Post by: Fullabull on March 09, 2014, 02:47:15 PM
WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/)
March 8, 2014
Contact: WDFW Wildlife Program, (360) 902-2515
State's wolf population kept expanding
last year, according to WDFW survey
MOSES LAKE - Gray wolves established four new packs and expanded their territory in the state over the past year, state wildlife managers told the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission at a public meeting here today.
That assessment was based on an annual survey by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) that confirmed the presence of 13 wolf packs, five successful breeding pairs and at least 52 individual wolves in 2013.
Donny Martorello, WDFW carnivore specialist, said the latest findings point to continued growth in the state's wolf population under state and federal recovery plans.
"While we can't count every wolf in the state, the formation of four new packs is clear evidence of steady growth in Washington's wolf population," he said. "More packs mean more breeding females, which produce more pups."
All but eliminated from western states in the last century, wolves are now protected under Washington law throughout the state and under federal law in the western two-thirds of the state.
The commission, an appointed panel that sets policy for WDFW, approved the plan in 2011 that guides state management and recovery of wolves in Washington.
In developing its annual update, WDFW used a combination of aerial surveys, trackers and signals from 11 wolves fitted with active radio-collars, Martorello said.
Three of the new packs - Ruby Creek, Dirty Shirt and Carpenter Ridge - were formed by wolves that split off from the existing Smackout Pack in northeast Washington, he said.
A fourth new pack, the Wenatchee Pack, appears to be made up of two female wolves from the Teanaway Pack, whose territory stretches between Ellensburg and Wenatchee.
Under the state's Wolf Conservation and Management Plan, a wolf pack is defined in the state plan as two or more wolves traveling together.
Despite their growing numbers, wolves were involved in far fewer conflicts with humans and livestock in 2013 than in the previous year, Martorello said.
Stephanie Simek, WDFW's wolf conflict-resolution manager, said the department investigated 20 reported attacks on pets and livestock last year, but found that wolves were actually involved in only four of them. Confirmed wolf attacks left one calf dead and three dogs injured, she said.
By comparison, wolves killed at least seven calves and one sheep in 2012, leaving six additional calves and two sheep injured, Simek said. Most of those attacks were made by the Wedge Pack on a single rancher's cattle in northeast Washington, she said.
WDFW ultimately killed seven members of the Wedge Pack to stop the escalating series of attacks, although two wolves were still travelling as a pack in the same area in 2013, she said.
"That was an extraordinary event that we do not want to repeat," said Martorello, noting that no wolves were killed by WDFW last year.
The 2013 survey does, however, reflect the death of five wolves, due to causes ranging from a car accident on Blewett Pass to a legal hunt on the Spokane Indian Reservation.
Simek outlined several steps WDFW has taken in the past year to reduce conflicts with wolves:
Cooperative agreements: The department entered into cost-sharing agreements with 29 livestock producers, who have made a commitment to take proactive steps to avoid conflicts with wolves. Typical strategies include improving fencing and sanitation, employing range riders and using non-lethal hazing methods to repel wolves.
Increased staffing: WDFW created a new 13-member Wildlife Conflict Section to work with livestock producers, landowners and entire communities to avoid conflicts with wolves. Seven of those positions were new hires in 2013.
Wolf Advisory Group: A new nine-member advisory group was established to recommend strategies for encouraging more livestock owners to enter into cooperative agreements, providing compensation for wolf-related economic losses, and other issues. Members of the group represent hunters, livestock producers and conservation groups.
"These actions have greatly improved the department's ability to manage our growing wolf population and meet state recovery goals," Martorello said.
Under the state's wolf-management plan, wolves can be removed from the state's endangered species list once 15 successful breeding pairs are documented for three consecutive years among three designated wolf-recovery regions - or 18 successful breeding pairs in one year among three designated wolf-recovery regions.
A successful breeding pair is defined as an adult male and female with at least two pups that survive until the end of the calendar year.
In 2013, WDFW documented three successful breeding pairs in the Eastern Washington recovery region and two pairs in the North Cascades recovery region. No wolf packs or breeding pairs have been documented on the South Cascades/Northwest Coast recovery region.
Meanwhile, the federal listing of gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act is currently under review. In June 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced a proposal to delist gray wolves nationwide. A decision is expected by the end of 2014.
An overview of the 2013 wolf survey is posted on WDFW's website at http:// wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/. A full report will be available on that site by April 4, 2014.
Post by: 3dsheetmetal on March 09, 2014, 03:10:54 PM
Post by: couesbitten on March 09, 2014, 03:14:51 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on March 09, 2014, 03:33:30 PM
Post by: BENCHLEG on March 09, 2014, 03:40:46 PM
Post by: rtspring on March 09, 2014, 03:46:28 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 09, 2014, 03:48:19 PM
Coyote season is open year around...
I bet that will be changing soon, to protect the wolves. :rolleyes:
Post by: jasnt on March 09, 2014, 03:55:13 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 09, 2014, 04:05:46 PM
Im looking forward to having a wolf tag in my pocket:)
I don't know if I'll live that long.
Post by: 3dsheetmetal on March 09, 2014, 04:07:04 PM
Coyote season is open year around...
I bet that will be changing soon, to protect the wolves. :rolleyes:
Not if theres not any wolves to protect :chuckle:
Post by: Axle on March 09, 2014, 04:56:29 PM
Quote
All but eliminated from western states in the last century, wolves are now protected under Washington law throughout the state and under federal law in the western two-thirds of the state.
All but eliminated? Hogwash! The wolves they brought in were never native here. The timber wolf was the native wolf. The much larger and unlawfully-introduced gray wolf has done its part to eliminate what few timber wolves were left. The grays will also bring ranching and hunting to their knees. But isn't this the goal of the liberals? And just think - some hunters go along with this..... :'(
Post by: nacheshunter on March 09, 2014, 05:05:11 PM
Post by: hardrichard on March 09, 2014, 05:58:05 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 09, 2014, 06:35:53 PM
Got to shoot the big yotes if you get a chance :tup: or in the next years to come will all be standing around the ole campfire talking about how elk and deer hunting used to be and our kids and grandkids will have missed out. :twocents:
Let's see, Alaska is just over 9 times larger than Washington. Alaska has about 10,000 wolves and there is still plenty of game to hunt. That would be like Washington having over 1,000 wolves, which will never happen. Washington is so populated that there would be too much conflict for one thing. I doubt your scenario will come true.
More likely, your kids and grandkids will have no place to hunt unless they want to spend lots of money for access as more of Washington's private property becomes gated pay for hunting land, and communities continue to grow taking game habitat with them.
Post by: kentrek on March 09, 2014, 06:40:36 PM
Post by: Curly on March 09, 2014, 06:48:03 PM
Just a thought that ran thru my skull........... :dunno:
Post by: cougarbart on March 09, 2014, 06:54:04 PM
Post by: jackelope on March 09, 2014, 07:01:03 PM
You know, with all the bitching we do on here about tribal abuses regarding elk harvest.........I wonder if the tribes could have any pull in getting wolves delisted by the state any earlier. If I were the tribe, I think I'd sue the state for their crappy wolf loving plan.
Just a thought that ran thru my skull........... :dunno:
What I've been told is that once wolves are delisted in the tribal areas, then the tribes can hunt them.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on March 09, 2014, 07:44:34 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on March 09, 2014, 07:49:18 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on March 09, 2014, 07:51:55 PM
Post by: cougarbart on March 09, 2014, 08:07:03 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on March 09, 2014, 08:08:45 PM
You know, with all the bitching we do on here about tribal abuses regarding elk harvest.........I wonder if the tribes could have any pull in getting wolves delisted by the state any earlier. If I were the tribe, I think I'd sue the state for their crappy wolf loving plan.
Just a thought that ran thru my skull........... :dunno:
What I've been told is that once wolves are delisted in the tribal areas, then the tribes can hunt them.
You mean the ceded lands?
Post by: mulehunter on March 09, 2014, 08:30:54 PM
did someone shoot at the wolf and miss it ? That boy needs some accuracy lessons :chuckle:
:yeah: YUP Can't believe he miss it.... :chuckle:
:peep:
Post by: jackelope on March 09, 2014, 08:41:15 PM
You know, with all the bitching we do on here about tribal abuses regarding elk harvest.........I wonder if the tribes could have any pull in getting wolves delisted by the state any earlier. If I were the tribe, I think I'd sue the state for their crappy wolf loving plan.
Just a thought that ran thru my skull........... :dunno:
What I've been told is that once wolves are delisted in the tribal areas, then the tribes can hunt them.
You mean the ceded lands?
I believe so. The words used when I was told this were "our lands". Not sure if that's on the reservation or the ceded lands.
Post by: cougarbart on March 09, 2014, 08:45:05 PM
Post by: buglebrush on March 09, 2014, 10:00:11 PM
Got to shoot the big yotes if you get a chance :tup: or in the next years to come will all be standing around the ole campfire talking about how elk and deer hunting used to be and our kids and grandkids will have missed out. :twocents:
Let's see, Alaska is just over 9 times larger than Washington. Alaska has about 10,000 wolves and there is still plenty of game to hunt. That would be like Washington having over 1,000 wolves, which will never happen. Washington is so populated that there would be too much conflict for one thing. I doubt your scenario will come true.
More likely, your kids and grandkids will have no place to hunt unless they want to spend lots of money for access as more of Washington's private property becomes gated pay for hunting land, and communities continue to grow taking game habitat with them.
Let me guess. You have not spent time hunting areas like Idaho where this has been devastating. If you want to compare something try Idaho as it is next to Washington, and Alaska is a whole different case. I have personally seen the devastation. How many wolf kills have you stood over? Seriously man.
Post by: Curly on March 09, 2014, 10:06:34 PM
lmao curly! ya their scared you guys will bitch when they shoot 4 or 5 wolves in the feeding stations and go to mcdonalds!
I don't get the joke? :dunno:
I'm just saying that if the elk herds dwindle down due to too many wolves, it is because wdfw adopted the ridiculous wolf plan instead of a more practical one. If I were a tribal member, I'd be pissed about the mismanagement by wdfw.
Lets say the eastern half of the state gets delisted by the feds (like the eastern third is currently) but the state with their wolf management plan still maintains wolf protections. Sure the Yakamas can then kill wolves since they are only state protected, but what can they do by then? The wolf population is going to be hard to control unless they resort to poison and aerial gunning.............(maybe the tribe will ???). If the elk herd is going to be affected like some believe, then if I were a Yakama indian, I'd be pissed that wdfw implemented that ridiculous plan instead of delisting wolves like the Feds allowed.
It would be kind of ironic if the Yakama tribe made an issue about wolves killing elk.........you know wolves have only slightly less restrictions on killing elk than the Yakamas do. :chuckle:
Post by: kentrek on March 09, 2014, 10:41:12 PM
Got to shoot the big yotes if you get a chance :tup: or in the next years to come will all be standing around the ole campfire talking about how elk and deer hunting used to be and our kids and grandkids will have missed out. :twocents:
Let's see, Alaska is just over 9 times larger than Washington. Alaska has about 10,000 wolves and there is still plenty of game to hunt. That would be like Washington having over 1,000 wolves, which will never happen. Washington is so populated that there would be too much conflict for one thing. I doubt your scenario will come true.
More likely, your kids and grandkids will have no place to hunt unless they want to spend lots of money for access as more of Washington's private property becomes gated pay for hunting land, and communities continue to grow taking game habitat with them.
Let me guess. You have not spent time hunting areas like Idaho where this has been devastating. If you want to compare something try Idaho as it is next to Washington, and Alaska is a whole different case. I have personally seen the devastation. How many wolf kills have you stood over? Seriously man.
Has elk hunting stopped in idaho ?? I agree with Sitka that land issues & habitat are bigger problems than wolves..wolves suck for sure but they aren't gona bring an end to hunting just like they havent in states that have been dealing with them for awhile now
Hunting might get slow an less elk might be killed but once tag sales drop fish an game has no choice but to react..there jobs depend on it
Post by: Annette on March 09, 2014, 11:02:53 PM
Post by: sAsQuAtCh17 on March 09, 2014, 11:14:17 PM
Post by: xXLojackXx on March 10, 2014, 08:30:19 AM
Post by: dinker on March 10, 2014, 10:02:56 AM
Post by: buglebrush on March 10, 2014, 10:17:38 AM
Got to shoot the big yotes if you get a chance :tup: or in the next years to come will all be standing around the ole campfire talking about how elk and deer hunting used to be and our kids and grandkids will have missed out. :twocents:
Let's see, Alaska is just over 9 times larger than Washington. Alaska has about 10,000 wolves and there is still plenty of game to hunt. That would be like Washington having over 1,000 wolves, which will never happen. Washington is so populated that there would be too much conflict for one thing. I doubt your scenario will come true.
More likely, your kids and grandkids will have no place to hunt unless they want to spend lots of money for access as more of Washington's private property becomes gated pay for hunting land, and communities continue to grow taking game habitat with them.
Let me guess. You have not spent time hunting areas like Idaho where this has been devastating. If you want to compare something try Idaho as it is next to Washington, and Alaska is a whole different case. I have personally seen the devastation. How many wolf kills have you stood over? Seriously man.
Has elk hunting stopped in idaho ?? I agree with Sitka that land issues & habitat are bigger problems than wolves..wolves suck for sure but they aren't gona bring an end to hunting just like they havent in states that have been dealing with them for awhile now
Hunting might get slow an less elk might be killed but once tag sales drop fish an game has no choice but to react..there jobs depend on it
" Hunting might get slow an less elk might be killed" Exactly. I couldn't have said it better myself. That is what is happening. If it continues to happen then it will end altogether. There has already been loss of hunting opportunity, and season/tag restrictions. Again, I would ask if you have personally spent years in the woods where this is happening? Have you personally seen the effects, or are you simply talking about something you know absolutely nothing about? It is vital that we as hunters stand together for responsible management. Washington's management of predators is going to continue to negatively impact elk, deer, moose, etc...
Post by: idaho guy on March 10, 2014, 11:01:01 AM
Post by: kentrek on March 10, 2014, 12:13:28 PM
Got to shoot the big yotes if you get a chance :tup: or in the next years to come will all be standing around the ole campfire talking about how elk and deer hunting used to be and our kids and grandkids will have missed out. :twocents:
Let's see, Alaska is just over 9 times larger than Washington. Alaska has about 10,000 wolves and there is still plenty of game to hunt. That would be like Washington having over 1,000 wolves, which will never happen. Washington is so populated that there would be too much conflict for one thing. I doubt your scenario will come true.
More likely, your kids and grandkids will have no place to hunt unless they want to spend lots of money for access as more of Washington's private property becomes gated pay for hunting land, and communities continue to grow taking game habitat with them.
Let me guess. You have not spent time hunting areas like Idaho where this has been devastating. If you want to compare something try Idaho as it is next to Washington, and Alaska is a whole different case. I have personally seen the devastation. How many wolf kills have you stood over? Seriously man.
Has elk hunting stopped in idaho ?? I agree with Sitka that land issues & habitat are bigger problems than wolves..wolves suck for sure but they aren't gona bring an end to hunting just like they havent in states that have been dealing with them for awhile now
Hunting might get slow an less elk might be killed but once tag sales drop fish an game has no choice but to react..there jobs depend on it
" Hunting might get slow an less elk might be killed" Exactly. I couldn't have said it better myself. That is what is happening. If it continues to happen then it will end altogether. There has already been loss of hunting opportunity, and season/tag restrictions. Again, I would ask if you have personally spent years in the woods where this is happening? Have you personally seen the effects, or are you simply talking about something you know absolutely nothing about? It is vital that we as hunters stand together for responsible management. Washington's management of predators is going to continue to negatively impact elk, deer, moose, etc...
I spend about 4 weeks hunting in Idaho a year...next year might be 6 weeks
Yes wolves suck,yes I've seen exactly what happens after a big pack comes into an area...I've been dealing with these critters for the last 8 years..people in Washington are gona get a real slap in the face for sure...but this isn't like a big surprise..Washington is going to experience the same impact as Idaho did..get over it..you are more than a few years late if you were planning on changing anything esp with our game department
It seems people don't care about something until it directly effects them...nobody cared when wolves were only devastating Idaho just the same when hoof rot was only devastating the Stella...
But unless fish and games figures out away to exist with out money they are gona be forced to react (just like Idaho)
Just speaking my mind
Post by: snowpack on March 10, 2014, 12:36:27 PM
I think that it will push it to permit only. We have a lot less elk than ID or MT to begin with. Our herds seem more segregated and the westside herds act a bit differently than the eastside herds. In Yellowstone, the researchers determined that wolves eat about 2.2 elk per wolf per month (about 26 elk per wolf per year). Plus wolves generally start with calves and cows. At least in MT/ID, the wolves can move from herd to herd easily and the herds can intermix to rebuild numbers. Parts of WA, the herds are basically trapped and a wolf pack will have that one (or few) elk herds to solely focus on.
Many areas on the westside have small isolated elk herds that are already permit only. Would only take a few wolf kills to suspend those permits, then the odds drop for the other permits as more people go to different areas. Other herds that are near management objectives could easily drop making them go permit only. It would take 300ish wolves to kill the same number of elk as state hunters (but wolves would likely take calves cows so it could be a couple seasons before the lack of bulls is really noticed). My guess is that WDFW will have to micromanage the herds more to determine the amount of permits and it could be later in the year before we know how many elk permits will be available for certain areas.
Post by: vandeman17 on March 10, 2014, 12:43:52 PM
Post by: sAsQuAtCh17 on March 10, 2014, 12:48:57 PM
Post by: cryder on March 30, 2014, 07:16:06 PM
Post by: irishevox on March 30, 2014, 07:30:08 PM
Post by: Simcoe hunter on March 30, 2014, 07:38:15 PM
Has elk hunting stopped in idaho ?? I agree with Sitka that land issues & habitat are bigger problems than wolves..wolves suck for sure but they aren't gona bring an end to hunting just like they havent in states that have been dealing with them for awhile now
Hunting might get slow an less elk might be killed but once tag sales drop fish an game has no choice but to react..there jobs depend on it
[/quote]
Here is where the argument could get sticky. You say they will react when tag sales drop. That is arational assumption, and one you should never make about WDFW. They quit living solely off of tag sales a long time ago. There heads are off in the clouds somewhere. It used to be when you talked to someone from the department they were looking after the sportsmans best interest. That doesn't seem to be the case today. Now there are all sorts of agendas that seem to take precedence. :twocents:
Post by: TheHunt on March 30, 2014, 08:08:21 PM
Holy smokes I think people would flip out.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on March 30, 2014, 08:23:20 PM
Has elk hunting stopped in idaho ?? I agree with Sitka that land issues & habitat are bigger problems than wolves..wolves suck for sure but they aren't gona bring an end to hunting just like they havent in states that have been dealing with them for awhile now
Hunting might get slow an less elk might be killed but once tag sales drop fish an game has no choice but to react..there jobs depend on it
Here is where the argument could get sticky. You say they will react when tag sales drop. That is arational assumption, and one you should never make about WDFW. They quit living solely off of tag sales a long time ago. There heads are off in the clouds somewhere. It used to be when you talked to someone from the department they were looking after the sportsmans best interest. That doesn't seem to be the case today. Now there are all sorts of agendas that seem to take precedence. :twocents:
[/quote] Man ...you nailed it ...their is more law enforcement out there than ever before ...How are they paying for it ..between wardens and DNR ?
Post by: Booman2 on March 30, 2014, 08:26:42 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 30, 2014, 08:40:21 PM
The tribes are already managing them.You know, with all the bitching we do on here about tribal abuses regarding elk harvest.........I wonder if the tribes could have any pull in getting wolves delisted by the state any earlier. If I were the tribe, I think I'd sue the state for their crappy wolf loving plan.
Just a thought that ran thru my skull........... :dunno:
What I've been told is that once wolves are delisted in the tribal areas, then the tribes can hunt them.
Post by: Longbowz on April 02, 2014, 10:59:46 AM
Post by: bobcat on April 02, 2014, 11:07:49 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bhawley76 on April 02, 2014, 11:29:47 AM
Post by: Odell on April 02, 2014, 01:33:04 PM
Got to shoot the big yotes if you get a chance :tup: or in the next years to come will all be standing around the ole campfire talking about how elk and deer hunting used to be and our kids and grandkids will have missed out. :twocents:
Let's see, Alaska is just over 9 times larger than Washington. Alaska has about 10,000 wolves and there is still plenty of game to hunt. That would be like Washington having over 1,000 wolves, which will never happen. Washington is so populated that there would be too much conflict for one thing. I doubt your scenario will come true.
Yes, because the only two differences between Alaska and Wa are the size and amount of wolves. Great comparison.
Good grief.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 02, 2014, 01:38:28 PM
Post by: 4fletch on April 02, 2014, 04:58:08 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on April 02, 2014, 06:56:34 PM
Another comparison to AK. There is no comparison between the two. If you liked the 10K wolves so much, why aren't you still there? We'd miss you and all, but...
I have to agree with you there. Alaska has way less quality habitat, and then there is the winter habitat. While winters can occasionally knock herds back here, In Alaska winter habitat is the single biggest limiting factor in herd stability. It doesn't matter how many animals your summer habitat will support the your winter feeding grounds will only support 1/10th that number. It's also why all the grand plans the "abundance management" crowd in Alaska have to grow herds through aggressive predator control methods such as the aerial wolf and bear shooting you like to mention, it will always fall flat on it's face with one bad winter. And if you have a series of bad winters with too many animals, you can set your habitat back so far it literally takes decades before it can support the number of animals it once did.
Washington has it's own winter habitat problems I will admit. And most of these are because of the growing number of humans and loss of wintering grounds and also agricultural practices and concerns. While on one hand, farm land can be a plus for deer and elk because of the extra crops grown through irrigation in once marginal desert land, those same farms demand that herds be kept at lower levels due to crop damage, especially from elk. And where the tree farms on the west side were once good producers of deer and elk, modern tree farm practices have limited that to a great deal. You can't grow your deer and elk herds to the levels hunters would like when a unit has too much thick reprod to produce the feed necessary to support those herds. And you throw in aerial spraying of herbicides on the younger units that would in years past have been the big drivers in herd growth, and you have a huge problem if you're trying to maintain herd size let alone trying to increase it.
But most hunters don't even think of these limiting factors and they don't care. They want more animals to hunt even if that is really impractical let alone impossible. And the more they complain and put pressure on those tasked with the job, the harder they make it for those managers because unrealistic expectations set those managers up for failure. Meanwhile many hunters thumb their noses at science and the habitat protections that would help managers do their jobs better in the mistaken belief that anybody that wants habitat protection is a "greenie" who just wants to end hunting.
Hunters really are their own worst enemy sometimes. And that really bothers me.