Post by: sakoshooter on March 18, 2014, 01:13:39 AM
in shooting of radio-collared wolf
OLYMPIA - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WFDW) is seeking the public's help to identify the person or persons responsible for shooting and killing a gray wolf last month in Stevens County.
A 2-year-old black female wolf from the Smackout Pack was found dead Feb. 9 near Cedar Lake in northeast Stevens County. The condition of the carcass indicated it had died between Feb. 5 and Feb. 7, and a veterinarian's examination confirmed it had been shot.
Wildlife managers had captured the wolf about a year ago and fitted it with a radio collar so they could track its movements and those of her pack members.
WDFW, with the help of three non-profit organizations, is offering a reward of up to $22,500 for information leading to an arrest and conviction in the case. Conservation Northwest, the Center for Biological Diversity, and The Humane Society of the United States, have each pledged $7,500 to create the reward.
Gray wolves are protected throughout the state. WDFW is responsible for management of wolves and enforcement of laws to protect them. The illegal killing of a wolf or other endangered fish or wildlife species is a gross misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $5,000.
Sergeant Pam Taylor of the WDFW Northeast Washington Region is leading the investigation. She urged people with knowledge of the crime to report it confidentially by calling WDFW's poaching hotline, 877-933-9847, or by texting a tip to 847411.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message has been sent to the WDFW All Information mailing list.
I wonder if they'd offer a reward like this for any other big game animal? Never mind. That was a stupic question.
Post by: lostbackpacker on March 18, 2014, 04:21:44 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 18, 2014, 04:55:12 AM
Ha! Good luck with that:yeah:
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 18, 2014, 05:35:10 AM
Post by: ICEMAN on March 18, 2014, 06:34:06 AM
Post by: jackmaster on March 18, 2014, 06:41:32 AM
In other news; an anonymous hunter has opened a paypal account to gather funds to defend those implicated in wolf killings. This after WDFW has repeatedly ignored hunter groups and ignored their true responsibilites of protecting the wildlife of this state. Wildlife management were noticably dumbfounded as to why hunter groups do not have faith in them. More at 11pm.:yeah: :yeah: :tup:
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 18, 2014, 06:46:00 AM
Post by: seth30 on March 18, 2014, 06:48:47 AM
Post by: winshooter88 on March 18, 2014, 06:49:31 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 18, 2014, 06:51:14 AM
Post by: Special T on March 18, 2014, 07:16:22 AM
Post by: wolfbait on March 18, 2014, 07:21:03 AM
WDFW, CNW, HSUS, and the CBD are all in bed together. I'll say it again and the wolf lovers on here will deny it; our DFW has been taken over by animal rights activists, which includes Jay Kehne being appointed to the Wildlife Commission. The proper thing for the DFW to do would've been to separate themselves from these enviro-wacko groups and just announce their own reward. It's very clear from this article where and with whom they stand.
Did you forget to add the USFWS who try like steers, leaving loopholes in delisting proposals so environmental groups can sue? Their fake comment periods, where they already know what they are going to do etc..
Post by: Old Man Yager on March 18, 2014, 07:27:07 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 18, 2014, 07:42:52 AM
"Dear Sirs,
Although I agree that offering rewards for poaching is a highly effective tool for catching poachers, aligning yourselves with anti-hunting/pro-wolf groups to do so is a clear and distinct conflict of interest for the department which regulates and administers hunting and fishing in this state.
Paragraph number four of this announcement indicates that our DFW is working together with organizations which oppose hunting. How can that be? The center for Biological Diversity has opposed responsible wolf management in both Montana and Idaho through civil actions using taxpayer and donated money to sue the government. Likewise, the HSUS has used taxpayer and donated money to oppose management in those states AND indeed, opposes hunting in general. Conservation NW has been a very vocal and active pro-wolf organization, spending donated dollars traveling around our state for years promoting to children in our schools the "benefits" of allowing the Canadian grey wolf to populate our state.
Once the wolf plan goals are met in WA and management strategies are announced, these groups will certainly oppose the DFW's efforts to manage wolves, again using taxpayer money in addition to millions of dollars in donated funds. It will cost our state millions to fight. This is why aligning yourselves with these groups now is not only an obvious conflict of interest, but is unfathomable. I would respectfully request that a retraction of the below news release be written and distibuted, separating our DFW from these anti-hunting and pro-wolf organizations. Any failure to do so will be a further indication to the voters and legislature of this state that our DFW supports and has been influenced and infiltrated by those who would seek an end to hunting in Washington.
Thank you for your consideration of my observations. The courtesy of a specific and detailed reply will be much appreciated."
Pman
Post by: CAMPMEAT on March 18, 2014, 07:58:47 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 18, 2014, 08:09:44 AM
It's a lost cause to write any letters or complain. This entire country is being controlled 100 % by the progressives. The Republican party is a spineless, worthless party and now have become the Progressives new party. Our voting people out of a WDFW office or changing a commissioner is a joke. It will never happen. We are screwed, period.
Getting our elected officials involved is not a lost cause. Throw up your hands if you want to CM, but I won't. :bdid:
Post by: buckfvr on March 18, 2014, 08:20:49 AM
WDFW is a huge disappointment any way you look at them.....this only makes it worse. Will there be 22.5k on the table every time a dead wolf surfaces ?????? I hope they start finding dead wolves all over the place.........serve them right. WDFW has turned their back on the hunting community . I say no support, no co-operation of any kind.
Its time to flood the governors office with hate mail. :twocents:
Post by: CAMPMEAT on March 18, 2014, 08:26:23 AM
I don't give up, it's just getting a politician to get off their high horse and do what WE elected them to do. This whole entire system needs to go and get these career politicians out of office, NOW ! To me, they do not listen to US, they listen to money, ie, Conservation Northwest, Humane Society and all these other deep pocket liberals.
Campmeat
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 18, 2014, 08:28:52 AM
pman,
I don't give up, it's just getting a politician to get off their high horse and do what WE elected them to do. This whole entire system needs to go and get these career politicians out of office, NOW ! To me, they do not listen to US, they listen to money, ie, Conservation Northwest, Humane Society and all these other deep pocket liberals.
Campmeat
I agree with you regarding the WDFW. That makes it all the more important to contact your elected officials and get them going on these kind of things.
Post by: kodiak 907 on March 18, 2014, 08:31:00 AM
Post by: Gringo31 on March 18, 2014, 08:37:47 AM
Quote
I emailed this to the Wildlife Commission, copying my state senator, Don Benton. I forwarded the WDFW announcement.
"Dear Sirs,
Although I agree that offering rewards for poaching is a highly effective tool for catching poachers, aligning yourselves with anti-hunting/pro-wolf groups to do so is a clear and distinct conflict of interest for the department which regulates and administers hunting and fishing in this state.
Paragraph number four of this announcement indicates that our DFW is working together with organizations which oppose hunting. How can that be? The center for Biological Diversity has opposed responsible wolf management in both Montana and Idaho through civil actions using taxpayer and donated money to sue the government. Likewise, the HSUS has used taxpayer and donated money to oppose management in those states AND indeed, opposes hunting in general. Conservation NW has been a very vocal and active pro-wolf organization, spending donated dollars traveling around our state for years promoting to children in our schools the "benefits" of allowing the Canadian grey wolf to populate our state.
Once the wolf plan goals are met in WA and management strategies are announced, these groups will certainly oppose the DFW's efforts to manage wolves, again using taxpayer money in addition to millions of dollars in donated funds. It will cost our state millions to fight. This is why aligning yourselves with these groups now is not only an obvious conflict of interest, but is unfathomable. I would respectfully request that a retraction of the below news release be written and distibuted, separating our DFW from these anti-hunting and pro-wolf organizations. Any failure to do so will be a further indication to the voters and legislature of this state that our DFW supports and has been influenced and infiltrated by those who would seek an end to hunting in Washington.
Thank you for your consideration of my observations. The courtesy of a specific and detailed reply will be much appreciated."
Pman
:tup:
Post by: huntnphool on March 18, 2014, 09:01:34 AM
Sorry guys, the WDFW is too far down the slippery slope to change directions now. The only way to change WDFW direction is with a new GOV and the next election is just too far away. We would have to get so organized and make a hell of a racket with a unified voice to get anywhere....Id be willing to bet that half the people on this site don't vote.
Post by: Gringo31 on March 18, 2014, 09:19:21 AM
Post by: Curly on March 18, 2014, 09:26:18 AM
Post by: Curly on March 18, 2014, 09:30:14 AM
If a human was murdered, the reward offered wouldn't even be close to that...... :(
Post by: vandeman17 on March 18, 2014, 09:37:22 AM
This was the deciding factor for not purchasing my spring bear permit. I am not giving any extra money to WDFW and I am on the fence right now if I am just going to hunt out of state and put the 400 bucks I normally spend here into a out of state hunt.
This is my stance. I will only be bird hunting in wa and buying a deer tag until I draw a permit then I will be only bird hunting and fishing. I will take my money elsewhere!
Post by: jackmaster on March 18, 2014, 10:15:07 AM
Post by: AspenBud on March 18, 2014, 11:20:14 AM
This was the deciding factor for not purchasing my spring bear permit. I am not giving any extra money to WDFW and I am on the fence right now if I am just going to hunt out of state and put the 400 bucks I normally spend here into a out of state hunt.
This is my stance. I will only be bird hunting in wa and buying a deer tag until I draw a permit then I will be only bird hunting and fishing. I will take my money elsewhere!
That's actually part of the problem. Declining license sales mean the anti hunting crowd can justify actions that further erode hunting opportunities. If no one is hunting, who cares if what they do affects it?
We need more hunters in this state and they need to be licensed and voting in this state.
Post by: jackmaster on March 18, 2014, 12:10:46 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 18, 2014, 12:17:43 PM
HEY PMAN, on the thread to have a few of the upper echelon from the wdfw removed a question came up about who we would want to take their place, well todd said he wouldnt be welcomed back at wdfw, although i think he is exactly what the wdfw needs, but since he is undecided :chuckle: i vote for you to throw your hat into the ring, you seem to keep a level head and always speak well for both sides, you seem to always have some good answers to problems and for the most part you seem to look at things from all angles, no clue if a regular joe can get into those positions, hell you probably have to have been through cop training or something, but if they are positions where people run for the spots you should go for it, i know its not POTUS but hey its pretty darn close :tup: :chuckle:
Funny stuff right there. Boy, would I be a target from then on. No thanks! :chuckle:
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on March 18, 2014, 12:19:00 PM
This was the deciding factor for not purchasing my spring bear permit. I am not giving any extra money to WDFW and I am on the fence right now if I am just going to hunt out of state and put the 400 bucks I normally spend here into a out of state hunt.
This is my stance. I will only be bird hunting in wa and buying a deer tag until I draw a permit then I will be only bird hunting and fishing. I will take my money elsewhere!
Boycott the whole state! Don't buy any of it! See where that gets us? :dunno:
Post by: jackmaster on March 18, 2014, 12:30:15 PM
if everyone in the state banned together and absolutly noone bought a huntn or fishn license it would raise alot of eye brows and not just in this state, this kind of news would go nation wide, alot of people that would rather stay out of the lime light would be smack in the middle of it, the problem is there is no way you could get all sportsman to ban together..... its pretty sad really, we have all these animal rights groups that have no problem being organized and when are god given rights are being threatned as sportsman we just clam up and bury are heads in the sand :bash: :bash: people have a chance to make a differance right now, if you go to the thread that UC WARDEN started about a petition to releive a few dirt bags from office, you can sign a petition, its a start people, a simple signature is all that is needed right now and then passed on to as many people as possible.... we sportsman need to stand up for are rights or these special interest groups will take what little we have left and you can bet that WDFW is on their side, not the sportsman, if you think i am being a conspiracy theorist then you might want to take a better look :tup:This was the deciding factor for not purchasing my spring bear permit. I am not giving any extra money to WDFW and I am on the fence right now if I am just going to hunt out of state and put the 400 bucks I normally spend here into a out of state hunt.
This is my stance. I will only be bird hunting in wa and buying a deer tag until I draw a permit then I will be only bird hunting and fishing. I will take my money elsewhere!
Boycott the whole state! Don't buy any of it! See where that gets us? :dunno:
Post by: idahohuntr on March 18, 2014, 02:30:22 PM
"WDFW, with the help of three non-profit organizations, is offering a reward of up to $22,500 for information leading to an arrest and conviction in the case. Conservation Northwest, the Center for Biological Diversity, and The Humane Society of the United States, have each pledged $7,500 to create the reward.
Gray wolves are protected throughout the state. WDFW is responsible for management of wolves and enforcement of laws to protect them. The illegal killing of a wolf or other endangered fish or wildlife species is a gross misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $5,000."
Post by: Bean Counter on March 18, 2014, 02:41:08 PM
This was the deciding factor for not purchasing my spring bear permit. I am not giving any extra money to WDFW and I am on the fence right now if I am just going to hunt out of state and put the 400 bucks I normally spend here into a out of state hunt.
This is my stance. I will only be bird hunting in wa and buying a deer tag until I draw a permit then I will be only bird hunting and fishing. I will take my money elsewhere!
Boycott the whole state! Don't buy any of it! See where that gets us? :dunno:
It has gotten me quite a bit. I up and moved and make far more money in a state with a lower cost of living and I'm not longer associated with a city that has more pets than children and has erected a statue of Vladimir Illyich Lenin. :IBCOOL:
Post by: wence5 on March 18, 2014, 03:48:20 PM
This was the deciding factor for not purchasing my spring bear permit. I am not giving any extra money to WDFW and I am on the fence right now if I am just going to hunt out of state and put the 400 bucks I normally spend here into a out of state hunt.
That's what I plan on doing this year. I would rather send my money on a hunt in a state that is managing it's wolves instead of dancing with them. :bash:
Post by: Hunt4ever on March 18, 2014, 03:58:58 PM
WA = WDFW (and Conspirators) will pay you $25,000 to rat out an exterminator
Post by: bigtex on March 18, 2014, 04:10:47 PM
Post by: buckfvr on March 18, 2014, 04:16:21 PM
This was the deciding factor for not purchasing my spring bear permit. I am not giving any extra money to WDFW and I am on the fence right now if I am just going to hunt out of state and put the 400 bucks I normally spend here into a out of state hunt.
That's what I plan on doing this year. I would rather send my money on a hunt in a state that is managing it's wolves instead of dancing with them. :bash:
Its time for us all to look at dumping this mess of a state. Idaho is too close for me to be putting up with this crap. Enough is enough.
Post by: vandeman17 on March 18, 2014, 04:26:43 PM
This was the deciding factor for not purchasing my spring bear permit. I am not giving any extra money to WDFW and I am on the fence right now if I am just going to hunt out of state and put the 400 bucks I normally spend here into a out of state hunt.
That's what I plan on doing this year. I would rather send my money on a hunt in a state that is managing it's wolves instead of dancing with them. :bash:
Its time for us all to look at dumping this mess of a state. Idaho is too close for me to be putting up with this crap. Enough is enough.
I started this as of last year. Only deer hunted and duck hunted in wa and like I said early, once I burn my 10 points for deer I will be done with big game overall. I am fine paying the extra money to other states that actually manage their game and welcome hunters.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on March 18, 2014, 04:29:22 PM
HSUS has donated to WDFW and WDFW Enforcement in the past. There is a youtube video from a couple years ago about HSUS donating a robotic elk decoy for use by WDFW Officers in King County...
So what. Tell us how many animals are put to sleep by HSUS per year in the United States ?
Post by: buckfvr on March 18, 2014, 04:38:29 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on March 18, 2014, 06:04:36 PM
WDFW, CNW, HSUS, and the CBD are all in bed together. I'll say it again and the wolf lovers on here will deny it; our DFW has been taken over by animal rights activists, which includes Jay Kehne being appointed to the Wildlife Commission. The proper thing for the DFW to do would've been to separate themselves from these enviro-wacko groups and just announce their own reward. It's very clear from this article where and with whom they stand.Who specifically in the WDFW is an animal rights activist? The WDFW staff I know are mostly hunters and all support hunting.
I have mixed feelings on them partnering with some of these groups to offer a reward...in part I think its a political move to show them they will not condone wolf poaching perhaps in hopes they will listen to reason when it comes time to de-list them...not saying it will work but that may be a motive :dunno:
Post by: ICEMAN on March 18, 2014, 06:13:26 PM
WDFW, CNW, HSUS, and the CBD are all in bed together. I'll say it again and the wolf lovers on here will deny it; our DFW has been taken over by animal rights activists, which includes Jay Kehne being appointed to the Wildlife Commission. The proper thing for the DFW to do would've been to separate themselves from these enviro-wacko groups and just announce their own reward. It's very clear from this article where and with whom they stand.Who specifically in the WDFW is an animal rights activist? The WDFW staff I know are mostly hunters and all support hunting.
I have mixed feelings on them partnering with some of these groups to offer a reward...in part I think its a political move to show them they will not condone wolf poaching perhaps in hopes they will listen to reason when it comes time to de-list them...not saying it will work but that may be a motive :dunno:
Who specifically at wildlife is a hunter, buys a Washington license, books their vacation time to fit exactly into the tiny slot of hunt time provided, hits the woods and competes with other Washington hunters, aim at, shoots at and kills wild game, processes their kill, and files a report with the wa dept of wildlife?
What percentage of WDFW staff are hunters?
Post by: buckfvr on March 18, 2014, 06:18:11 PM
WDFW, CNW, HSUS, and the CBD are all in bed together. I'll say it again and the wolf lovers on here will deny it; our DFW has been taken over by animal rights activists, which includes Jay Kehne being appointed to the Wildlife Commission. The proper thing for the DFW to do would've been to separate themselves from these enviro-wacko groups and just announce their own reward. It's very clear from this article where and with whom they stand.Who specifically in the WDFW is an animal rights activist? The WDFW staff I know are mostly hunters and all support hunting.
I have mixed feelings on them partnering with some of these groups to offer a reward...in part I think its a political move to show them they will not condone wolf poaching perhaps in hopes they will listen to reason when it comes time to de-list them...not saying it will work but that may be a motive :dunno:
Who specifically at wildlife is a hunter, buys a Washington license, books their vacation time to fit exactly into the tiny slot of hunt time provided, hits the woods and competes with other Washington hunters, aim at, shoots at and kills wild game, processes their kill, and files a report with the wa dept of wildlife?
What percentage of WDFW staff are hunters?
Supporting hunting and doing what Ice says are essentially " talkin the talk " compared to " walkin the walk ". SO who are they Ida ??????????????????
Post by: CAMPMEAT on March 18, 2014, 06:45:35 PM
HSUS has nothing at all to do with any humane society..........anywhere.
That's not my question.
Post by: idahohuntr on March 18, 2014, 07:23:16 PM
Most all of the biologists and staff I know in Walla Walla, Dayton, Pomeroy, Asotin areas, the staff I interact with at GMAC meetings mostly all hunt, the Enforcement chief (crown) talked about his love of hunting as has asst. director Nate Pamplin (can't personally confirm they hunt of course). My perception is that the vast majority of them hunt. Get some retirees on here...ucwarden...how many of your co-workers hunt?? If I had to guess better than 80% of the biologists and wardens for wdfw are hunters. Most guys and gals who pursue degrees and employment in wildlife fields do so because of an early passion for hunting and being outdoors...then they find out how much desk work is involved :chuckle: I would be surprised if there were any animal rights activists employed...if so, I doubt they say too much.WDFW, CNW, HSUS, and the CBD are all in bed together. I'll say it again and the wolf lovers on here will deny it; our DFW has been taken over by animal rights activists, which includes Jay Kehne being appointed to the Wildlife Commission. The proper thing for the DFW to do would've been to separate themselves from these enviro-wacko groups and just announce their own reward. It's very clear from this article where and with whom they stand.Who specifically in the WDFW is an animal rights activist? The WDFW staff I know are mostly hunters and all support hunting.
I have mixed feelings on them partnering with some of these groups to offer a reward...in part I think its a political move to show them they will not condone wolf poaching perhaps in hopes they will listen to reason when it comes time to de-list them...not saying it will work but that may be a motive :dunno:
Who specifically at wildlife is a hunter, buys a Washington license, books their vacation time to fit exactly into the tiny slot of hunt time provided, hits the woods and competes with other Washington hunters, aim at, shoots at and kills wild game, processes their kill, and files a report with the wa dept of wildlife?
What percentage of WDFW staff are hunters?
Supporting hunting and doing what Ice says are essentially " talkin the talk " compared to " walkin the walk ". SO who are they Ida ??????????????????
Its ok to disagree with wdfw decisions/operations etc...that does not make them anti hunters or animal rights activists. Way too darn many people on this forum like to say anybody who is not lock-step with them on every darn issue is an anti-hunter.
So, your turn: Who at WDFW is an animal rights activist? I want to know so we can get them off the dang payroll.
Post by: mkcj on March 18, 2014, 07:36:08 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on March 18, 2014, 07:44:49 PM
Post by: buckfvr on March 18, 2014, 07:46:18 PM
The entire Puget Sound Basin is the problem......thats why I always cry out for regional management.........the guys over here could turn this thing around, as could those in s.e. wa. Plenty of retired wardens could be elected to manage regional depts. Its in their blood.
Not being at liberty to say names, but it has been said by more than one person from within, that there is significant infiltration by activists on the west side....... :twocents:
Post by: Special T on March 18, 2014, 08:40:29 PM
I vote 2x (me and wife) and got my brother to start voting and quit complaining... Problem is we need more than just voting because the Machine has grown to the point where it can steam roll you no matter who gets elected. I'm fortunate that my state rep does a good job and is aware of many of the issues i bring up, often times sending me a letter he has written himslef... Not too bad for a wet side politician. :twocents:Sorry guys, the WDFW is too far down the slippery slope to change directions now. The only way to change WDFW direction is with a new GOV and the next election is just too far away. We would have to get so organized and make a hell of a racket with a unified voice to get anywhere....Id be willing to bet that half the people on this site don't vote.
Post by: SpringerFan on March 18, 2014, 09:17:58 PM
And half of those that do vote, vote for libs. :(
I vote..... and not liberal. I am trying to get my wife and I and our two conservative Springer Spaniels to the right side of the state asap.
This area sucks and the liberal takers will never stop. Hell, some dimba$$es voted in a socialist!!!!! Really?? :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: Fl0und3rz on March 18, 2014, 09:30:25 PM
Post by: wolfbait on March 19, 2014, 05:24:36 PM
Post by: baldopepper on March 19, 2014, 05:56:51 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on March 19, 2014, 06:02:42 PM
Personally I think it's a sad comment on our society when we can offer a $25,000 reward for the killing of a wolf but not a penny for any of the human murders that occur in this state every week. Heck most don't even make the front page anymore. Something very wrong with that picture.:yeah: time to do as we please :twocents:
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on March 19, 2014, 06:19:48 PM
Post by: KFhunter on March 22, 2014, 08:57:34 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 24, 2014, 10:56:44 AM
"Mr. Pianoman:
Thank you for your email of March 18 to the Fish and Wildlife Commission about the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s news release regarding a reward being offered in the Northeast Washington wolf poaching case. I’m responding as the person in charge of the department’s Public Affairs and Community Outreach office, which issues news releases for WDFW.
As you know, virtually every management decision regarding wolf recovery in Washington draws strong reactions from the public, and many people and organizations express passionate positions on all sides of every issue. In this environment, we always carefully evaluate a number of factors before taking specific actions. In this case, here are some of the most important factors that helped us decide to accept the reward offers of the groups identified in our news release:
· First and foremost, we are committed to doing everything we can do apprehend those responsible for this crime. State law directs WDFW to enforce natural resource laws in Washington, and we are committed to using all tools at our disposal.
· All three of the groups who have pledged their financial assistance – Conservation Northwest, the Center for Biological Diversity, and The Humane Society of the United States –approached us in an effort to help us apprehend the person or persons responsible for this crime. Their pledges helped us offer a much larger reward than we would have been able to do otherwise, so we felt it would greatly enhance our opportunity for success.
· We have a responsibility to enforce all of the laws that protect Washington’s fish and wildlife species on behalf of all citizens, regardless of their individual political perspectives or the viewpoints of groups to which they belong.
Your email expresses a concern that by accepting these reward offers, the department will be influenced “by those who would seek an end to hunting in Washington.” With respect, we would strongly disagree with this conclusion.
Just as we are charged with enforcing natural resource laws, we are also responsible for maximizing recreational hunting opportunities across the state. We take both responsibilities very seriously, and would never allow our commitment to maintain and expand hunting opportunities to be compromised through the relationships required to offer a reward in a poaching case. We have a long history of working with people and organizations who agree on some issues and disagree on others, and we consistently strive to serve the best interests of Washington State, its people, and its fish and wildlife resources.
Thank you again for expressing your concerns. We hope, as you suggest, that our news release proves effective in generating information that will help us identify and prosecute those responsible for this crime.
Sincerely,
Bruce Botka
Community Outreach and Public Affairs
Department of Fish & Wildlife
360-902-2262 (w)
360-870-4249 (c)
bruce.botka@dfw.wa.gov
Post by: Special T on March 24, 2014, 11:05:17 AM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on March 24, 2014, 11:06:52 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 24, 2014, 11:08:45 AM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on March 24, 2014, 11:11:40 AM
After a particularly long and "adventurous" night as a young man, my father told me that "if you sleep with dogs, you'll get fleas or worse." This jewel of wisdom has stuck with me and has special significance to this specific situation. Giving credibility to any of these groups by partnering with them in any way will eventually bite the WDFW and us in the arse.
...............and hopefully it will be a BIG bite and hurt like he!!. :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on March 24, 2014, 11:13:11 AM
Here's a response to my letter of objection to the wildlife commission regarding partnering with HSUS, NCW, and CBD to build a large reward:
Just as we are charged with enforcing natural resource laws, we are also responsible for maximizing recreational hunting opportunities across the state. We take both responsibilities very seriously, and would never allow our commitment to maintain and expand hunting opportunities to be compromised through the relationships required to offer a reward in a poaching case. We have a long history of working with people and organizations who agree on some issues and disagree on others, and we consistently strive to serve the best interests of Washington State, its people, and its fish and wildlife resources.
Thank you again for expressing your concerns. We hope, as you suggest, that our news release proves effective in generating information that will help us identify and prosecute those responsible for this crime.
Sincerely,
Bruce Botka
Community Outreach and Public Affairs
Department of Fish & Wildlife
360-902-2262 (w)
360-870-4249 (c)
bruce.botka@dfw.wa.gov
I wished WDFW actually took the underlined comment seriously. What I see is the elimination or restriction of many pursuits in a progressive manner.
Hound Hunting
Bear Baiting
Coyote Hunting with Dogs
Trapping
Cougar Boot Hunting
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 24, 2014, 11:16:10 AM
After a particularly long and "adventurous" night as a young man, my father told me that "if you sleep with dogs, you'll get fleas or worse." This jewel of wisdom has stuck with me and has special significance to this specific situation. Giving credibility to any of these groups by partnering with them in any way will eventually bite the WDFW and us in the arse.
...............and hopefully it will be a BIG bite and hurt like he!!. :tup:
It will and we're the ones who'll feel the pain. :bash:
Post by: CAMPMEAT on March 24, 2014, 11:36:16 AM
After a particularly long and "adventurous" night as a young man, my father told me that "if you sleep with dogs, you'll get fleas or worse." This jewel of wisdom has stuck with me and has special significance to this specific situation. Giving credibility to any of these groups by partnering with them in any way will eventually bite the WDFW and us in the arse.
...............and hopefully it will be a BIG bite and hurt like he!!. :tup:
It will and we're the ones who'll feel the pain. :bash:
Isn't that the 100% truth... >:(
Post by: Curly on March 24, 2014, 11:36:49 AM
Quote
· All three of the groups who have pledged their financial assistance – Conservation Northwest, the Center for Biological Diversity, and The Humane Society of the United States –approached us in an effort to help us apprehend the person or persons responsible for this crime. Their pledges helped us offer a much larger reward than we would have been able to do otherwise, so we felt it would greatly enhance our opportunity for success.
So, they can't see the problem with accepting assistance from groups like those? :bash:
I have to admit that I know nothing about Center for Biological Diversity, but I know enough about CN and plenty about HSUS. HSUS should broken up and made to go away with the crap they pull; there is no way that they should be left in existence..........bunch of wackos. >:(
Post by: Special T on March 24, 2014, 12:37:14 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on March 24, 2014, 02:43:15 PM
So When the Cattleman's association wanted to hire an experienced wolf trapper that a WDFW bio could accompany and they rejected the Funding they did so because???? If memory serves correctly it was because they didn't want the process to be tainted or have any possible association with impropriety... Can we find any other double standards?To be fair this is a different situation...I don't think they would take money from these advocacy groups to fund monitoring efforts?? But maybe they would :dunno: :dunno: That would be very hypocritical.
However, if Cattlemens wanted to throw in another $5k to up the reward I'm sure WDFW would accept :chuckle:
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 24, 2014, 02:47:37 PM
Post by: Special T on March 24, 2014, 03:21:58 PM
Post by: KFhunter on March 24, 2014, 04:10:02 PM
The cattleman's association just wanted a trapper with actual experience instead of a WDFW "Certified" expert... However the Cattlemen said that the "certified" expert could tag along, and take samples put on collars, and learn from a pro.... Cant imagine why they declined such a generous offer. :bash:
speaks volumes don't it :bash:
Post by: idahohuntr on March 24, 2014, 04:22:10 PM
The cattleman's association just wanted a trapper with actual experience instead of a WDFW "Certified" expert... However the Cattlemen said that the "certified" expert could tag along, and take samples put on collars, and learn from a pro.... Cant imagine why they declined such a generous offer. :bash:The things I have heard from WDFW staff suggest they have difficulty trapping wolves and collaring enough of them...and that they very much rely on the publics help with observations to aid their trapping efforts...so, if there are folks out there that can help them get more collars on more wolves...particularly if the help is free or low cost and wdfw is rejecting the offer...then maybe pman needs to write another letter and get an explanation? Not saying this is the case, but sometimes if it sounds too good to be true...
Post by: Special T on March 24, 2014, 08:58:34 PM
So if you think ASKING the WDFW About this old news will get you anywhere you are asking an agency that asked for help then REFUSED it...If you can come up with a good reason Im all ears but back then they had NO COMMENT....
Post by: onetrapper on March 25, 2014, 05:58:42 PM
Post by: timberfaller on April 03, 2014, 11:10:33 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 03, 2014, 11:30:47 AM
Chalk me up as another sportsman with no faith in Wdfw. They have two paths they follow ...politics meaning kissing ass to those in charge ??not us. And the enforcement division has been hijacked by the swat team crowd. I think the amount of poaching has been and remains relatively small. The agents could give a crap about anything but making a bust. Public relations with sportsmen sucks. The same people that turned there back on the trappers and hound men are now in charge.
Respectfully, I disagree about the enforcement arm of the DFW. Poachers are thieves and they're stealing from me. I'd be in favor of giving DFW LE almost anything they need to secure my resources. And, I believe that most of the LE, with the possible exception of the LE management, are out there looking after us. As far as them not giving a crap about anything but making a bust, that's their job, to bust poachers and law breakers. They're law enforcement. That's what they do. Going after wolf poachers is part of that mission.
Post by: RG on April 03, 2014, 11:46:26 AM
I completely agree. We have a group of hard working men and women in WDFW enforcement. They get abused and under supported by their management because of politics and special interests diverting WDFW funds into uses that should be paid for by money from other sources. The enforcement folks are doing a huge job with very little help, more than just about any other law enforcement officers in the state. It's the agency leadership who is selling out Sportsmen and women in Washington. The biologists are another group who often get no respect or support from leadership when it comes to political or special interest subjects. It's hoo bad that politics has pushed science and respect for the resource out of the equation at WDFW in Olympia and in its leadership group. Political palm scratching seems to rule.Chalk me up as another sportsman with no faith in Wdfw. They have two paths they follow ...politics meaning kissing ass to those in charge ??not us. And the enforcement division has been hijacked by the swat team crowd. I think the amount of poaching has been and remains relatively small. The agents could give a crap about anything but making a bust. Public relations with sportsmen sucks. The same people that turned there back on the trappers and hound men are now in charge.
Respectfully, I disagree about the enforcement arm of the DFW. Poachers are thieves and they're stealing from me. I'd be in favor of giving DFW LE almost anything they need to secure my resources. And, I believe that most of the LE, with the possible exception of the LE management, are out there looking after us. As far as them not giving a crap about anything but making a bust, that's their job, to bust poachers and law breakers. They're law enforcement. That's what they do. Going after wolf poachers is part of that mission.
Post by: Jingles on April 03, 2014, 12:19:23 PM
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on April 03, 2014, 06:55:41 PM
This Thread just adds to my reasoning that if that LARGE COYOTE is wearing a collar take the collar put it in a plastic jug and throw it in the damned river, that way it continues to move and continues to send out a signal
Or attach it to a cross-country Semi.... :chuckle:
Post by: seth30 on April 03, 2014, 07:02:10 PM
http://www.whidbeynewstimes.com/news/253606981.html (http://www.whidbeynewstimes.com/news/253606981.html)
Post by: CAMPMEAT on April 03, 2014, 07:29:39 PM
Meanwhile in Whidbey Island a 7 year old's killers capture is only worth $3,500 :bash: :bash: :bash: God I hate liberals!!!!
http://www.whidbeynewstimes.com/news/253606981.html (http://www.whidbeynewstimes.com/news/253606981.html)
Priorities, huh !
Post by: KFhunter on April 03, 2014, 07:43:25 PM
This Thread just adds to my reasoning that if that LARGE COYOTE is wearing a collar take the collar put it in a plastic jug and throw it in the damned river, that way it continues to move and continues to send out a signal
Or attach it to a cross-country Semi.... :chuckle:
A slow train to mexico
Post by: Romulus1297 on April 03, 2014, 10:42:37 PM
Post by: silverdalesauer on April 03, 2014, 10:55:55 PM
This Thread just adds to my reasoning that if that LARGE COYOTE is wearing a collar take the collar put it in a plastic jug and throw it in the damned river, that way it continues to move and continues to send out a signal
Or attach it to a cross-country Semi.... :chuckle:
A slow train to mexico
A rocket to the moon. :chuckle:
Post by: porchdawg on April 04, 2014, 08:09:00 PM
How long can a coyote with a collar sleep before they become suspicious. Does the collar send body temperature?
Transmitters
Wildlife Materials custom builds each research transmitter to the specifications requested. There are many combinations of transmitter type, weight, peak current, pulse width, pulse rate, battery, and mountings available.
Efficient multivibrator-pulsed transmitters offer a clear, chirp-free signal that is easy to tune and hear in receiver noise. Multivibrator-pulsed transmitters permit greater flexibility in customizing for optimum output and duty cycle. Because pulse rate and pulse width remain virtually constant throughout the life of the battery, transmitter performance is more predictable than that of older designs.
Surface mounting techniques enhance miniaturization by allowing more chip components to be placed on a smaller, flatter circuit board. The low profile, rugged components also greatly improve reliability in punishing environments.
To minimize weight and provide packaging strength, transmitters are waterproofed with a tough acrylic or epoxy resin conformal coating. The epoxy is a neutral substance, which will not harm the animal if implanted.
A Behavior Circuit can be built into a transmitter (indicated by "B" at the end of the Transmitter Number) to change the transmitter's pulse rate gradually as the animal's level of activity increases. When at rest, the behavior circuitry's pulse rate is approximately 30 pulses per minute; the pulse rate increases to 120 pulses or more per minute when the animal is engaged in vigorous activity like running or flying.
An optional Activity Switch (indicated by "A" at the end of the Transmitter Number) varies pulse rate according to the position or movement of the animal.
The Mortality Switch option allows the researcher to detect lack of movement. This lack of activity triggers a customer-specified increase or decrease in pulse rate. The time delay before indication of mortality can be programmed to be any period from a few seconds to over 12 hours. During normal activity in live animals, the mortality timer circuit is continually reset so that no mortality is indicated. The Mortality Switch is listed with an "M" at end of the Transmitter Number.
Combined Activity/Mortality features can be built into a transmitter, as indicated by "AM" at the end of the Transmitter Number.
Exact output of the listed transmitters may vary, depending on the transmitter's antenna length and the frequency range used. Available crystal frequencies include, but are not limited to, 40-50 MHz, 148-155 MHz, 160-165 MHz, 216-222 MHz.
Each transmitter's signal range will be influenced by tracking conditions. Signal range can be diminished by rugged terrain, natural obstacles such as mountains and timber, dense vegetation, swamps and fog, along with large concrete structures. Best signal range occurs in flat, open country, in line-of-sight conditions. Air-to-ground radio monitoring also enhances the received signal.
The datasheets below give more detailed specifications of some of the more common research transmitters that we build. However, due to the custom nature of our transmitters, we do not currently offer them for purchase through our online store. Clients should contact our facility by telephone, mail, fax, or e-mail. Detailed written specifications and drawings allow us to recommend the best possible combinations of options for a particular study.
Post by: Romulus1297 on April 04, 2014, 10:27:38 PM
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on April 05, 2014, 08:39:28 PM
Good grief so much for my simple question I need some more schooling :bash:
No-- just put the collar on a feral cat, and slap some Cayenne Pepper on his butt. :chuckle:
Post by: solomtnhunter on April 21, 2014, 12:31:57 PM
Post by: wolfbait on April 21, 2014, 08:45:37 PM
Post by: Jingles on April 21, 2014, 09:25:25 PM
SS is becoming common for ranchers in WA, calling WDFW is a waste of time.
Especially if the WDFW reps name begins with F and ends with N and works the North Central region
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 22, 2014, 06:38:42 AM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on April 22, 2014, 06:56:47 AM
This Thread just adds to my reasoning that if that LARGE COYOTE is wearing a collar take the collar put it in a plastic jug and throw it in the damned river, that way it continues to move and continues to send out a signal
Or attach it to a cross-country Semi.... :chuckle:
.........or better. Hide it in/on a Twisp/Methow Sabuaru. Let them commie, liberals get alittle shagged by WDFW. :tup:
Post by: jackmaster on April 22, 2014, 06:58:54 AM
WDFW LE watch hunting-washington.com. I would advise discretion in the things you report or pass on here. Just sayin'. :dunno:i see your point piannoman, as always :chuckle: but here is the kicker to the whole thing, wdfw drops the ball on the biggest wildlife trafficker in washingtons history :dunno: what are they gonna be able to do to a couple guys talking about SSS? its al hear say man, noone is actually doing it and if they are they are smart enough not to put it on here or facebook or twitter or snapchat or pinterest or email or hunt-wa or take a pic or write grandma or grandpa or tell the neihbor or the wife or kids :chuckle: :chuckle: you name it bro, if wdfw wants respect, go back and close out that scud bottom vagrant wildlife trafficker, well it will be a start in the right direction, they need to right alot of wrongs before they earn any respect from the sportsman :tup: :tup:
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 22, 2014, 07:04:54 AM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on April 22, 2014, 07:14:08 AM
Post by: Special T on April 22, 2014, 07:14:53 AM
The fact that the WDFW has their priorities so upside down makes me :bash: I think it would be very difficult to work there and actually care.
Post by: JLS on April 22, 2014, 07:24:07 AM
but here is the kicker to the whole thing, wdfw drops the ball on the biggest wildlife trafficker in washingtons history :dunno:
Actually, it was the Pierce County Judge that dropped the ball. WDFW is not in charge of sentencing.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on April 22, 2014, 07:46:23 AM
but here is the kicker to the whole thing, wdfw drops the ball on the biggest wildlife trafficker in washingtons history :dunno:
Actually, it was the Pierce County Judge that dropped the ball. WDFW is not in charge of sentencing.
WDFW can have a huge impact on sentencing too.....
Post by: JLS on April 22, 2014, 08:05:48 AM
but here is the kicker to the whole thing, wdfw drops the ball on the biggest wildlife trafficker in washingtons history :dunno:
Actually, it was the Pierce County Judge that dropped the ball. WDFW is not in charge of sentencing.
WDFW can have a huge impact on sentencing too.....
Any LE agency can make a recommendation on sentencing through the prosecutor. Ultimately, it is the judge's decision and no one elses. I hardly think that WDFW's recommendation (either good or bad) had much bearing, if any, on the sentence.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 22, 2014, 08:27:50 AM
but here is the kicker to the whole thing, wdfw drops the ball on the biggest wildlife trafficker in washingtons history :dunno:
Actually, it was the Pierce County Judge that dropped the ball. WDFW is not in charge of sentencing.
WDFW can have a huge impact on sentencing too.....
Any LE agency can make a recommendation on sentencing through the prosecutor. Ultimately, it is the judge's decision and no one elses. I hardly think that WDFW's recommendation (either good or bad) had much bearing, if any, on the sentence.
In addition, unless ucwarden was lying, getting the DFW administration to cooperate with prosecutors by handing over records and evidence was a full time job in itself. It seems clear that his assertion about the DFW being more concerned with fish and shellfish busts was accurate if this case was any indication.
Post by: splitshot on April 22, 2014, 08:48:26 AM
Post by: wolfbait on April 22, 2014, 09:34:52 AM
WDFW LE watch hunting-washington.com. I would advise discretion in the things you report or pass on here. Just sayin'. :dunno:
I agree!
I have heard that many WDFW LE feel the same as many of us, where wolves are concerned, that being said they still have a job to enforce the the laws. Remember IDFG and their LE? Look the other way boys.
The problem is WDFW refuses to confirm livestock killed by wolves useless they have no other choice. I think WDFW LE take a lot of heat for WDFW's poor decisions over wolf killed livestock. Remember in the past WDFW sent the info to Olympia to see whether to call it a wolf kill or not. If that isn't enough WDFW's biologist go out of their way to blame everything but wolves. It was a cougar, a coyote, the eagles did it, etc..
In the past most confirmation of wolf packs have come from wolves killing livestock, so if WDFW refuse to deal with problem wolves, why would ranchers call them for help? I think this suits WDFW just fine. DoW, CNW, etc. don't want the wolves delisted, and it sure seems WDFW feel the same.
Post by: AspenBud on April 22, 2014, 11:19:31 AM
WDFW LE watch hunting-washington.com. I would advise discretion in the things you report or pass on here. Just sayin'. :dunno:
I agree!
I have heard that many WDFW LE feel the same as many of us, where wolves are concerned, that being said they still have a job to enforce the the laws. Remember IDFG and their LE? Look the other way boys.
The problem is WDFW refuses to confirm livestock killed by wolves useless they have no other choice. I think WDFW LE take a lot of heat for WDFW's poor decisions over wolf killed livestock. Remember in the past WDFW sent the info to Olympia to see whether to call it a wolf kill or not. If that isn't enough WDFW's biologist go out of their way to blame everything but wolves. It was a cougar, a coyote, the eagles did it, etc..
In the past most confirmation of wolf packs have come from wolves killing livestock, so if WDFW refuse to deal with problem wolves, why would ranchers call them for help? I think this suits WDFW just fine. DoW, CNW, etc. don't want the wolves delisted, and it sure seems WDFW feel the same.
The problem is you guys have been crying wolf since before wolves set foot in this state.
Seriously, the second it was confirmed that a wolf was walking around near Wenatchee photos started popping up on here (like within days) of a "wolf kill" near there that looked more like a cougar kill. No one was posting "wolf kill" pictures of dead livestock from that area until word got out that they were there. That's not suspicious or anything. :rolleyes: :chuckle:
If no one listens when kills are called in there is a good reason. EVERYTHING is called a wolf kill now. It's a nice way to try and skim a buck while also pointing blame at a predator you don't want.
They should stop compensating anyone for wolf kills.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on April 22, 2014, 11:30:47 AM
but here is the kicker to the whole thing, wdfw drops the ball on the biggest wildlife trafficker in washingtons history :dunno:
Actually, it was the Pierce County Judge that dropped the ball. WDFW is not in charge of sentencing.
WDFW can have a huge impact on sentencing too.....
Any LE agency can make a recommendation on sentencing through the prosecutor. Ultimately, it is the judge's decision and no one elses. I hardly think that WDFW's recommendation (either good or bad) had much bearing, if any, on the sentence.
Kinda sucks........
Post by: CAMPMEAT on April 22, 2014, 11:35:06 AM
I'm looking at moving a long ways away from here in a couple years, if not sooner.
Post by: trophyhunt on April 22, 2014, 11:46:17 AM
Just think if all the hunters, fisherman, rednecks and whoever else is sick of these assnine liberals, left this state and left it to ALL the liberals running it. They would beg us to come back and clean up their messes they created.:yeah: I'm already jealous you live in curlew, I can't wait to get the hell out of this state. 8 years I hope to retire and move to Idaho or Montana.
I'm looking at moving a long ways away from here in a couple years, if not sooner.
Post by: Special T on April 22, 2014, 11:49:24 AM
Some states Like ID and WY have been being proactive in requiring super majorities to rewrite certain laws so that an influx of people cannot change things quickly. WA COULD have done that back in the 80-90's but we were buffaloed into believing it wasn't necessary.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on April 22, 2014, 11:50:33 AM
Just think if all the hunters, fisherman, rednecks and whoever else is sick of these assnine liberals, left this state and left it to ALL the liberals running it. They would beg us to come back and clean up their messes they created.:yeah: I'm already jealous you live in curlew, I can't wait to get the hell out of this state. 8 years I hope to retire and move to Idaho or Montana.
I'm looking at moving a long ways away from here in a couple years, if not sooner.
Curlew used to be nice. Then, we got invaded by the hippies from the westside, Whittaker, CNW etc. We can't even ride our ATV's hardly over here. I left the westside 14 years ago to get away from them types and they found us.
Post by: wolfbait on April 22, 2014, 12:11:59 PM
WDFW LE watch hunting-washington.com. I would advise discretion in the things you report or pass on here. Just sayin'. :dunno:
I agree!
I have heard that many WDFW LE feel the same as many of us, where wolves are concerned, that being said they still have a job to enforce the the laws. Remember IDFG and their LE? Look the other way boys.
The problem is WDFW refuses to confirm livestock killed by wolves useless they have no other choice. I think WDFW LE take a lot of heat for WDFW's poor decisions over wolf killed livestock. Remember in the past WDFW sent the info to Olympia to see whether to call it a wolf kill or not. If that isn't enough WDFW's biologist go out of their way to blame everything but wolves. It was a cougar, a coyote, the eagles did it, etc..
In the past most confirmation of wolf packs have come from wolves killing livestock, so if WDFW refuse to deal with problem wolves, why would ranchers call them for help? I think this suits WDFW just fine. DoW, CNW, etc. don't want the wolves delisted, and it sure seems WDFW feel the same.
The problem is you guys have been crying wolf since before wolves set foot in this state.
Seriously, the second it was confirmed that a wolf was walking around near Wenatchee photos started popping up on here (like within days) of a "wolf kill" near there that looked more like a cougar kill. No one was posting "wolf kill" pictures of dead livestock from that area until word got out that they were there. That's not suspicious or anything. :rolleyes: :chuckle:
If no one listens when kills are called in there is a good reason. EVERYTHING is called a wolf kill now. It's a nice way to try and skim a buck while also pointing blame at a predator you don't want.
They should stop compensating anyone for wolf kills.
What compensation A-bud? A livestock kill has to be a confirmed wolf kill to get any "compensation" and as many have seen WDFW really aren't into confirming anything. You don't believe that WDFW's wolves are different then the wolves in Idaho do you? Where one in eight wolf kills are confirmed, WDFW wouldn't confirm several that were defiantly wolf kills. I think that time might be over now here in the Okanogan with a new specialists that told Fitkin no more lying about predation.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 22, 2014, 12:19:37 PM
WDFW LE watch hunting-washington.com. I would advise discretion in the things you report or pass on here. Just sayin'. :dunno:
I agree!
I have heard that many WDFW LE feel the same as many of us, where wolves are concerned, that being said they still have a job to enforce the the laws. Remember IDFG and their LE? Look the other way boys.
The problem is WDFW refuses to confirm livestock killed by wolves useless they have no other choice. I think WDFW LE take a lot of heat for WDFW's poor decisions over wolf killed livestock. Remember in the past WDFW sent the info to Olympia to see whether to call it a wolf kill or not. If that isn't enough WDFW's biologist go out of their way to blame everything but wolves. It was a cougar, a coyote, the eagles did it, etc..
In the past most confirmation of wolf packs have come from wolves killing livestock, so if WDFW refuse to deal with problem wolves, why would ranchers call them for help? I think this suits WDFW just fine. DoW, CNW, etc. don't want the wolves delisted, and it sure seems WDFW feel the same.
The problem is you guys have been crying wolf since before wolves set foot in this state.
Seriously, the second it was confirmed that a wolf was walking around near Wenatchee photos started popping up on here (like within days) of a "wolf kill" near there that looked more like a cougar kill. No one was posting "wolf kill" pictures of dead livestock from that area until word got out that they were there. That's not suspicious or anything. :rolleyes: :chuckle:
If no one listens when kills are called in there is a good reason. EVERYTHING is called a wolf kill now. It's a nice way to try and skim a buck while also pointing blame at a predator you don't want.
They should stop compensating anyone for wolf kills.
I knew you were Humanure. Now it's all but confirmed. Your reply is no surprise. Wolves were forced down our throats and you don't think anyone should be compensated because you personally have nothing to lose. You have no dog in this fight but the hell with the ranchers. They deserve what they get, right?
Dale, humanure's back and it's AspenBud.
Post by: bobcat on April 22, 2014, 12:24:37 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: buckfvr on April 22, 2014, 12:28:00 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 22, 2014, 12:29:21 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: wolfbait on April 22, 2014, 12:44:35 PM
I don't think livestock losses should be compensated either. First of all, it wasn't the WDFW that put the wolves here. Second, we just can't afford to pay out money every time a wolf, cougar, bear, or other predator kills someone's animal. It's the cost of doing business. You raise cattle in wolf habitat? Well then, expect to have the wolves eat a few.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Who is suppose to be managing the wildlife in WA Bobcat? Who is protecting wolves with their own ESA=wildlands plan? You are tell me that WDFW don't have anything to do with the wolves here in WA. :roll eyes: According to WDFW it's to expensive to confirm wolf packs also, so where does that leave WA and wolves?
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 22, 2014, 12:50:24 PM
I don't think livestock losses should be compensated either. First of all, it wasn't the WDFW that put the wolves here. Second, we just can't afford to pay out money every time a wolf, cougar, bear, or other predator kills someone's animal. It's the cost of doing business. You raise cattle in wolf habitat? Well then, expect to have the wolves eat a few.Spent part of last week/weekend in Orient and Talking to the Locals at the Double M restaurant and lounge ......seems the McIrvins don't accept any compensation The second M stands for McIrvin
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Couldn't find you KF.....
Post by: VarmintVentilator on April 22, 2014, 12:53:02 PM
I agree, ranchers should be able to shoot wolves on sight.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Who says they're not. No collar, No trace. :dunno: Just saying.
Post by: bobcat on April 22, 2014, 12:55:32 PM
I agree, ranchers should be able to shoot wolves on sight.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Who says they're not. No collar, No trace. :dunno: Just saying.
Hey, whatever they gotta do to protect their livestock is fine by me. Just don't go looking for handouts from the WDFW.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: VarmintVentilator on April 22, 2014, 12:58:21 PM
Post by: AspenBud on April 22, 2014, 01:24:45 PM
I don't think livestock losses should be compensated either. First of all, it wasn't the WDFW that put the wolves here. Second, we just can't afford to pay out money every time a wolf, cougar, bear, or other predator kills someone's animal. It's the cost of doing business. You raise cattle in wolf habitat? Well then, expect to have the wolves eat a few.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yup
Post by: AspenBud on April 22, 2014, 01:27:40 PM
I agree, ranchers should be able to shoot wolves on sight.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Who says they're not. No collar, No trace. :dunno: Just saying.
Hey, whatever they gotta do to protect their livestock is fine by me. Just don't go looking for handouts from the WDFW.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I've been saying everyone should have the right to protect what's theirs for a long time here.
Post by: AspenBud on April 22, 2014, 01:40:48 PM
WDFW LE watch hunting-washington.com. I would advise discretion in the things you report or pass on here. Just sayin'. :dunno:
I agree!
I have heard that many WDFW LE feel the same as many of us, where wolves are concerned, that being said they still have a job to enforce the the laws. Remember IDFG and their LE? Look the other way boys.
The problem is WDFW refuses to confirm livestock killed by wolves useless they have no other choice. I think WDFW LE take a lot of heat for WDFW's poor decisions over wolf killed livestock. Remember in the past WDFW sent the info to Olympia to see whether to call it a wolf kill or not. If that isn't enough WDFW's biologist go out of their way to blame everything but wolves. It was a cougar, a coyote, the eagles did it, etc..
In the past most confirmation of wolf packs have come from wolves killing livestock, so if WDFW refuse to deal with problem wolves, why would ranchers call them for help? I think this suits WDFW just fine. DoW, CNW, etc. don't want the wolves delisted, and it sure seems WDFW feel the same.
The problem is you guys have been crying wolf since before wolves set foot in this state.
Seriously, the second it was confirmed that a wolf was walking around near Wenatchee photos started popping up on here (like within days) of a "wolf kill" near there that looked more like a cougar kill. No one was posting "wolf kill" pictures of dead livestock from that area until word got out that they were there. That's not suspicious or anything. :rolleyes: :chuckle:
If no one listens when kills are called in there is a good reason. EVERYTHING is called a wolf kill now. It's a nice way to try and skim a buck while also pointing blame at a predator you don't want.
They should stop compensating anyone for wolf kills.
I knew you were Humanure. Now it's all but confirmed. Your reply is no surprise. Wolves were forced down our throats and you don't think anyone should be compensated because you personally have nothing to lose. You have no dog in this fight but the hell with the ranchers. They deserve what they get, right?
Dale, humanure's back and it's AspenBud.
No, I'm not, and you need to grow some thicker skin.
Actually I made the comment because...
A. People are just going to shoot them anyways.
and
B. I honestly think people are trying to game the system. Not all, but enough.
I see no reason to compensate people who are ultimately just going to shoot the animals anyhow and if the state really isn't paying in legit cases they should not be in the business of making promises they can't keep.
Post by: RG on April 22, 2014, 01:47:52 PM
Curiously enough, with fish and wolves, they refused to accept assistance from groups who were willing to do the studies. By making sure the true facts are only held by those they can manage or censor they can control the path of management they choose with nobody to prove them wrong. It would be interesting if sportsmens groups got together and funded an independent wolf count and assessment for comparison. I believe most of the people with boots on the ground at WDFW are good well-meaning people. The work they do and the information they compile is often manipulated or totally changed by the powers in the upper levels of the agency. I've heard this in the past from people who write these reports.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 22, 2014, 01:51:51 PM
Post by: AspenBud on April 22, 2014, 02:03:00 PM
My skin's plenty thick. If the system is being gamed, it's a fault of how the system was set up in the first place, much the same as the overall wolf plan. It's not the fault of the ranchers who are losing cattle and sheep. But again, it's really easy for you to sit and pass judgement and say they're gaming the system. You've got no skin in the game. You can sit back at your computer and type the ranchers into being the bad guys. Regardless of how it turns out, you've still got your Seattle apartment and 9-5 job, while they get screwed out of a living.
The problem is if they are really losing that many sheep and cattle to wolves in this state and if they are really not reporting any of that as Wolfbait suggests they are, because as he puts it, it's a waste of time, then no one outside of the ranchers involved has the foggiest idea of the toll/what's going on out there.
Here's a great idea, everyone (ranchers) should start photographing every single kill, what killed it doesn't matter, and document it. Gather numbers year by year to show that many more livestock are being killed than in years past. At the very least it should show that the state and public has a predator problem and at best it might show a correlation between wolves arriving. To date, as it relates to the state of Washington, I have yet to see any such thing but I admit I haven't really looked either.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 22, 2014, 02:13:05 PM
My skin's plenty thick. If the system is being gamed, it's a fault of how the system was set up in the first place, much the same as the overall wolf plan. It's not the fault of the ranchers who are losing cattle and sheep. But again, it's really easy for you to sit and pass judgement and say they're gaming the system. You've got no skin in the game. You can sit back at your computer and type the ranchers into being the bad guys. Regardless of how it turns out, you've still got your Seattle apartment and 9-5 job, while they get screwed out of a living.
The problem is if they are really losing that many sheep and cattle to wolves in this state and if they are really not reporting any of that as Wolfbait suggests they are, because as he puts it, it's a waste of time, then no one outside of the ranchers involved has the foggiest idea of the toll/what's going on out there.
Here's a great idea, everyone should start photographing every single kill, what killed it doesn't matter, and document it. Gather numbers year by year to show that many more livestock are being killed than in years past. At the very least it should show that the state and public has a predator problem and at best it might show a correlation between wolves arriving. To date, as it relates to the state of Washington, I have yet to see any such thing but I admit I haven't really looked either.
They've been documenting and the DFW bios have told them they're coyote kills or cougar kills even with all of the evidence pointing at wolves - tracks, kill characteristics, etc. It's not been until recently that the bios have been directed to start telling the truth. This whole plan has had BS from the start and with the government lying to the citizens. Since 1996 it's been complete BS and that includes the USFWS and the lies they fed to Congress.
Post by: buckfvr on April 22, 2014, 02:29:28 PM
Post by: AspenBud on April 22, 2014, 02:30:42 PM
My skin's plenty thick. If the system is being gamed, it's a fault of how the system was set up in the first place, much the same as the overall wolf plan. It's not the fault of the ranchers who are losing cattle and sheep. But again, it's really easy for you to sit and pass judgement and say they're gaming the system. You've got no skin in the game. You can sit back at your computer and type the ranchers into being the bad guys. Regardless of how it turns out, you've still got your Seattle apartment and 9-5 job, while they get screwed out of a living.
The problem is if they are really losing that many sheep and cattle to wolves in this state and if they are really not reporting any of that as Wolfbait suggests they are, because as he puts it, it's a waste of time, then no one outside of the ranchers involved has the foggiest idea of the toll/what's going on out there.
Here's a great idea, everyone should start photographing every single kill, what killed it doesn't matter, and document it. Gather numbers year by year to show that many more livestock are being killed than in years past. At the very least it should show that the state and public has a predator problem and at best it might show a correlation between wolves arriving. To date, as it relates to the state of Washington, I have yet to see any such thing but I admit I haven't really looked either.
They've been documenting and the DFW bios have told them they're coyote kills or cougar kills even with all of the evidence pointing at wolves - tracks, kill characteristics, etc. It's not been until recently that the bios have been directed to start telling the truth. This whole plan has had BS from the start and with the government lying to the citizens. Since 1996 it's been complete BS and that includes the USFWS and the lies they fed to Congress.
Yes, but humor me and give me numbers. What was the rate of loss (not dollars, I want number of animals killed) for livestock in 1990 versus today. I want them for Washington, not Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. They are only relevant as it relates to what could happen and has, not what is happening today, in Washington.
I can tell my boss I need more people, but I won't get far if I can't quantify why. The same principle applies here.
I know you hate wolves, but what the heck does it matter what killed the livestock if the state and the public doesn't even know the magnitude of the problem overall with predators? Losses are losses. You can extrapolate a lot with data, including a jump in losses that correlates with wolves wandering into the state, but you have to have numbers and you need proof and to have it documented by someone other than the owner of said livestock.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 22, 2014, 03:55:17 PM
Post by: AspenBud on April 22, 2014, 04:42:05 PM
I have no interest in humoring you. The numbers are there if you want to look for them. Ask the Stevens Co. Cattleman's Assn and they'll give you all the numbers you need. Ask Jim Beers and he'll give you whatever you need.
In other words you don't know. Fair enough, I don't either.
But that's the problem. Take McIrvin for instance, he came out and complained about wolves eating his cows, and that's definitely not in doubt, but for the life of me I don't think I've seen a single verified year over year set of numbers from the guy regarding how many cattle he has lost in the last 25 years to predation in general. Maybe he has it, maybe every single rancher in Washington who wants rid of wolves does, but I can guarantee that's not widely known or seen in the general public.
If they do, what do those numbers really say when looked at objectively? That's the stuff that potentially changes minds.
Post by: AspenBud on April 22, 2014, 04:55:36 PM
If ranchers in Washington are losing more cattle, sheep, whatever every year to predators, and if there is a real spike in the last 5, that says something. Particularly in Stevens County. But if the average over the last 25 years is about the same year over year, well...
It's one thing to get all wound up emotionally over the issue, that goes for both sides, it's another to look at hard numbers for what they really are.
Post by: wolfbait on April 22, 2014, 05:30:42 PM
It's interesting how WDFW can fail do its duty by hiding behind the no money excuse when it's convenient. When they closed the catch and release steelhead season on the Sky I asked the biologist why they thought there was a shortage of wild fish since everybody who spent time on the river knew better. She said "we don't know how many there are we don't have any money to study it. We closed it just in case". Now they say wolf studies are too expensive.
Curiously enough, with fish and wolves, they refused to accept assistance from groups who were willing to do the studies. By making sure the true facts are only held by those they can manage or censor they can control the path of management they choose with nobody to prove them wrong. It would be interesting if sportsmens groups got together and funded an independent wolf count and assessment for comparison. I believe most of the people with boots on the ground at WDFW are good well-meaning people. The work they do and the information they compile is often manipulated or totally changed by the powers in the upper levels of the agency. I've heard this in the past from people who write these reports.
"I believe most of the people with boots on the ground at WDFW are good well-meaning people. The work they do and the information they compile is often manipulated or totally changed by the powers in the upper levels of the agency. I've heard this in the past from people who write these reports."
Very true RG, I know folks who work for WDFW who told Fitkin of different wolves packs in the Okanogan, and it stopped right there. I also know of people on the westside who wanted to start confirming wolf packs over there and they were told NO.
Post by: RG on April 22, 2014, 08:36:42 PM
In my experience I've had opportunity to see a little of this from an inside view and it totally surprised me. If we could look past the curtain and see it all working I'm afraid it may be an ugly sight. Not all of those in positions of influence are involved in shady deals but there most certainly are a number of them.
This in my mind explains why some of these decisions seem to defy reason and don't follow what I call the normal flow of the universe. Why would biologists be told to lie? By would information be suppressed? On the surface it doesn't make sense that an agency would do that unless there's another agenda they are trying to hide. I don't know but it sure makes me wonder.
Aspen Bud I agree to some extent with a little of your premise. If a free ranging wild animal wanders in and kills my cow its my problem. If somebody takes away my right to protect my cow then it's their problem the way I look at it. WDFW says the wolves wandered into Washington from elsewhere, they never put them here. If that's true it's not their fault a wolf killed my cow. If WDFW prevents me from protecting my cow then the loss is on them. They don't prevent me from killing other predators which attack my cow.
Post by: Broker on April 22, 2014, 09:07:28 PM
Without statistics it's kind of hard to prove anything. Sure, wolves may get to a point where they eat babies out of mothers' arms, but so far the statistics between Canada and the lower 48 don't show that. We do have, however, bear attacks reported every year with the most recent to make headlines of a woman in Florida being attacked and dragged out of her garage by one.As much as you may not like it, emotion is what moves people to action. You get video of somebody's cocker spaniel getting dragged off a porch in Sammamish or a mom and kids menaced by a wolf on their daily walk to the bus stop in Redmond and things will change real quick.
If ranchers in Washington are losing more cattle, sheep, whatever every year to predators, and if there is a real spike in the last 5, that says something. Particularly in Stevens County. But if the average over the last 25 years is about the same year over year, well...
It's one thing to get all wound up emotionally over the issue, that goes for both sides, it's another to look at hard numbers for what they really are.
Post by: bearpaw on April 22, 2014, 09:24:38 PM
Without statistics it's kind of hard to prove anything. Sure, wolves may get to a point where they eat babies out of mothers' arms, but so far the statistics between Canada and the lower 48 don't show that. We do have, however, bear attacks reported every year with the most recent to make headlines of a woman in Florida being attacked and dragged out of her garage by one.
If ranchers in Washington are losing more cattle, sheep, whatever every year to predators, and if there is a real spike in the last 5, that says something. Particularly in Stevens County. But if the average over the last 25 years is about the same year over year, well...
It's one thing to get all wound up emotionally over the issue, that goes for both sides, it's another to look at hard numbers for what they really are.
In one year McIrvin's lost more cattle to wolves than they've ever lost to any other predators. That's why that pack was mostly killed. Old News... :rolleyes:
The data is proven on wolves and they are being managed heavily in other states where the wolf lovers don't control the Fish & Game. :twocents:
This isn't even an intelligent discussion. :rolleyes:
Post by: AspenBud on April 22, 2014, 09:34:40 PM
Without statistics it's kind of hard to prove anything. Sure, wolves may get to a point where they eat babies out of mothers' arms, but so far the statistics between Canada and the lower 48 don't show that. We do have, however, bear attacks reported every year with the most recent to make headlines of a woman in Florida being attacked and dragged out of her garage by one.As much as you may not like it, emotion is what moves people to action. You get video of somebody's cocker spaniel getting dragged off a porch in Sammamish or a mom and kids menaced by a wolf on their daily walk to the bus stop in Redmond and things will change real quick.
If ranchers in Washington are losing more cattle, sheep, whatever every year to predators, and if there is a real spike in the last 5, that says something. Particularly in Stevens County. But if the average over the last 25 years is about the same year over year, well...
It's one thing to get all wound up emotionally over the issue, that goes for both sides, it's another to look at hard numbers for what they really are.
I like it fine. I just don't think it will be anymore earth shattering than the numerous cougar, bear, and coyote incidents that have occurred for years. It will however snap many back into reality. Oh well.
Post by: AspenBud on April 22, 2014, 09:43:17 PM
Without statistics it's kind of hard to prove anything. Sure, wolves may get to a point where they eat babies out of mothers' arms, but so far the statistics between Canada and the lower 48 don't show that. We do have, however, bear attacks reported every year with the most recent to make headlines of a woman in Florida being attacked and dragged out of her garage by one.
If ranchers in Washington are losing more cattle, sheep, whatever every year to predators, and if there is a real spike in the last 5, that says something. Particularly in Stevens County. But if the average over the last 25 years is about the same year over year, well...
It's one thing to get all wound up emotionally over the issue, that goes for both sides, it's another to look at hard numbers for what they really are.
In one year McIrvin's lost more cattle to wolves than they've ever lost to any other predators. That's why that pack was mostly killed. Old News... :rolleyes:
The data is proven on wolves and they are being managed heavily in other states where the wolf lovers don't control the Fish & Game. :twocents:
This isn't even an intelligent discussion. :rolleyes:
That doesn't say much to me. Did they lose more than in any other year ever to predators in general? Have they ever submitted records that show this is true year over year for the last 25 years? If so, where are they?
Post by: idahohuntr on April 22, 2014, 09:44:46 PM
I don't think livestock losses should be compensated either. First of all, it wasn't the WDFW that put the wolves here. Second, we just can't afford to pay out money every time a wolf, cougar, bear, or other predator kills someone's animal. It's the cost of doing business. You raise cattle in wolf habitat? Well then, expect to have the wolves eat a few.:yeah: x1000
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why some think ranchers deserve a handout/welfare check from hunters is mind boggling to me. Not all ranchers accept/apply for these handouts, which I applaud. I also agree that ranchers should be allowed to kill any predator harassing/attacking their livestock on their PRIVATE land. IF they run livestock on public land...tough...cost of doing business. You want to lease some public land in wolf or other predator country...then you know what your getting into and its not the hunters of this state who should compensate your losses. We as a society can not just continue to support through welfare programs the poor decisions of other segments of society...including ranchers who graze on public lands with high predator densities. :twocents:
Maybe we should start a reverse program where all cattle ranchers compensated for losses on public ground have to give 25lbs of beef to all unsuccessful deer and elk hunters in the state :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on April 22, 2014, 09:51:42 PM
Without statistics it's kind of hard to prove anything. Sure, wolves may get to a point where they eat babies out of mothers' arms, but so far the statistics between Canada and the lower 48 don't show that. We do have, however, bear attacks reported every year with the most recent to make headlines of a woman in Florida being attacked and dragged out of her garage by one.
If ranchers in Washington are losing more cattle, sheep, whatever every year to predators, and if there is a real spike in the last 5, that says something. Particularly in Stevens County. But if the average over the last 25 years is about the same year over year, well...
It's one thing to get all wound up emotionally over the issue, that goes for both sides, it's another to look at hard numbers for what they really are.
In one year McIrvin's lost more cattle to wolves than they've ever lost to any other predators. That's why that pack was mostly killed. Old News... :rolleyes:
The data is proven on wolves and they are being managed heavily in other states where the wolf lovers don't control the Fish & Game. :twocents:
This isn't even an intelligent discussion. :rolleyes:
That doesn't say much to me. Did they lose more than in any other year ever to predators in general? Have they ever submitted records that show this is true year over year for the last 25 years? If so, where are they?
I really don't care what you think, you are one of the people on here only to try and promote wolves.
If you want to know exact numbers call McIrvin up and ask. I've never asked for documented details from them and have no idea if they keep exact numbers. Some people you can trust on their word, but that may be a concept you don't understand. You wolfers will grab at anything to avoid admitting the impacts of wolves.
It's all proven, numbers of wolf killed cattle are documented. Wolves have already been killed that were responsible. Old news! :rolleyes:
Post by: AspenBud on April 22, 2014, 09:53:15 PM
Without statistics it's kind of hard to prove anything. Sure, wolves may get to a point where they eat babies out of mothers' arms, but so far the statistics between Canada and the lower 48 don't show that. We do have, however, bear attacks reported every year with the most recent to make headlines of a woman in Florida being attacked and dragged out of her garage by one.
If ranchers in Washington are losing more cattle, sheep, whatever every year to predators, and if there is a real spike in the last 5, that says something. Particularly in Stevens County. But if the average over the last 25 years is about the same year over year, well...
It's one thing to get all wound up emotionally over the issue, that goes for both sides, it's another to look at hard numbers for what they really are.
In one year McIrvin's lost more cattle to wolves than they've ever lost to any other predators. That's why that pack was mostly killed. Old News... :rolleyes:
The data is proven on wolves and they are being managed heavily in other states where the wolf lovers don't control the Fish & Game. :twocents:
This isn't even an intelligent discussion. :rolleyes:
That doesn't say much to me. Did they lose more than in any other year ever to predators in general? Have they ever submitted records that show this is true year over year for the last 25 years? If so, where are they?
I really don't care what you think, you are one of the people on here only to try and promote wolves.
If you want to know exact numbers call McIrvin up and ask. I've never asked for documented details from them and have no idea if they keep exact numbers. Some people you can trust on their word, but that may be a concept you don't understand. You wolfers will grab at anything to avoid admitting the impacts of wolves.
It's all proven, numbers of wolf killed cattle are documented. Wolves have already been killed that were responsible. Old news! :rolleyes:
:chuckle:
Of course you haven't asked.
People lie Bearpaw.
Post by: bearpaw on April 22, 2014, 09:57:33 PM
I don't think livestock losses should be compensated either. First of all, it wasn't the WDFW that put the wolves here. Second, we just can't afford to pay out money every time a wolf, cougar, bear, or other predator kills someone's animal. It's the cost of doing business. You raise cattle in wolf habitat? Well then, expect to have the wolves eat a few.:yeah: x1000
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why some think ranchers deserve a handout/welfare check from hunters is mind boggling to me. Not all ranchers accept/apply for these handouts, which I applaud. I also agree that ranchers should be allowed to kill any predator harassing/attacking their livestock on their PRIVATE land. IF they run livestock on public land...tough...cost of doing business. You want to lease some public land in wolf or other predator country...then you know what your getting into and its not the hunters of this state who should compensate your losses. We as a society can not just continue to support through welfare programs the poor decisions of other segments of society...including ranchers who graze on public lands with high predator densities. :twocents:
Maybe we should start a reverse program where all cattle ranchers compensated for losses on public ground have to give 25lbs of beef to all unsuccessful deer and elk hunters in the state :chuckle: :chuckle:
Some people have a pretty short memory or perhaps they just don't absorb details.
The deal to bring back wolves was that the wolf groups and agencies would compensate ranchers for losses. Prettty simple explanation, too bad the wolf groups duped the agencies and now agencies are stuck being somewhat accountable. Although they get out of the majority of liability by claiming non-conclusive wolves made the kill. But please don't be so naïve as to say you don't understand this. It was all part of the wolf plan to bring back wolves. :rolleyes:
Post by: Jingles on April 22, 2014, 09:58:23 PM
It's interesting how WDFW can fail do its duty by hiding behind the no money excuse when it's convenient. When they closed the catch and release steelhead season on the Sky I asked the biologist why they thought there was a shortage of wild fish since everybody who spent time on the river knew better. She said "we don't know how many there are we don't have any money to study it. We closed it just in case". Now they say wolf studies are too expensive.
WDFW comes up with the excuse that they don't have money yet they continue to purchase more and more land here in the Methow Pumpkin Patch
Post by: idahohuntr on April 22, 2014, 10:00:02 PM
ol bearpaw has got to be one or two of the biggest hypocrites in the entire world:
I really don't care what you think, you are one of the people on here only to try and promote wolves.
If you want to know exact numbers call McIrvin up and ask. I've never asked for documented details from them and have no idea if they keep exact numbers. Some people you can trust on their word, but that may be a concept you don't understand. You wolfers will grab at anything to avoid admitting the impacts of wolves.
It's all proven, numbers of wolf killed cattle are documented. Wolves have already been killed that were responsible. Old news! :rolleyes:
-Doesn't need numbers from rancher on livestock losses, but the gov't needs to count and provide stats on every darn wolf in the state :chuckle:
-Touts how elk have plummeted in Idaho because of wolves yet advertises great elk hunting in Idaho on his outfitter website :chuckle:
-Trusts government numbers on number of elk/deer killed per wolf, but doesn't trust government numbers regarding poaching or overall wolf numbers :chuckle:
Kind of makes John Kerry (and many other politicians) look like real straight-shooters :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on April 22, 2014, 10:01:10 PM
Without statistics it's kind of hard to prove anything. Sure, wolves may get to a point where they eat babies out of mothers' arms, but so far the statistics between Canada and the lower 48 don't show that. We do have, however, bear attacks reported every year with the most recent to make headlines of a woman in Florida being attacked and dragged out of her garage by one.
If ranchers in Washington are losing more cattle, sheep, whatever every year to predators, and if there is a real spike in the last 5, that says something. Particularly in Stevens County. But if the average over the last 25 years is about the same year over year, well...
It's one thing to get all wound up emotionally over the issue, that goes for both sides, it's another to look at hard numbers for what they really are.
In one year McIrvin's lost more cattle to wolves than they've ever lost to any other predators. That's why that pack was mostly killed. Old News... :rolleyes:
The data is proven on wolves and they are being managed heavily in other states where the wolf lovers don't control the Fish & Game. :twocents:
This isn't even an intelligent discussion. :rolleyes:
That doesn't say much to me. Did they lose more than in any other year ever to predators in general? Have they ever submitted records that show this is true year over year for the last 25 years? If so, where are they?
I really don't care what you think, you are one of the people on here only to try and promote wolves.
If you want to know exact numbers call McIrvin up and ask. I've never asked for documented details from them and have no idea if they keep exact numbers. Some people you can trust on their word, but that may be a concept you don't understand. You wolfers will grab at anything to avoid admitting the impacts of wolves.
It's all proven, numbers of wolf killed cattle are documented. Wolves have already been killed that were responsible. Old news! :rolleyes:
:chuckle:
Of course you haven't asked.
People lie Bearpaw.
Yep, some people do...., I remember a lot of promises about the wolf plan and wolf numbers, I know who the liars are in this wolf fiasco. ;)
The documented statistics are there for all of us to see. Some of us can grasp the truth, others, well.....
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on April 22, 2014, 10:09:15 PM
It's interesting how WDFW can fail do its duty by hiding behind the no money excuse when it's convenient. When they closed the catch and release steelhead season on the Sky I asked the biologist why they thought there was a shortage of wild fish since everybody who spent time on the river knew better. She said "we don't know how many there are we don't have any money to study it. We closed it just in case". Now they say wolf studies are too expensive.
WDFW comes up with the excuse that they don't have money yet they continue to purchase more and more land here in the Methow Pumpkin Patch
Not to mention Jay Inslee's plan to have WDFW buy the north half of Douglas County... :dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on April 22, 2014, 10:23:17 PM
ol bearpaw has got to be one or two of the biggest hypocrites in the entire world:
I really don't care what you think, you are one of the people on here only to try and promote wolves.
If you want to know exact numbers call McIrvin up and ask. I've never asked for documented details from them and have no idea if they keep exact numbers. Some people you can trust on their word, but that may be a concept you don't understand. You wolfers will grab at anything to avoid admitting the impacts of wolves.
It's all proven, numbers of wolf killed cattle are documented. Wolves have already been killed that were responsible. Old news! :rolleyes:
-Doesn't need numbers from rancher on livestock losses, but the gov't needs to count and provide stats on every darn wolf in the state :chuckle:
-Touts how elk have plummeted in Idaho because of wolves yet advertises great elk hunting in Idaho on his outfitter website :chuckle:
-Trusts government numbers on number of elk/deer killed per wolf, but doesn't trust government numbers regarding poaching or overall wolf numbers :chuckle:
Kind of makes John Kerry (and many other politicians) look like real straight-shooters :chuckle: :chuckle:
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Maybe you don't know anyone you can trust, if that is so, I'm sorry for you.
Maybe I'm a lucky man, I do know people I can trust and I'm glad to trust them. I'll also trust the McIrvin's long before I'll trust the wolfers in our government who promised the deal for 100 wolves per state with compensation to ranchers for losses. That's already been proven to be lies. Show me the proof the McIrvin's are lieing, WDFW seemed to agree with the McIrvin's that the wolves were a problem killing cattle and eliminated most of them. :dunno:
It's seems you hate outfitters, even if you don't know them, I don't know if it's jealousy or what, don't really matter. I do know that I have been fortunate in that I think ranchers have kept the wolves shot out of my current area. I am looking at another hunt business right in the heart of wolf country.
Idaho is doing a great job of curbing wolf numbers and Idaho is aggressively managing cougars and bear to try and make up for the high numbers of elk and deer being killed by wolves, some areas that have been wolf impacted for several years, now the elk are finally growing in numbers in some of those areas now that wolves are being thinned. As more wolves are thinned this will improve further.
I'm thinking in my business plan for the new area that rather than charge for wolf hunts, we will credit any deer or elk hunter $500 back for any wolf taken, that way we are doing our part in helping to control wolves to improve wildlife and hunting in Idaho. If we can kill 3 or 4 wolves each year we more than offset any game taken by our hunters and herds will grow even more. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on April 22, 2014, 10:30:48 PM
Quote
-Trusts government numbers on number of elk/deer killed per wolf, but doesn't trust government numbers regarding poaching or overall wolf numbers :chuckle:
Here's the difference between what you think and what I have said.
I agreed poaching is a problem, I disagreed with the numbers, simple mathematics proves your F&G buddies were exaggerating their story and it appears they were trying to lessen the impacts of wolves. Those are the boys I would be more careful about trusting. ;)
As others have said, poaching was a problem prior to 1995, probably much less today than then. Wolves have greatly increased. I know what you think and what I think, let's let the readers decide who is closer to being correct. :tup:
Post by: idahohuntr on April 22, 2014, 11:26:08 PM
I'm thinking in my business plan for the new area that rather than charge for wolf hunts, we will credit any deer or elk hunter $500 back for any wolf taken, that way we are doing our part in helping to control wolves to improve wildlife and hunting in Idaho.I think this is a good business idea...wolf success rates are very low so its not like you will lose a bunch of money...but unlike most outfits that would charge a trophy fee for the instances of killing a wolf you give them a credit...I think this will resonate very well with most folks and be a good selling point that could differentiate your business :dunno: Can't hurt. Maybe you can take me, Aspen, Sitka and JLS on a hunt :chuckle: :chuckle:
I also think a lot of the hard hit areas in Idaho will start to turn around in elk numbers with declines in wolf numbers and increasing habitat restoration efforts, particularly the habitat work being planned in N-C Idaho. The old adage "buy low sell high" applies to hunting businesses as much as stocks...now is the time to be buying hunting outfits in N-C Idaho...they are at a low!
For all that I disagree with you on biological/wildlife management issues I will not argue your business sense.
If we can kill 3 or 4 wolves each year we more than offset any game taken by our hunters and herds will grow even more. :twocents:This is where I think your logic starts to fall apart...predator/prey interactions are not the simple addition and subtraction you describe. It is why your statements about 17 elk and 44 deer per wolf don't actually play out...even if that is what wolves in N-C Idaho are eating (*I have serious reservations about extrapolating wolf predation in YNP just a year or two after wolf introduction and very high elk numbers in the park to present day N-C Idaho...) its just not as simple as you describe. The notion that killing a wolf saves 17 elk per year is not likely very accurate in most parts of Idaho and N-C Idaho...perhaps in some very specific areas it does...but not many.
Post by: bearpaw on April 22, 2014, 11:43:20 PM
I'm thinking in my business plan for the new area that rather than charge for wolf hunts, we will credit any deer or elk hunter $500 back for any wolf taken, that way we are doing our part in helping to control wolves to improve wildlife and hunting in Idaho.I think this is a good business idea...wolf success rates are very low so its not like you will lose a bunch of money...but unlike most outfits that would charge a trophy fee for the instances of killing a wolf you give them a credit...I think this will resonate very well with most folks and be a good selling point that could differentiate your business :dunno: Can't hurt. Maybe you can take me, Aspen, Sitka and JLS on a hunt :chuckle: :chuckle:
I also think a lot of the hard hit areas in Idaho will start to turn around in elk numbers with declines in wolf numbers and increasing habitat restoration efforts, particularly the habitat work being planned in N-C Idaho. The old adage "buy low sell high" applies to hunting businesses as much as stocks...now is the time to be buying hunting outfits in N-C Idaho...they are at a low!
For all that I disagree with you on biological/wildlife management issues I will not argue your business sense.If we can kill 3 or 4 wolves each year we more than offset any game taken by our hunters and herds will grow even more. :twocents:This is where I think your logic starts to fall apart...predator/prey interactions are not the simple addition and subtraction you describe. It is why your statements about 17 elk and 44 deer per wolf don't actually play out...even if that is what wolves in N-C Idaho are eating (*I have serious reservations about extrapolating wolf predation in YNP just a year or two after wolf introduction and very high elk numbers in the park to present day N-C Idaho...) its just not as simple as you describe. The notion that killing a wolf saves 17 elk per year is not likely very accurate in most parts of Idaho and N-C Idaho...perhaps in some very specific areas it does...but not many.
At first I think that the predation rate was probably pretty close in Idaho as YNP, but now some of those wolf impacted areas don't have as many elk and deer so you are likely correct, now wolves may not be killing quite that many because they can't find them. This could explain why wolves are increasingly coming to WA and OR and even going back to B.C.
We all know from published data that wolves peaked, destroyed YNP elk herds and then fled to other areas or began eating each other. After a little of both, the end result is that YNP has half as many wolves and roughly 20% of the elk it once did. :twocents:
In Idaho's heavily impacted areas it's very possible wolves are only finding 10 elk per year or 30 deer per year to consume, obviously numbers will vary, but even at that predation rate the end result is the same, those animals eaten are gone. If I can shoot 3 or 4 wolves and save even 30 elk or 90 deer then I have saved more than my hunters will take. ;)
Post by: AspenBud on April 23, 2014, 09:21:25 AM
Without statistics it's kind of hard to prove anything. Sure, wolves may get to a point where they eat babies out of mothers' arms, but so far the statistics between Canada and the lower 48 don't show that. We do have, however, bear attacks reported every year with the most recent to make headlines of a woman in Florida being attacked and dragged out of her garage by one.
If ranchers in Washington are losing more cattle, sheep, whatever every year to predators, and if there is a real spike in the last 5, that says something. Particularly in Stevens County. But if the average over the last 25 years is about the same year over year, well...
It's one thing to get all wound up emotionally over the issue, that goes for both sides, it's another to look at hard numbers for what they really are.
In one year McIrvin's lost more cattle to wolves than they've ever lost to any other predators. That's why that pack was mostly killed. Old News... :rolleyes:
The data is proven on wolves and they are being managed heavily in other states where the wolf lovers don't control the Fish & Game. :twocents:
This isn't even an intelligent discussion. :rolleyes:
That doesn't say much to me. Did they lose more than in any other year ever to predators in general? Have they ever submitted records that show this is true year over year for the last 25 years? If so, where are they?
I really don't care what you think, you are one of the people on here only to try and promote wolves.
If you want to know exact numbers call McIrvin up and ask. I've never asked for documented details from them and have no idea if they keep exact numbers. Some people you can trust on their word, but that may be a concept you don't understand. You wolfers will grab at anything to avoid admitting the impacts of wolves.
It's all proven, numbers of wolf killed cattle are documented. Wolves have already been killed that were responsible. Old news! :rolleyes:
:chuckle:
Of course you haven't asked.
People lie Bearpaw.
Yep, some people do...., I remember a lot of promises about the wolf plan and wolf numbers, I know who the liars are in this wolf fiasco. ;)
The documented statistics are there for all of us to see. Some of us can grasp the truth, others, well.....
So you mean to tell me that you will go to the ends of the earth and post just about any statistic you think supports your view here, but you've never asked a guy like McIrvin if he has records going back a couple decades that show he is now losing more cattle to predation overall than he was in 1990-1995?
Are you afraid he's going to show you that he lost (hypothetical number here) 100 cattle in 1995 and 100 in 2013? That he loses on average about the same every year wolf or no wolf?
A one or two year stat that solely shows wolves killed cows doesn't say much. Numbers that indicate an upward trend in cattle losses to predation over several years with a sharp spike since the arrival of wolves does. That wolves killed cattle doesn't matter, it's if they are leading to more losses overall, as in if they are additive to existing predation or if they are just displacing existing predators, that matters.
Can ranchers in Stevens County supply this information? If so, where is it? That is valuable information.
Post by: idahohuntr on April 23, 2014, 10:03:09 AM
Now we are getting to the complexity of predation issues...compensatory mortality...how many would die anyways...this applies to cattle as much as it does deer and elk. It is why bearpaws simple addition/subtraction logic doesn't work out in the real world very often. Except in extremely rare cases it is difficult to believe all wolf predation is additive.Without statistics it's kind of hard to prove anything. Sure, wolves may get to a point where they eat babies out of mothers' arms, but so far the statistics between Canada and the lower 48 don't show that. We do have, however, bear attacks reported every year with the most recent to make headlines of a woman in Florida being attacked and dragged out of her garage by one.
If ranchers in Washington are losing more cattle, sheep, whatever every year to predators, and if there is a real spike in the last 5, that says something. Particularly in Stevens County. But if the average over the last 25 years is about the same year over year, well...
It's one thing to get all wound up emotionally over the issue, that goes for both sides, it's another to look at hard numbers for what they really are.
In one year McIrvin's lost more cattle to wolves than they've ever lost to any other predators. That's why that pack was mostly killed. Old News... :rolleyes:
The data is proven on wolves and they are being managed heavily in other states where the wolf lovers don't control the Fish & Game. :twocents:
This isn't even an intelligent discussion. :rolleyes:
That doesn't say much to me. Did they lose more than in any other year ever to predators in general? Have they ever submitted records that show this is true year over year for the last 25 years? If so, where are they?
I really don't care what you think, you are one of the people on here only to try and promote wolves.
If you want to know exact numbers call McIrvin up and ask. I've never asked for documented details from them and have no idea if they keep exact numbers. Some people you can trust on their word, but that may be a concept you don't understand. You wolfers will grab at anything to avoid admitting the impacts of wolves.
It's all proven, numbers of wolf killed cattle are documented. Wolves have already been killed that were responsible. Old news! :rolleyes:
:chuckle:
Of course you haven't asked.
People lie Bearpaw.
Yep, some people do...., I remember a lot of promises about the wolf plan and wolf numbers, I know who the liars are in this wolf fiasco. ;)
The documented statistics are there for all of us to see. Some of us can grasp the truth, others, well.....
So you mean to tell me that you will go to the ends of the earth and post just about any statistic you think supports your view here, but you've never asked a guy like McIrvin if he has records going back a couple decades that show he is now losing more cattle to predation overall than he was in 1990-1995?
Are you afraid he's going to show you that he lost (hypothetical number here) 100 cattle in 1995 and 100 in 2013? That he loses on average about the same every year wolf or no wolf?
A one or two year stat that solely shows wolves killed cows doesn't say much. Numbers that indicate an upward trend in cattle losses to predation over several years with a sharp spike since the arrival of wolves does. That wolves killed cattle doesn't matter, it's if they are leading to more losses overall, as in if they are additive to existing predation or if they are just displacing existing predators, that matters.
Can ranchers in Stevens County supply this information? If so, where is it? That is valuable information.
Post by: bearpaw on April 23, 2014, 02:34:28 PM
Now we are getting to the complexity of predation issues...compensatory mortality...how many would die anyways...this applies to cattle as much as it does deer and elk. It is why bearpaws simple addition/subtraction logic doesn't work out in the real world very often. Except in extremely rare cases it is difficult to believe all wolf predation is additive.Without statistics it's kind of hard to prove anything. Sure, wolves may get to a point where they eat babies out of mothers' arms, but so far the statistics between Canada and the lower 48 don't show that. We do have, however, bear attacks reported every year with the most recent to make headlines of a woman in Florida being attacked and dragged out of her garage by one.
If ranchers in Washington are losing more cattle, sheep, whatever every year to predators, and if there is a real spike in the last 5, that says something. Particularly in Stevens County. But if the average over the last 25 years is about the same year over year, well...
It's one thing to get all wound up emotionally over the issue, that goes for both sides, it's another to look at hard numbers for what they really are.
In one year McIrvin's lost more cattle to wolves than they've ever lost to any other predators. That's why that pack was mostly killed. Old News... :rolleyes:
The data is proven on wolves and they are being managed heavily in other states where the wolf lovers don't control the Fish & Game. :twocents:
This isn't even an intelligent discussion. :rolleyes:
That doesn't say much to me. Did they lose more than in any other year ever to predators in general? Have they ever submitted records that show this is true year over year for the last 25 years? If so, where are they?
I really don't care what you think, you are one of the people on here only to try and promote wolves.
If you want to know exact numbers call McIrvin up and ask. I've never asked for documented details from them and have no idea if they keep exact numbers. Some people you can trust on their word, but that may be a concept you don't understand. You wolfers will grab at anything to avoid admitting the impacts of wolves.
It's all proven, numbers of wolf killed cattle are documented. Wolves have already been killed that were responsible. Old news! :rolleyes:
:chuckle:
Of course you haven't asked.
People lie Bearpaw.
Yep, some people do...., I remember a lot of promises about the wolf plan and wolf numbers, I know who the liars are in this wolf fiasco. ;)
The documented statistics are there for all of us to see. Some of us can grasp the truth, others, well.....
So you mean to tell me that you will go to the ends of the earth and post just about any statistic you think supports your view here, but you've never asked a guy like McIrvin if he has records going back a couple decades that show he is now losing more cattle to predation overall than he was in 1990-1995?
Are you afraid he's going to show you that he lost (hypothetical number here) 100 cattle in 1995 and 100 in 2013? That he loses on average about the same every year wolf or no wolf?
A one or two year stat that solely shows wolves killed cows doesn't say much. Numbers that indicate an upward trend in cattle losses to predation over several years with a sharp spike since the arrival of wolves does. That wolves killed cattle doesn't matter, it's if they are leading to more losses overall, as in if they are additive to existing predation or if they are just displacing existing predators, that matters.
Can ranchers in Stevens County supply this information? If so, where is it? That is valuable information.
There is data available that says wolf predation is compensatory and data that says additive. Wolves have proven themselves to be mostly additive especially when wolf numbers are high or you wouldn't see the elk, deer, and moose herds dip so dramatically in heavy wolf impacted areas. I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.
I would agree that small numbers of wolves could be mostly compensatory and not make a large difference in game numbers. I wouldn't have a problem with reasonable wolf management. The problem is that the wolf groups know no moderation, they want unmanaged wolf numbers. I am forced to support the other end of the spectrum in hopes of meeting in the middle as they have done in Idaho. Problem is who knows when "reason" will come to Washington. :twocents:
I said it before, maybe you missed it, I don't know if they have exact records of all cattle mortality reasons. Doesn't really matter, the wolves that ate McIrvin's cattle were proven to have eaten the cattle. As a result those wolves were eliminated as they should have been. OLD NEWS.... GET OVER IT! :twocents:
Washington needs to follow Idaho's lead, Idaho is bringing wolf management back to reality. Their goal is 200 wolves, that's 50 more wolves than the ESA requires, a comfortable cushion and a number that will not rape and pillage the countryside of all other wildlife. :twocents:
Washington could probably support 100 wolves without too many negative impacts. Currently we likely have at least double that many wolves but they only admit to around 100 and don't want to find the rest probably for fear of having to tackle state delisting. :twocents:
There are impacts already being felt by wolves, I know one shed hunter who found 3 wolf killed moose this late winter. First time he's ever seen a wolf kill, suddenly three in one winter that one person found, I wonder how many moose were actually killed by wolves over the last 3-4 years in NE WA?
Post by: cougarbart on April 23, 2014, 03:24:28 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on April 23, 2014, 05:53:08 PM
Only in areas where habitat is poor have I seen strong evidence of additive mortality (e.g., Lolo). Majority of Idaho is at or above elk population objectives and many areas are well over objectives and have only increased since 1995 which would likely mean wolf predation in those areas is compensatory. This is also why Idaho is trying so hard to get at the habitat factor in the Lolo...it will be a more effective and longer term solution to rebuilding elk numbers than targeted removal of wolves :twocents:
There is data available that says wolf predation is compensatory and data that says additive. Wolves have proven themselves to be mostly additive especially when wolf numbers are high or you wouldn't see the elk, deer, and moose herds dip so dramatically in heavy wolf impacted areas.
Post by: AspenBud on April 24, 2014, 09:07:25 AM
i don't know about the mcirvins but i will give you some statistics from my family log! They ran 200 head of cows from the 1930 to 2002 out of elk river idaho! Up until 1996 they lost 2 yearling calves to predators in 70 years! In 1996 they lost 2 cows to wolves even tho biologist said it looks like it died in a mud hole and then the wolves ate it!lol sound familiar? 97- 2 calves and a cow 98- 2 calves 99-4 cows and and calf 00- 2 cows and a calf 01- 2 cows and a bull!
I'll be honest, that's a fascinating statistic if true. I suspect there are a lot of livestock owners around the country who would love to have had that kind of success ratio over 70 years.
Post by: snowpack on April 24, 2014, 09:26:30 AM
I know of a few small time ranchers in Western WA that didn't lose any big animals in between wolf extirpation and the hound ban. In the early 30's their families would lose a few a year to wolves and cougars. Then a couple wolves chased one of the guys looking for a lost animal. He had to climb a tree to escape. The wolves didn't leave until the next morning when a search party came to find him. That ended up being the final straw and they killed off the wolves in the area. They put up lots of bounties for cougars. Next time the area lost an animal was after the ban on hound hunting. Now there is an animal lost every couple of years (goat/llama/sheep) and there were attempts on a bull (not a bright cougar) and a pack horse.i don't know about the mcirvins but i will give you some statistics from my family log! They ran 200 head of cows from the 1930 to 2002 out of elk river idaho! Up until 1996 they lost 2 yearling calves to predators in 70 years! In 1996 they lost 2 cows to wolves even tho biologist said it looks like it died in a mud hole and then the wolves ate it!lol sound familiar? 97- 2 calves and a cow 98- 2 calves 99-4 cows and and calf 00- 2 cows and a calf 01- 2 cows and a bull!
I'll be honest, that's a fascinating statistic if true. I suspect there are a lot of livestock owners around the country who would love to have had that kind of success ratio over 70 years.
Post by: cougarbart on April 24, 2014, 10:20:29 AM
Post by: JLS on April 24, 2014, 10:41:04 AM
i have seen a bear kill a calf but never a cougar!
I have seen cougar killed calves.
Post by: cougarbart on April 24, 2014, 10:47:24 AM
Post by: bearpaw on April 24, 2014, 12:38:32 PM
i have heard good sources say they do! im just saying in 30+ years in eastern wash and north idaho i have yet to see it and with how many cows are in cougar country i think the predator rate on bovine is very small from cougars!
This true, just off hand I cannot remember responding to a single cougar complaint that involved a cougar eating cattle. Bear yes, cougar no. Depredating Cougars like goats or sheep, pets, horses, and small children or women, pretty much in that order of frequency.
Wolves like beef, there is no disputing this, ask the McIrvins, ask WDFW agents that investigated McIrvins, ask any other USFWS agents who respond to livestock killings in the west. Watch and read the following links and then try telling us wolves don't like beef! :dunno:
New Mexico Wolves Attack Cattle
Wolf Investigator - 300 wolf complaints in 3 years in New Mexico, 140 complaints on private land...
WARNING GRAPHIC
middle fork 0001 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0UGixipVRg#)
Washington Wolves Attack Cattle
Wolves attack, kill Stevens County cattle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uIDas6gHQs#)
Oregon Wolves Attack Cattle
Imnaha pack keep killing more cattle - first calf in 2012 adds to 21 confirmed by ODFW (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrMQDqceMEI#ws)
Montana Wolves Attack Cattle
Sula wolf kill (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgJkbePIKQg#)
Idaho Wolves Attack Cattle
Idaho Wolf Chasing Beef Cow - Switchback Outdoors (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2CXufunZTU#ws)
Wyoming Wolves Attack Cattle
Wolf impact on cattle researched:
http://www.wylr.net/component/content/article/185-wildlife/wolves/3741-wolf-impact-on-cattle-researched (http://www.wylr.net/component/content/article/185-wildlife/wolves/3741-wolf-impact-on-cattle-researched)
B.C. Wolves Attack Cattle
Wolves a $15-Million Problem for B.C. Ranchers
http://www.bcbusiness.ca/people/wolves-a-15-million-problem-for-bc-ranchers (http://www.bcbusiness.ca/people/wolves-a-15-million-problem-for-bc-ranchers)
Post by: bearpaw on April 24, 2014, 12:48:09 PM
Only in areas where habitat is poor have I seen strong evidence of additive mortality (e.g., Lolo). Majority of Idaho is at or above elk population objectives and many areas are well over objectives and have only increased since 1995 which would likely mean wolf predation in those areas is compensatory. This is also why Idaho is trying so hard to get at the habitat factor in the Lolo...it will be a more effective and longer term solution to rebuilding elk numbers than targeted removal of wolves :twocents:
There is data available that says wolf predation is compensatory and data that says additive. Wolves have proven themselves to be mostly additive especially when wolf numbers are high or you wouldn't see the elk, deer, and moose herds dip so dramatically in heavy wolf impacted areas.
:rolleyes: The only thing you can do is hide behind the areas that have not experienced wolf impacts. If you address the units in Idaho where wolves have decimated herds your whole philosophy is destroyed. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Your ridiculous arguments are really outdated. Luckily Idaho is handling the problem, they are removing wolves from impacted areas and they are removing wolves from areas which haven't declined in an effort to prevent another Lolo, YNP, Bitterroot, Selway, Payette, or similar elk decline. Three cheers for Idaho they are taking the lead in wolf management and saving their other wildlife while at the same time maintaining a viable population of wolves.
All I want is reasonable wolf management! Too bad the wolf lovers want unmanaged wolves and don't care about other wildlife. :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on April 24, 2014, 01:16:37 PM
Yea, thats it...I'm hiding behind the vast majority of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Washington, and Oregon where wolves are not having significant population impacts :chuckle: :chuckle: You can't fit wolf predation into a black and white argument where its always at fault. The bottom line is elk populations are doing relatively well, wolf numbers have stabilized/declined in many areas of ID/MT/WT. In areas where wolf predation is limiting, elk habitat is relatively poor...very few exceptions to this IMO. Those are just facts whether you want to admit them or not. We get a million acre fire in the lolo and I don't care if IDFG does any more wolf removals or not...elk numbers will increase substantially in the following decades.Only in areas where habitat is poor have I seen strong evidence of additive mortality (e.g., Lolo). Majority of Idaho is at or above elk population objectives and many areas are well over objectives and have only increased since 1995 which would likely mean wolf predation in those areas is compensatory. This is also why Idaho is trying so hard to get at the habitat factor in the Lolo...it will be a more effective and longer term solution to rebuilding elk numbers than targeted removal of wolves :twocents:
There is data available that says wolf predation is compensatory and data that says additive. Wolves have proven themselves to be mostly additive especially when wolf numbers are high or you wouldn't see the elk, deer, and moose herds dip so dramatically in heavy wolf impacted areas.
:rolleyes: The only thing you can do is hide behind the areas that have not experienced wolf impacts. If you address the units in Idaho where wolves have decimated herds your whole philosophy is destroyed. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Your ridiculous arguments are really outdated. Luckily Idaho is handling the problem, they are removing wolves from impacted areas and they are removing wolves from areas which haven't declined in an effort to prevent another Lolo, YNP, Bitterroot, Selway, Payette, or similar elk decline. Three cheers for Idaho they are taking the lead in wolf management and saving their other wildlife while at the same time maintaining a viable population of wolves.
All I want is reasonable wolf management! Too bad the wolf lovers want unmanaged wolves and don't care about other wildlife. :twocents:
Post by: CAMPMEAT on April 24, 2014, 01:37:46 PM
Post by: bearpaw on April 24, 2014, 01:48:01 PM
Yea, thats it...I'm hiding behind the vast majority of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Washington, and Oregon where wolves are not having significant population impacts :chuckle: :chuckle: You can't fit wolf predation into a black and white argument where its always at fault. The bottom line is elk populations are doing relatively well, wolf numbers have stabilized/declined in many areas of ID/MT/WT. In areas where wolf predation is limiting, elk habitat is relatively poor...very few exceptions to this IMO. Those are just facts whether you want to admit them or not. We get a million acre fire in the lolo and I don't care if IDFG does any more wolf removals or not...elk numbers will increase substantially in the following decades.Only in areas where habitat is poor have I seen strong evidence of additive mortality (e.g., Lolo). Majority of Idaho is at or above elk population objectives and many areas are well over objectives and have only increased since 1995 which would likely mean wolf predation in those areas is compensatory. This is also why Idaho is trying so hard to get at the habitat factor in the Lolo...it will be a more effective and longer term solution to rebuilding elk numbers than targeted removal of wolves :twocents:
There is data available that says wolf predation is compensatory and data that says additive. Wolves have proven themselves to be mostly additive especially when wolf numbers are high or you wouldn't see the elk, deer, and moose herds dip so dramatically in heavy wolf impacted areas.
:rolleyes: The only thing you can do is hide behind the areas that have not experienced wolf impacts. If you address the units in Idaho where wolves have decimated herds your whole philosophy is destroyed. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Your ridiculous arguments are really outdated. Luckily Idaho is handling the problem, they are removing wolves from impacted areas and they are removing wolves from areas which haven't declined in an effort to prevent another Lolo, YNP, Bitterroot, Selway, Payette, or similar elk decline. Three cheers for Idaho they are taking the lead in wolf management and saving their other wildlife while at the same time maintaining a viable population of wolves.
All I want is reasonable wolf management! Too bad the wolf lovers want unmanaged wolves and don't care about other wildlife. :twocents:
Elk and other wildlife are beginning to recover in some areas and are being saved from decline in other areas because half the wolves have been eliminated. Not too hard to figure that out, you just can't admit that, wolves eat ungulates. Studies prove it all.
Post by: idahohuntr on April 24, 2014, 02:13:37 PM
And "Beginning" to recover? Many of these areas never had elk declines to begin with...lots of areas are well over objectives...but glad you are willing to take credit for stable elk populations being the result of killing wolves that never affected their populations to begin with...thats the making of a great politician right there :rolleyes:
And please point out where I have ever suggested wolves don't eat ungulates... :chuckle: :chuckle: Wolves do eat elk, and in some cases wolf predation reduces elk abundance and without control measures and other management activities elk will be suppressed in those areas. Sorry my actual views don't fit the box you like to paint me into to fit your simplistic view of the world. :tup:
Post by: RG on April 24, 2014, 03:10:46 PM
It didnt wipe out the elk and cattle ranchers but it had a significant impact. Outfitter clients suddenly went to Colorado and places without wolves. The issue that really set the tone was that all this happened because bureaucrats from somewhere else were able to slide it through the system and do this to the states and to the people who live in the states with no regard for whatever impact it might have on those people. Now they continue to lie and manipulate and threaten those people by offering big rewards when a wolf dies. All the while they sit in their city or Jackson Hole or Ketchum or some place insulated from real life in the real world where their wolves live. I don't ever remember hearing a reward offered when an endangered butterfly got stepped on.
If they are so interested in "making the world a better place" they should join neighborhood watch or the school board in their own neighborhood.
Post by: idahohuntr on April 24, 2014, 03:51:47 PM
Post by: RG on April 24, 2014, 04:24:19 PM
I also agree that we need to convince an uninformed and uninterested general public that we are right in wanting sensible management and state level control of wolves. The discouraging thing us that our state decision makers appear to be influenced by the very groups who are pushing the wolf agenda. The fact that Idaho, and it's leadership has taken the steps they have taken is a signal that they have a pair and the backbone to say we will control our own destiny and won't allow ourselves to be bullied by these groups who are having their way with states elsewhere. Whether one elk population is saved or not isn't the root issue. When special interests find a way to control the lives if people in the states it becomes a hot button issue.
I hope our state delisted wolves and puts a sensible management plan in place but, as long as it appears they are following a political rather than scientific agenda there won't be a lot of trust placed in the decision makers by the people who are affected by their decisions.
Post by: idahohuntr on April 24, 2014, 05:16:21 PM
My point to you was you made it sound like you were saying a few cows here and there is no big deal to a rancher and its OK that the wolves were just thrown in there, no big deal. My point was, if that's your opinion then you're out of touch with reality.Its not that it may not be a big deal to the individual rancher, but for those that graze on public land in wolf country it needs to be included as a cost of business and at minimum hunters should not be burdened with private losses on public ground because of public wildlife. I am not anti-grazing or anti-ranching. I occasionally have cattle on my private land...but I absolutely do not think hunter funds should be used to subsidize ranchers in such a situation. I can understand how a cattle rancher would view wolves being thrust upon him as a new cost that is subtracting solely from his pocket book and is unfair...but again, I am more concerned about who's dipping into hunters pocketbooks to subsidize ranchers than I am about a ranchers bottom line.
The other point is wolves are still big business to the groups who have always promoted them. These groups and these people live very well off of the donations they receive from their followers. They have no interest in the rights of the states or how the lives of people are affected.These are excellent points and they could be applied to groups that hate wolves as well as the groups that promote them. SFW, BGF...no difference in my mind than DOW or EarthJustice....parasites exploiting a contentious issue.
I hope our state delists wolves and puts a sensible management plan in place but, as long as it appears they are following a political rather than scientific agenda there won't be a lot of trust placed in the decision makers by the people who are affected by their decisions.I agree here too, but I also recognize how WDFW is between a rock and hard spot...political realities and biological/science based management just don't align well for wolf management in Washington. My perception is WDFW is actually trying hard to walk this tight rope of being politically sensitive but also watching out for deer/elk herds and hunters. They have a thankless job...I remember at a meeting with WDFW folks one of the admin staff hinted about keeping coyote derbies a little more quiet...some groups didn't heed the advice because "its perfectly legal and we won't bow to the enviro groups"...well, these derbies made the press and now its almost certain to be a bill in the next legislature banning them...hopefully it doesn't actually pass/happen...but if it does I think its just another example of how the game has to be played. Its not good enough to say what is biologically relevant and makes sense...you have to play to the urban crowd. We should all be describing hunting as an organic locovore movement to connect with nature and combat major corporate takeover and control of food supply :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: Have those seattleites eating out of the palm of our hands :chuckle:
Post by: RG on April 24, 2014, 06:48:52 PM
This is pretty much a dead horse that's been beat to pieces. I do agree that sportsmen need to use finesse if the public in general us going to side with us.
Post by: JLS on April 24, 2014, 10:15:52 PM
Even though I was told directly by their employee/biologist that if that passed it would be one of the biggest disasters to hit predator management in Washington, they stood by completely silent while the animal rights groups showered advertisements in rhe voters. It would seem that a couple ads in which that bio was able to explain the issue and the importance of hunting for management would make a difference in allowing science to prevail over politics.
State agencies are not allowed to express opinions and/or try to influence votes on Citizen's Initiatives.
Post by: RG on April 24, 2014, 10:34:52 PM
Post by: RifleRidge on April 24, 2014, 10:35:34 PM
This was the deciding factor for not purchasing my spring bear permit. I am not giving any extra money to WDFW and I am on the fence right now if I am just going to hunt out of state and put the 400 bucks I normally spend here into a out of state hunt.
:tup: