Post by: MHWASH on March 15, 2014, 07:27:35 AM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi4.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy126%2FMHWASH%2Fe9cb652a346dce1764eb75f588f14fbc_zps829190ea.jpg&hash=ac44cb1532f5baa6a82fdf7e35fe362a4b79597a)
Post by: CAMPMEAT on March 15, 2014, 07:35:38 AM
Post by: notellumcreek on March 15, 2014, 07:36:06 AM
:mgun:
Post by: bearpaw on March 15, 2014, 07:38:55 AM
Post by: JBar on March 15, 2014, 07:47:53 AM
Post by: jjhunter on March 15, 2014, 08:29:57 AM
Post by: nwwanderer on March 15, 2014, 09:17:51 AM
Post by: bobcat on March 15, 2014, 11:39:24 AM
I am glad the guy was smart enough to get pictures, the more we can get hard evidence of thier existance the quicker we can delist and get some tags
Yes but a single wolf doesn't count for much. They need to have "breeding pairs" to get them delisted.
Post by: Bullkllr on March 15, 2014, 11:42:47 AM
Did they get some new agents :dunno: Or does this represent a change in policy, perhaps?
Maybe they can spay or neuter soon... :rolleyes:
Post by: bobcat on March 15, 2014, 12:28:16 PM
1st of many. The WDFW is screwing up big time by not handling a problem they created.
How did the WDFW "create" the problem?
Post by: MarkyMark on March 15, 2014, 02:27:44 PM
Post by: notellumcreek on March 15, 2014, 02:55:37 PM
I am glad the guy was smart enough to get pictures, the more we can get hard evidence of thier existance the quicker we can delist and get some tags
Yes but a single wolf doesn't count for much. They need to have "breeding pairs" to get them delisted.
I understand and agree, but at least it is a step in the right direction- it is a lot better then a "sighting".
Post by: bigtex on March 15, 2014, 03:03:59 PM
"WDFW agents agrees is a wolf."
Did they get some new agents :dunno: Or does this represent a change in policy, perhaps?
Ya there really isn't "WDFW Agents" unless you call anybody who works for a state agency an "agent." I've seen WDFW Officers called "agents", I've seen biologists called "agents". Truth of the matter is there aren't "WDFW Agents." Up until about the mid 80s there were "Wildlife Agents" which are the officers/game wardens, then they were called "Wildlife Officers," and then when WDFW was formed in 1994 we have "Fish and Wildlife Officers."
So whenever someone says "WDFW agent" it's like okay who actually was it? An officer? A biologist? Someone answer the phone at the regional office?
Post by: bobcat on March 15, 2014, 03:34:43 PM
I am glad the guy was smart enough to get pictures, the more we can get hard evidence of thier existance the quicker we can delist and get some tags
Yes but a single wolf doesn't count for much. They need to have "breeding pairs" to get them delisted.
I understand and agree, but at least it is a step in the right direction- it is a lot better then a "sighting".
Yes, definitely, a picture is proof and much better than just a reported sighting. But I'm just not sure if more proof of wolves that far east will help in the eventual delisting of wolves in this state. We need to get some confirmation of wolves down in Klickitat county or Yakima county.
Post by: huntnphool on March 15, 2014, 04:11:17 PM
"WDFW agents agrees is a wolf."Pretty hard for them to deflect this one. :chuckle:
Did they get some new agents :dunno: Or does this represent a change in policy, perhaps?
Post by: Snakeriver10 on March 15, 2014, 04:46:25 PM
Everybody who reads this and gets there panties in a bunch should also realize, I am not being serious for a single second, the real issue here are predators trying to kill off another predator.
Post by: bearpaw on March 15, 2014, 05:05:48 PM
I am glad the guy was smart enough to get pictures, the more we can get hard evidence of thier existance the quicker we can delist and get some tags
Yes but a single wolf doesn't count for much. They need to have "breeding pairs" to get them delisted.
We need more breeding pairs in other areas of the state to reach the statewide distribution requirement. But it's good to document every wolf so that we might reach 18 BP's for 1 year rather than 15 BP's for 3 years to delist.
Post by: MarkyMark on March 15, 2014, 05:07:33 PM
Post by: DeerThug on March 15, 2014, 05:38:42 PM
Post by: cougarbart on March 15, 2014, 05:44:33 PM
Post by: huntnphool on March 15, 2014, 06:12:49 PM
We need more breeding pairs in other areas of the state to reach the statewide distribution requirement. But it's good to document every wolf so that we might reach 18 BP's for 1 year rather than 15 BP's for 3 years to delist.
Lets use Dales last post as example. Why are you encouraging this? :dunno:
What do you think is the end result of this goal?
Why are you in such a hurry for the wolf numbers to increase, do you honestly think that 15 BP's is better for hunters/ungulates than where todays numbers currently are?
What happens when we reach 15 BP"s, do you think WDFW is going to let us hunt them back to the numbers that we are currently at today? :bash:
Bottom line is 15 BP's does nothing more than increase the numbers from where they are right now. They won't magically disappear once we reach that number, in fact all it does is increase pressure on the herds and decrease hunter opportunity!
I just don't understand why you guys are actually hoping for increased numbers of wolves, makes absolutely no sense!!! :bash:
Post by: bobcat on March 15, 2014, 06:17:45 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: huntnphool on March 15, 2014, 06:19:55 PM
I don't think any of us actually want more wolves. We just want the wolves that are already here to be confirmed and counted as breeding pairs so we can start killing them, as soon as possible.
Do you believe we currently have 15BP's?
Post by: bobcat on March 15, 2014, 06:26:20 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: huntnphool on March 15, 2014, 06:29:29 PM
I definitely think it's possible, if not very likely.
As long as the numbers do not increase from todays numbers then I couldn't care less if we ever reach the 15BP desigantion. :twocents:
Post by: T-Dozzer on March 15, 2014, 07:58:12 PM
Glad they got a pic. I actually saw this pic before published and wasn't surprised. It has been going on for a while now.
Here is a track I found while out yote hunting by a cattle ranch on the Palouse. They were following my tracks on the walk in. For comparison, I'm 6'2 220lbs and don't have small hands.
Post by: T-Dozzer on March 15, 2014, 07:59:37 PM
I better start making sure of my target. My backyard.
Yeah it is.
Post by: JLS on March 15, 2014, 07:59:58 PM
Several members have reported wolves in the Palouse, it was just a matter of time before someone got proof. The same will eventually happen with many of these areas we all know there are wolves and the state is not even trying to confirm they exist. :twocents:
It's no secret that there have been several confirmed wolf sightings in the Palouse, the proof was already there.
Post by: nwwanderer on March 16, 2014, 07:28:58 AM
Post by: VarmintVentilator on March 17, 2014, 04:40:12 PM
Post by: wildweeds on March 17, 2014, 04:53:04 PM
Post by: bigmacc on March 17, 2014, 06:42:39 PM
Post by: T-Dozzer on March 18, 2014, 05:54:31 PM
Man,thats one big print! Havent seen a wolf track that big yet. Any guess on the size or weight of that fella?
Geez....I don't know... big enough to make me uncomfortable. 150+ maybe..?
The fact that it was following my tracks and didn't mind my scent was weird.
Another time I was goose hunting the Palouse river and heard what I thought were wolves. Seemed like they were circling me on the ridge above me. My lab was so freaked out I almost had to carry her back. She has never done that with coyotes.