" has been to play an instrumental role in the destruction of big game herds in at least 40-percent of the state - a resource that took 75 or more years to build - and which has now been decimated by wolves. FWP's smoke and mirrors has finally caught up with them, and those sportsmen and wildlife lovers who have witnessed the carnage of elk, moose, deer and other big game species throughout the western half of Montana now hold extremely low regard for the agency they entrusted to protect and propagate the region's once abundant wildlife.
Time has run out for FWP to do the right thing. As we head into fall and the realization that (despite the lies and deceit spread by FWP propaganda whores) there's no game to be hunted sets in, the anger of those who have financially supported FWP is sure to flare.
The agency continues to ignore the real science of wolf management/wolf control - throwing a handful of amateur wolf "specialists" into the field to make up their own brand of "pseudo wolf science"...based on nothing more than false numbers and their own lack of wolf knowledge. One thing is for certain, these "specialists" sure don't let the established "wolf science" of the past 150 years from around the world cloud their goal to write their own chapter in the annals of wildlife management. If they succeed, it could be the final chapter.
The attached takes a look at the reality of controlling wolves.
Editorial News/Press Release
July 15, 2013
Many More Wolves Need Eliminated To Save Elk Herds
In early June, the owners of a Bitterroot Valley hay farm, near Stevensville, MT, were shocked to find the tracks of four wolves crossing a freshly plowed and worked field. It was the first such wolf sign found in their relatively densely populated rural neighborhood, and what bothered the small acreage farmers most was that the tracks were headed directly toward several other small farms with livestock. From just about anywhere the tracks could be seen in the fine dirt, at least four or five nearby homes or barns could also be seen across open fields or through open stands of timber.
The terrain and habitat of the area is far from being what is considered typical wolf country. Or, at least, what was once considered wolf country. The wolves are no longer keeping to the mountain ridges that border both sides of the Bitterroot Valley. They're now down in the valley, and it has been hunger that's driven them to hunt among the valley dwelling human inhabitants of Western Montana.
There's not much left to be hunted in the mountainous country up and down most all of the western one-third of the state - either for wolves or for human big game hunters. Once bountiful elk herds are now barely 20-percent of what they were 15 years ago. Back then, most local residents would catch sight of moose several times a year. Now, moose are merely a memory. Outside of the human inhabited valleys, deer populations have plummeted sharply as well, and there is growing evidence that wolves and other apex predators are now making a serious negative impact on bighorn sheep and mountain goat numbers as well - especially during winter when these high alpine dwellers move to lower elevations to escape deep snows.
What big game there is left in Western Montana is now mostly found in the valleys, close to human inhabitants - where the remaining elk and deer seem to sense some safety and protection from aggressive wolf packs. Elk which once came down out of the high country when late fall snows began to blanket the ground, then returned the following spring, are now staying year-round in the valleys- and they're staying out of the mountains. Following them are now the wolves.
Healthy adult whitetails are simply too fast and too agile for wolves to depend on for a constant food source. Elk on the other hand are slower, and less likely to dart through thick timber at full speed. Three or four wolves can more quickly wear down a lone elk, especially a pregnant cow in the dead of winter - and that's why they have so negatively impacted elk populations. However, without elk, the wild carnivores will turn to whatever else is available - wild or domestic. The four wolves hunting the tilled hay field near Stevensville were most likely hunting for newborn whitetail fawns or calf elk. The predators are particularly hard on the newborn of the year, in many areas leaving a less than adequate 6- to 8-percent calf elk recruitment. Just for an elk herd to exist, it takes close to a 20-percent calf recruitment - and around a 30-percent calf recruitment to justify even limited elk hunting opportunities for human hunters.
The manner in which the State of Montana continues to *censored*foot around with an ever worsening major predator problem baffles the sportsmen and rural residents of the state. One thing that's now clearly evident is that wolves cannot be controlled through sport hunting - requiring hunters to purchase a wolf hunting license and restricting those hunters to "sporting" methods of take. The transplanted Canadian wolves now roaming the Northern U.S. Rockies are not native to the region, they are not "big game" the same as elk or deer, and anyone in pursuit of wolves with the intent of controlling their numbers cannot be subjected to "fair chase" restrictions. Wolves are destructive predators, and must be controlled as such. Montana hunters impacted by the devastating loss of wildlife to wolves feel that the state's wildlife agency needs to abandon all efforts to manage wolves as another big game animal, and allow hunters to take wolves whenever the opportunity presents itself - no license, no season, no limit, no "sporting" methods of take restrictions - until the wolf population has been adequately reduced.
Currently, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks has proposed some changes for the 2013 Wolf Season that will make it the most liberal season to date. This year, wolf hunters/trappers would be allowed to buy up to five licenses, the firearm wolf season would begin statewide on September 15, and the season would run until the end of March. Just days before the end of the 2012 wolf season, legislation was enacted to legalize electronic game callers for hunting wolves, but the 2013 season will be the first to determine just how effective such callers are for taking such an intelligent and secretive predator. Unfortunately, the writing is already on the wall, and concerned Montana residents are openly speaking out, condemning even these changes as not going far enough.
During the wolf delisting hearings of 2008, Dr. L. David Mech, considered by many as the leading wolf scientist in the world, was deposed as an expert witness in support of halting the growth of the wolf population in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. In his declaration, he pointed out that wolves could not be managed the same as game like elk, moose and deer. He also outlined the degree that wolf populations had to be culled. Just to stop the rate of wolf population growth, and to stop the growing depredation caused by the wolves, required eliminating basically half of the existing number of wolves. However, even that degree of harvest would not allow big game numbers to rebound. A 50-percent elimination of the existing wolf population would only stop the growth rate of game and livestock depredation. According to Mech, it would take the elimination of 70-percent, or more, of existing wolf numbers, with the wolf population held at that level for at least five years, before wildlife populations would begin to rebound.
At present, that cannot be accomplished, mainly because MT FWP has absolutely no idea how many wolves are in the state. They continue to throw out artificially low wolf population estimates, with the real number of wolves in Montana likely two or three times greater.
The state's 2012 wolf season saw hunters and trappers purchase 18,642 licenses for harvesting "a wolf". The season opened with the start of the archery big game season on September 1, but for rifle hunters the only early season wolf hunting allowed was in several backcountry hunting units, which opened September 15. For all other rifle hunters, the season opened with the start of the general big game season on October 20. The first ever wolf trapping season opened December 15 - and that season, along with the firearm hunting season, closed on February 28. During the 181 days of the season, just 225 wolves were taken by hunters and trappers for a not so whopping success rate of only about 1.2 percent.
Still, MT FWP Director Jeff Hagener commented, "We're generally pleased with these results. The overall harvest of 225 wolves this season is higher than last year and reflects the more liberal harvest opportunities that were added for 2012. The effectiveness of hunters and now trappers together continues to grow."
Although the agency has done its best to make the season sound like a tremendous success, in reality when just 1.2 hunters or trappers per 100 fill a wolf tag, FWP's so-called wolf management through sport hunting has been a miserable failure. As you read this, there are now more wolves in the state than before the start of the 2012 season - and MT FWP is further in the dark when it comes to truly knowing how many wolves are in Montana.
At one 2012 MT FWP meeting in Missoula to discuss overall predator impact, and to allow sportsmen, ranchers and rural residents to comment on what's being done or not done to control major predator numbers, one of those commenting pointed out that the problem is how few hunters are actually buying a wolf tag. One suggestion from the 300 or so who attended the meeting was that any big game hunter with a valid Montana big game tag in his or her pocket should be allowed to use that tag to take a wolf. Instead of fewer than 20,000 "wolf hunters" out there during the five-week general big game season, there could potentially be two...three...or four times as many hunters who would take a wolf if there was suddenly the opportunity to take a shot.
With each season that Montana Governor Steve Bullock allows FWP to drag its feet on taking actions that would bring down the wolf population in the state, the greater the loss of big game resources. The herds continue to get smaller - and older. Many who have cherished the bounty and variety of big game in Western Montana their entire lives now fear that unless drastic measures are taken to bring wolf populations down as dramatically as outlined by Dr. L. David Mech back in 2008, many once great herds could be lost forever. More than ever, the talk among sportsmen is that FWP cannot be trusted to come up with a viable solution, and that it's now time to take the matter into their own hands and begin killing every wolf they see. Some have already started their own kind of vigilante wolf control. Likewise, as grizzly numbers continue to increase, also taking more of a bite out of big game populations, more and more of the big bears are also ending up in the crosshairs - and left to rot.
Does that sound like poor ethics to you?
Welcome to the new normal. When a sportsman funded wildlife agency like MT FWP begins to favor growing numbers of predators and shows a complete disregard for properly managing the elk, moose, deer, pronghorn, and other edible big game that Montana sportsmen have counted on to help feed their families for decades, it is then the agency that has stepped across the ethics line. Dark storm clouds are brewing on the horizon and that rumble in the distance may not be thunder. More than likely, it's some extremely disgruntled residents of Big Sky Country gearing up for war. - Toby Bridges, LOBO WATCH
For More About LOBO WATCH Go To: www.lobowatch.com (http://www.lobowatch.com)
Post by: buckfvr on July 15, 2013, 08:04:51 AM
My own opinion is not a single employee of WDFW has a conscience, and its been evident at all their meetings. Blatantly disconnected, all of them. Trust non of them. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on July 15, 2013, 02:24:30 PM
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 12:49 PM
To: Jim and Barbara Hagedorn
Subject: Fw: How can it get any worse?
Please take a look at the PDF file and see how bad the shape of the Idaho State wildlife economy is.
Resident elk tag sales for the zones that have quotas, remember these zones: the Lolo, Selway, Middlefork, Dworshak, Elk City, Diamond Creek, Sawtooth, Salmon, Smokey Mountain and Bear River, were the prime and the most sought after tags in Idaho. Before Idaho Fish and Game lost their way, and wolves, these tags were sold out in the first month and they was a waiting list.
NOW !!!!!!!, we have the Resident Zone tag quota of 12,421. As of July 12 the department has only sold 1,779 leaving a balance of unsold tags of 10,642. Remember when these tags sold out within the first 30 days? SHAME, SHAME, SHAME.
Now let's switch to Non-Resident tag sales, as of July 12, Deer, regular/whitetail quota 12,015, sold 1,230, balance of unsold tags 10,785. Yes, it gets worse: Elk, Non-Resident State tag quota 10,415, tags sold 1,697, balance of unsold tags, 8,718. Now here is the kicker, Zone elk tags A and B tag quota 3,996, sold 978, This leaves 3,020 tags unsold. This amounts to nothing but a sin, not for non-residents but for the IDFG department.
For the last 30 years a number of these IDFG employees have been steering the boat, how did they let it get so far off course? Why did they destroy a resource like our wildlife? 30 years ago we had men and women come from the world over, to spend time in the Idaho outdoors. Elk, deer, pheasants, bear and cougar and other wildlife were plentiful, along with the wonders of viewing nature in the outdoors.
In the last 30 years the IDFG Department has lost its direction. Right now we need new leadership in the worst way to get us back on course, we need someone in leadership to get the boat upright again. The leadership of the department has let things get so bad that sportsmen and sportswomen, who have been the sole supporter of the department, will not fund it. Now the department is going begging to the general tax payers for money. Why give them general tax money when the department has been unable to manage the 93 million plus they get now.
Please IDFG Commissioners, our Idaho State Governor, and our legislators, turn this boat around before it is to late to save the sinking boat.
Jim Hagedorn
attachment added
Post by: Northway on July 17, 2013, 09:52:17 AM
Are you more interested in what bios/wildlife managers from Idaho or Montana have to say about predation issues now that you were five years ago?
Post by: Special T on July 17, 2013, 11:40:50 AM
Wolves were in the Cascades and NRM in small numbers BEFORE the reintroduction experiment in YNP 1992... They managed some kind of balence up until those wolves spread.
ID introduced wolves just like the YNP same kind same time frame. WHY would i listen to those Bios that NEED to CYA? MT and ID have it in thier best intrest to shade the numbers. Why? They NEED out of state hunters! Yet they slit thier own throat. :bash:
An unfortanate fact is that many NON hunter have filled positions in wildlife depts in the NW area. Once upon a time the regional bio or elk specialist knew a BUNCH BECAUSE he hunted. I think you see less of that now days.
Post by: Alchase on July 17, 2013, 12:39:31 PM
The USFWS, IDFG, MT, WY, WA, OR, CO, ND, and several other states all have one thing in common, the USFWS's wolf push. Wyoming legistlators stood up for the people of Wyoming, and now that state hunts wolves as a predator in parts of the state.Nobody is denying there are wolves here and you still have not proven a thing. ;)
Huntnphool among others say, prove the USFWS and WDFW have released wolves in WA! I know for a fact they have, and so do several others.
But go beyond all of the eye witnesses of wolf releases by either the USFWS or WDFW. After 70 years, all of a sudden WA and OR have their first wolf pack confirmed the very same day. And after 70 years, say from 2008 up till now>five years later WA is full of wolves. My guess is there aren't that many fools left when it comes to how wolves ended up in WA or OR. :chuckle:
Prove it they say, where's the pictures? How long will it take to prove pictures really arn't necessary? WDFW say they have never released wolves in WA, they refuse to confirm wolf killed livestock, they refuse to confirm wolf packs, they refuse to confirm the decimation of game herds, basically refuse to acknowledge the fact that wolves are having an impact at all.
If the USFWS and WDFW lies to everyone about wolves and where they came from, the impact they are having on game herds and livestock, how many fools still believe they want your advise? How many people believe WDFW didn't know what the wolves would do to WA when they started releasing them?
How many people now believe there will ever be any real management of wolves by WDFW?
Forget about wolves, how many counties have a major bear or cougar problem?
How many fools are there in WA? :dunno:
Wolfbait, I admire how much work you and others have put it to the wolf issue to keep us informed, but you have been asked directly to show the proof you have many, many times over the last few years, I have yet to see any proof indicating wolves have been reintroduced in Washington from you or any other source that says they were.
Would I be surprised if they were, No!
Lets face it, if any of us actually had proof of reintroduction, someone at the WDFW or whomever was involved, would be going to jail.
So again Post it if you got it.
Post by: huntnphool on July 17, 2013, 01:24:39 PM
EXACTLY!!!!The USFWS, IDFG, MT, WY, WA, OR, CO, ND, and several other states all have one thing in common, the USFWS's wolf push. Wyoming legistlators stood up for the people of Wyoming, and now that state hunts wolves as a predator in parts of the state.Nobody is denying there are wolves here and you still have not proven a thing. ;)
Huntnphool among others say, prove the USFWS and WDFW have released wolves in WA! I know for a fact they have, and so do several others.
But go beyond all of the eye witnesses of wolf releases by either the USFWS or WDFW. After 70 years, all of a sudden WA and OR have their first wolf pack confirmed the very same day. And after 70 years, say from 2008 up till now>five years later WA is full of wolves. My guess is there aren't that many fools left when it comes to how wolves ended up in WA or OR. :chuckle:
Prove it they say, where's the pictures? How long will it take to prove pictures really arn't necessary? WDFW say they have never released wolves in WA, they refuse to confirm wolf killed livestock, they refuse to confirm wolf packs, they refuse to confirm the decimation of game herds, basically refuse to acknowledge the fact that wolves are having an impact at all.
If the USFWS and WDFW lies to everyone about wolves and where they came from, the impact they are having on game herds and livestock, how many fools still believe they want your advise? How many people believe WDFW didn't know what the wolves would do to WA when they started releasing them?
How many people now believe there will ever be any real management of wolves by WDFW?
Forget about wolves, how many counties have a major bear or cougar problem?
How many fools are there in WA? :dunno:
Wolfbait, I admire how much work you and others have put it to the wolf issue to keep us informed, but you have been asked directly to show the proof you have many, many times over the last few years, I have yet to see any proof indicating wolves have been reintroduced in Washington from you or any other source that says they were.
Would I be surprised if they were, No!
Lets face it, if any of us actually had proof of reintroduction, someone at the WDFW or whomever was involved, would be going to jail.
So again Post it if you got it.
Post by: denali on July 18, 2013, 06:39:25 PM
Post by: CedarPants on July 18, 2013, 06:51:04 PM
Post by: ghosthunter on July 18, 2013, 09:30:31 PM
Post by: CedarPants on July 18, 2013, 09:42:01 PM
I didn't like his answer to "will Washington keep wolves protected statewide until they've dispersed to all management zones even if their numbers continue growing in northeastern Washington?" He was very of matter of fact, stating yes and reitterating that the wolf management plan very clearly states they will not be de-listed until all zones are populated with the minimum target numbers of breeding pairs - and went on to state that realisitically, northeast Washington is most likely going to be above target objectives until the rest of the state populates.
Most likely? I think we're already there Dave.
To his credit, he did touch on the fact that the plan has contingencies written into it to allow for lethal wolf removal if cattle/ungulate interaction becomes an issue. He did also mention translocation as a realistic solution.
I just don't get why they go to great measure to manage ungulates at the GMU level, but for wolves they view it as just 1 big management territory (the entire state).
Post by: dreamunelk on July 18, 2013, 09:59:52 PM
I just don't get why they go to great measure to manage ungulates at the GMU level, but for wolves they view it as just 1 big management territory (the entire state).
Better to manage at the state level. If managed at GMU level than the argument could be made that we have to have several packs per GMU.
Also most predators are dispersers. Cougars and wolves travel hundreds of miles to establish new territories. Ungulates don't really travel that much. They will generally live their lives in pretty close to the same area. They do disperse but, you can't say they will were with wolves you can say that young will disperse.
Post by: JLS on July 18, 2013, 10:09:11 PM
[/b]
I just don't get why they go to great measure to manage ungulates at the GMU level, but for wolves they view it as just 1 big management territory (the entire state).
Ungulates don't really travel that much. They will generally live their lives in pretty close to the same area.
For example, the Blue Mountain elk herds stay almost exclusively within the GMU boundaries. They winter there, they calve there, and they summer there.
This was directly from Paul Wik, who helped with much of the elk research in the Blues.
Post by: CedarPants on July 18, 2013, 10:16:59 PM
I guess I'm more just hung up on why they are so hung up on telling everyone in NE WA that we'll have to just deal with it until wolves are everywhere in the state.
Post by: bearpaw on July 18, 2013, 10:50:10 PM
I see your point and do agree. Nobody wants to see X number of wolves required per GMU.
I guess I'm more just hung up on why they are so hung up on telling everyone in NE WA that we'll have to just deal with it until wolves are everywhere in the state.
I agree, NE Washington is being fed to the wolves no if, ands, or buts. What really riled me is when they came to Colville and told us that if herds decline they will take there sweet time studying the herds before they take any management action on wolves.
Unfortunately I was busy all day and this evening and forgot about this meeting. :bash:
Post by: Gringo31 on July 19, 2013, 06:06:16 AM
Post by: CedarPants on July 19, 2013, 06:36:38 AM
I see your point and do agree. Nobody wants to see X number of wolves required per GMU.
I guess I'm more just hung up on why they are so hung up on telling everyone in NE WA that we'll have to just deal with it until wolves are everywhere in the state.
I agree, NE Washington is being fed to the wolves no if, ands, or buts. What really riled me is when they came to Colville and told us that if herds decline they will take there sweet time studying the herds before they take any management action on wolves.
Unfortunately I was busy all day and this evening and forgot about this meeting. :bash:
They touched on that as well, and the Idaho and Montana speakers called out and reiterated several times that people, cougars, weather, and bears can and do have greater impact on herds than wolves (they used the Lolo and Bitterroot as their examples). They seemed to agree that wolves do in fact have an impact but did their best to make it sound minimal.
Idaho also said (when asked) that they would be raisin license fees to make up for lost tag sales
Post by: bearpaw on July 19, 2013, 07:56:07 AM
I see your point and do agree. Nobody wants to see X number of wolves required per GMU.
I guess I'm more just hung up on why they are so hung up on telling everyone in NE WA that we'll have to just deal with it until wolves are everywhere in the state.
I agree, NE Washington is being fed to the wolves no if, ands, or buts. What really riled me is when they came to Colville and told us that if herds decline they will take there sweet time studying the herds before they take any management action on wolves.
Unfortunately I was busy all day and this evening and forgot about this meeting. :bash:
They touched on that as well, and the Idaho and Montana speakers called out and reiterated several times that people, cougars, weather, and bears can and do have greater impact on herds than wolves (they used the Lolo and Bitterroot as their examples). They seemed to agree that wolves do in fact have an impact but did their best to make it sound minimal.
Idaho also said (when asked) that they would be raisin license fees to make up for lost tag sales
Glad I missed it, sounds like another dog and pony show. These F&G people will do anything to protect wolves. I agree that cougar, bear, and weather definitely impact herds, but wolves are the unbalancing factor that took many herds in Idaho/Montana to such ridiculously low levels. Where there are no wolves in Idaho the herds remain stable.
Idaho ought to ask Montana how that worked out to raise license fees! Hunters will literally be footing the bill for wolves everywhere! :bash:
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 19, 2013, 08:03:03 AM
Post by: wolfbait on July 19, 2013, 09:10:04 AM
I see your point and do agree. Nobody wants to see X number of wolves required per GMU.
I guess I'm more just hung up on why they are so hung up on telling everyone in NE WA that we'll have to just deal with it until wolves are everywhere in the state.
I agree, NE Washington is being fed to the wolves no if, ands, or buts. What really riled me is when they came to Colville and told us that if herds decline they will take there sweet time studying the herds before they take any management action on wolves.
Unfortunately I was busy all day and this evening and forgot about this meeting. :bash:
They touched on that as well, and the Idaho and Montana speakers called out and reiterated several times that people, cougars, weather, and bears can and do have greater impact on herds than wolves (they used the Lolo and Bitterroot as their examples). They seemed to agree that wolves do in fact have an impact but did their best to make it sound minimal.
Idaho also said (when asked) that they would be raisin license fees to make up for lost tag sales
Glad I missed it, sounds like another dog and pony show. These F&G people will do anything to protect wolves. I agree that cougar, bear, and weather definitely impact herds, but wolves are the unbalancing factor that took many herds in Idaho/Montana to such ridiculously low levels. Where there are no wolves in Idaho the herds remain stable.
Idaho ought to ask Montana how that worked out to raise license fees! Hunters will literally be footing the bill for wolves everywhere! :bash:
My guess is all of WA will get the same management as the Methow Valley. Wolves will decimated the game herds and WDFW will run to the local newspaper at the end of each season and say for the amount of hunters, the hunting was great. This will happen until there is nothing left to hunt. Remember the Lolo elk herd, 14 years later IDFG finally admitted, that yes, wolves were the problem.
It won't take 14 years for WA to hit bottom, Same BS just a different state, Welcome to WDF&Wolves
Post by: asl20bball on July 19, 2013, 01:24:25 PM
Post by: Styles on July 20, 2013, 11:47:02 PM
Post by: Simcoe hunter on July 21, 2013, 12:04:40 AM
Post by: bearpaw on July 21, 2013, 12:07:56 AM
I wish I could have listened to the whole "live stream" of the meeting!! Our "experts" here in Wa are a joke at best!! Our Big Game Management program is an ultimate fail and they are stealing hunters and fishermans money!!
I agree they are failing sportsmen, Fish & Wildlife needs split up, We need two agencies that each find their own funding:
Washington Dept of Fish & Game
Washington Dept of Non-Game
I am tired of sportsman's dollars being used to propagate wolves, turtles, bugs, and other nonsense.
Post by: Duckhunter14 on July 21, 2013, 09:24:44 AM
Post by: buckfvr on July 21, 2013, 09:44:00 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on July 21, 2013, 09:56:54 AM
I've taken whitetails each of the years since I started hunting in NE Washington among "all those wolves". And the reason I started hunting there (I live on the coast) is because of loss of access in the areas I grew up hunting, not to mention habitat changes from changes in logging.
Wolves may affect the odds of my success slightly, but they don't affect my access to even go hunting.
Post by: AspenBud on July 21, 2013, 10:11:52 AM
As I've said before, habitat and timber companies leasing or charging for access and limiting access will affect more people's hunting opportunities than wolves ever will.
I've taken whitetails each of the years since I started hunting in NE Washington among "all those wolves". And the reason I started hunting there (I live on the coast) is because of loss of access in the areas I grew up hunting, not to mention habitat changes from changes in logging.
Wolves may affect the odds of my success slightly, but they don't affect my access to even go hunting.
I think it's all linked.
Less access to good hunting grounds leads to fewer hunters (and that's a bigger problem in general) which leads to fewer people worrying about wolves and big game which leads to less access to good hunting...repeat cycle...
Post by: bearpaw on July 21, 2013, 10:49:03 AM
But some of you guys do not have a clue what is going on with predators in the NE. So that some of you understand the predator situation in NE WA, wolves have not really affected herd numbers in most areas yet. It's the record numbers of cougar, coyotes, and bear that have been impacting our herds the most in the NE. As the WDFW continues to greatly limit predator hunting and with the addition of wolves we will see a greater decline in wildlife in the future especially after we have another hard winter and we are put into a deeper predator pit than what we are already in. Once the wolf numbers continue to increase unchecked due to WDFW wolf management policies the impacts will be felt more and more.
Idaho has tried to offset predator impacts by creating two bear and two cougar hunting zones, but wolf predation has replaced the cougar and bear which have been removed in most areas and herds have continued to decline even during years of mild or average winters. There is no way you can sugar coat what has happened in the ID/MT/WY areas with the most wolves, the declining herd numbers tell the story. As wolves continue to increase in NE WA that is what is in store for our herds in the future.
Unlike a few incapable of looking ahead, I would like to resolve the problem before it becomes a problem in NE WA. If WDFW would simply manage wolves by limiting pack size and the number of packs, NE WA could support a modest number of wolves without many severe impacts, it's the insanity of unregulated wolves that will do to NE WA exactly what was done to the LOLO, Bitteroot, Yellowstone, Payette, Thoroughfare, and many other herds if wolves are left unchecked.
The results can already be seen in GMU 105 Kelly Hill (the Wedge). Herds are down in large portions of this unit and as a result the wolves were forced to eat McIrvin's cattle. :twocents:
Post by: wolfbait on July 21, 2013, 12:17:03 PM
The results can already be seen in GMU 105 Kelly Hill (the Wedge). Herds are down in large portions of this unit and as a result the wolves were forced to eat McIrvin's cattle.---
IF is a word that WDFW enjoy. If the stupid hunters and rural people don't come together we will be able to accomplish our mission. We here at WDFW have already released enough wolves with of cource the USFWS's help, that we can now translocate within the state. Problem wolves from one area will go to a new area just as happened in MT, WY and Idaho.
So how stupid are the people in WA?
Just like Idaho and MT, hunters and rural people need to come together and remove those at the top and work their way down, starting with Anderson who is just another nodding head!
Post by: Buckblaster on July 25, 2013, 12:23:47 PM
Post by: huntnphool on July 25, 2013, 01:55:05 PM
Near the end of the cast, Dave said it was likely that translocation would happen since they need confirmed packs south of I-90. He also mentioned before that, the St. Helens elk herd is beyond carrying capacity. Its easy to see what they might be thinking.Its been their agenda from the get go.
Post by: Special T on July 25, 2013, 02:56:11 PM
Post by: huntnphool on July 25, 2013, 03:03:55 PM
Many have seen their end goal, and the WDFW slowly adjusts their statements to reflect it.Adjusts their statements? They have been completely up front about it from the beginning! :chuckle:
Post by: Special T on July 25, 2013, 03:07:45 PM
Post by: huntnphool on July 25, 2013, 03:10:54 PM
I would say that the message I have heard has not changed, however their verbage and nuances have. :twocents:Everything is in the original wolf proposal, they have stuck to it as written.
Perhaps had more hunters actually read it before it was accepted there would have been a little more opposition. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on July 27, 2013, 04:02:23 AM
http://youtu.be/aIjH_bX9h0w (http://youtu.be/aIjH_bX9h0w)