Post by: bearpaw on May 18, 2014, 11:00:22 PM
One resident has seen three wolves together (one black) on their farm in this area and reported it but were told by WDFW that they saw coyotes. Please keep in mind this ranching family are lifelong county residents and have seen coyotes their entire lives on a regular basis.
Last week another neighboring small rancher (who has heard wolves on occasion for the last year) had livestock that was acting funny all night and the house cat kept trying to get in the house, in the morning they saw a wolf in the back yard. This resident has lived in Idaho and had horses attacked by wolves in central Idaho, they know what wolves look and sound like and know they will come into your residence when they are hungry. They called WDFW and an agent came and told them it was a coyote even though they did not see the animal being reported nor could they find the tracks, or so they said. That agent did set up a trail cam in the back yard.
There is a piece of state land right behind both of these ranches, oddly enough two days after the last wolf sighting I sent two hunters over to check their shotgun on a target at the state land, this happened to be right behind both ranches that have seen the wolves. Oddly enough the same warden and his sergeant happened to be there and checked the hunters out. If this was only coyote sightings why were they both right behind both of these ranches?
That's right, they know they are wolves, but they are going to keep telling local people we are seeing coyotes! This is exactly what makes everyone so darn mad about this wolf issue. If WDFW would at least be honest and understanding, tell the people they will try to monitor the situation and will do what they can to prevent problems. Instead people get these phony lies! I know this is exactly what people are being told because I tried to report a wolf attack on German Shepherd dogs and the WDFW called me back and told me it was 5 coyotes trying to attack the German Shepherds. :bash:
Two days ago at a rural residence only about 1 mile away from the other ranchers the lady looks out her window and watches a wolf snatch one of her chickens and trot away. She told my wife about it at the rodeo yesterday. My wife asked her if she was sure it was a wolf and not a coyote YES, then she asked if the lady reported it, NOPE! My wife tried to convince her that she needed to report it or we will never get wolves delisted. But we doubt it gets reported.
Faith is so low in WDFW that many people have quit reporting most wildlife incidents. Mostly I am hearing that people are just going to take of things themselves because WDFW is a waste of time. In fact the one rancher told WDFW that if the wolf comes back to their yard it's getting shot. Maybe that's why WDFW is spending time right there in that area.
People have no faith in the WDFW reaction anymore! I hope it's better in other areas of Washington! :bash:
Rant Over....
Post by: idahohuntr on May 18, 2014, 11:19:01 PM
Post by: huntnnw on May 18, 2014, 11:27:18 PM
Post by: bearpaw on May 18, 2014, 11:28:42 PM
What is the motivation for WDFW to tell people lies about seeing wolves? And please don't give me some wolfbait contrived conspiracy here...Seriously, what do they have to gain? I am not saying a few good ranchers are not seeing wolves, but all of my interaction with wdfw staff has been them saying that wolves can be absolutely anywhere and everywhere in WA and the population is growing. The wolf bios also preach about getting any wolf sightings or activity into them that you can, especially if it includes pictures of the animal or tracks etc. so they can focus their trapping efforts. This seems inconsistent with what you are posting :dunno:
You seem to act like you represent WDFW wolf division! I'm just presenting the information, you tell me?
Post by: bearpaw on May 18, 2014, 11:33:13 PM
This same crap has been happening south of spokane for years! people seeing wolves and WDFW telling them its coyotes.
People in the methow say the same thing, this is what makes everyone even more fed up with wolves.
Post by: Wilderness Addict on May 18, 2014, 11:40:42 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on May 18, 2014, 11:42:20 PM
Go find a thread on here about game wardens or point systems and then report back to me about how good I am at sticking up for WDFW :chuckle:What is the motivation for WDFW to tell people lies about seeing wolves? And please don't give me some wolfbait contrived conspiracy here...Seriously, what do they have to gain? I am not saying a few good ranchers are not seeing wolves, but all of my interaction with wdfw staff has been them saying that wolves can be absolutely anywhere and everywhere in WA and the population is growing. The wolf bios also preach about getting any wolf sightings or activity into them that you can, especially if it includes pictures of the animal or tracks etc. so they can focus their trapping efforts. This seems inconsistent with what you are posting :dunno:
You seem to act like you represent WDFW wolf division! I'm just presenting the information, you tell me?
Seriously though, every GMAC meeting I've been to we discuss wolves and every darn time there is nothing but discussion about how wolves are absolutely everywhere, they have a tough time collaring them, and please send information about wolf location/information to help our trappers. They freely admit that they only have absolute minimum counts on wolves, that confirmed packs are also minimum numbers etc. It just does not fit the description you've provided and I can't think of good motivation for anyone to be lying really...Ranchers are not going to waste time making up stories about wolves and wdfw would love to confirm more wolves/packs to meet de-listing criteria. :dunno:
Post by: bobcat on May 18, 2014, 11:52:21 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: KFhunter on May 19, 2014, 12:07:05 AM
What is the motivation for WDFW to tell people lies about seeing wolves? And please don't give me some wolfbait contrived conspiracy here...Seriously, what do they have to gain? I am not saying a few good ranchers are not seeing wolves, but all of my interaction with wdfw staff has been them saying that wolves can be absolutely anywhere and everywhere in WA and the population is growing. The wolf bios also preach about getting any wolf sightings or activity into them that you can, especially if it includes pictures of the animal or tracks etc. so they can focus their trapping efforts. This seems inconsistent with what you are posting :dunno:
You seem to act like you represent WDFW wolf division! I'm just presenting the information, you tell me?
Gotta be an internal policy, part of the tolerance portion of the wolf plan *or* just the bigwigs in Olympia saying that all non-verified sightings are coyotes/domestics/hybrids until proven otherwise.
Were these the local wardens Bearpaw? disappointed if the local guys are doing this.."Olympia say's is a coyote, so I have to tell you you'r seeing Coyotes..but....."
Post by: idahohuntr on May 19, 2014, 12:22:33 AM
Post by: bearpaw on May 19, 2014, 12:26:07 AM
Go find a thread on here about game wardens or point systems and then report back to me about how good I am at sticking up for WDFW :chuckle:What is the motivation for WDFW to tell people lies about seeing wolves? And please don't give me some wolfbait contrived conspiracy here...Seriously, what do they have to gain? I am not saying a few good ranchers are not seeing wolves, but all of my interaction with wdfw staff has been them saying that wolves can be absolutely anywhere and everywhere in WA and the population is growing. The wolf bios also preach about getting any wolf sightings or activity into them that you can, especially if it includes pictures of the animal or tracks etc. so they can focus their trapping efforts. This seems inconsistent with what you are posting :dunno:
You seem to act like you represent WDFW wolf division! I'm just presenting the information, you tell me?
Seriously though, every GMAC meeting I've been to we discuss wolves and every darn time there is nothing but discussion about how wolves are absolutely everywhere, they have a tough time collaring them, and please send information about wolf location/information to help our trappers. They freely admit that they only have absolute minimum counts on wolves, that confirmed packs are also minimum numbers etc. It just does not fit the description you've provided and I can't think of good motivation for anyone to be lying really...Ranchers are not going to waste time making up stories about wolves and wdfw would love to confirm more wolves/packs to meet de-listing criteria. :dunno:
Here is a fact, please feel free to review the job description WDFW had posted for their wolf trappers:
I have nothing against college grads, I have a daughter attending college. But if you will please remember that was the primary qualification for their new hire wolf trappers. Most any knowledgeable trapper (who can catch wolves) will probably tell you that they should have hired experienced trappers as the first priority qualification if they wanted to catch wolves. :twocents:
A couple years ago my neighbor who's kenneled german shepherd dogs were being attacked in his backyard had to fire shots to scare away 5 wolves that were attacking his dogs. I wanted to be sure this was reported, he told me OK to report it.
The region 1 manager Steve Pozzanghera called me from Spokane to tell me my neighbor did not see wolves attacking his german shepherds. Pozzanghera told me in a not so pleasant manner they were coyotes from his office desk in Spokane. That is how WDFW seems to handle wolf sightings and everyone knows it.
Maybe that will give you something new to bring up at your next GMAC meeting. I know from experience exactly why people are saying what they do about how WDFW reacts to wolf reports! We have coyotes all over Stevens County, these ranchers see coyotes every week of their life. It's one thing if WDFW said they can't find proof that a sighting was wolf, but it's quite a different story when they insist you saw a coyote when you know it was a wolf and they won't even consider your report a wolf report. :twocents:
What is the motivation for WDFW to tell people lies about seeing wolves? And please don't give me some wolfbait contrived conspiracy here...Seriously, what do they have to gain? I am not saying a few good ranchers are not seeing wolves, but all of my interaction with wdfw staff has been them saying that wolves can be absolutely anywhere and everywhere in WA and the population is growing. The wolf bios also preach about getting any wolf sightings or activity into them that you can, especially if it includes pictures of the animal or tracks etc. so they can focus their trapping efforts. This seems inconsistent with what you are posting :dunno:
You seem to act like you represent WDFW wolf division! I'm just presenting the information, you tell me?
Gotta be an internal policy, part of the tolerance portion of the wolf plan *or* just the bigwigs in Olympia saying that all non-verified sightings are coyotes/domestics/hybrids until proven otherwise.
Were these the local wardens Bearpaw? disappointed if the local guys are doing this.."Olympia say's is a coyote, so I have to tell you you'r seeing Coyotes..but....."
Yes, local warden, you must know him. Yes, the ranchers feel that they are getting the runaround. Yes, the one guy told the warden if the wolf comes back in his yard he is shooting it. I imagine if the wolf comes back and he shoots the "big coyote" that it will be pretty hard to prosecute after the warden said it was a coyote.
Post by: bearpaw on May 19, 2014, 12:29:49 AM
Post by: KFhunter on May 19, 2014, 12:39:36 AM
Painfully obvious NE/WA is a forgone conclusion and the wolf huggers here admit that freely. WDFW isn't going to lift a finger to do anything and quite the opposite they suppress wolf sightings and fail to document.
The only thing that'll bring about change is more pain, lot's more pain.
Post by: bearpaw on May 19, 2014, 01:16:12 AM
I'm at the give up point Dale, probably noticed I haven't been in the wolf section too much lately.
Painfully obvious NE/WA is a forgone conclusion and the wolf huggers here admit that freely. WDFW isn't going to lift a finger to do anything and quite the opposite they suppress wolf sightings and fail to document.
The only thing that'll bring about change is more pain, lot's more pain.
I've been busy hunting so have not been on the forum much in a month. I agree that NE may be in for a lot of hurt. WDFW told us directly at the Colville meeting they were not going to do anything even if game numbers dropped. I'm certain that was the wrong thing to tell people. :chuckle:
Every moose I have seen this spring I am glad to know survived the wolves another year. But I also noticed in the regs that the moose permit numbers are dropping in some wolf areas. There are some impacts and I'm sure WDFW knows it.
I'm afraid that many of these single wolves may be teaming up with a mate to form new packs. But on the other hand some packs do not seem to be surviving well in our human populated countryside. Maybe they don't like all the human activity here and that's why some are going back to Canada, maybe locals are putting more hurt on them than we imagine, I'm not sure why exactly, but I am hoping for whatever cause the number of packs don't multiply like they did in Idaho.
I suspect that wolves may end up being the bigger problem in western Washington before this is all finished. :twocents:
Post by: rasbo on May 19, 2014, 04:07:50 AM
Post by: wolfbait on May 19, 2014, 06:13:16 AM
I watched a program last night about the wallowa area in NE oregon,elk populations are dropping and the conclusion they seem to be arriving at is cougar and bears are killing calves at an alarming rate...Now toss in the wolves in that area which of course dont cause many problems :rolleyes:..and the were not mentioned I might add...cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:
"cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:"
Never, would be your correct answer, Rasbo. WDFW won't even admit they have a bear/cougar problem. Remember Oregon and WA came out with the first wolf pack in 70 years the very same day, Oregon's wolves showed up in the middle of cattle country and look at ODFG and the USFWS's record of confirming livestock kills,, and then look at WDFW. As pitiful as ODFG confirmed wolf kills are, WDFW is far worse.
Post by: AspenBud on May 19, 2014, 06:18:54 AM
But on the other hand some packs do not seem to be surviving well in our human populated countryside. Maybe they don't like all the human activity here and that's why some are going back to Canada, maybe locals are putting more hurt on them than we imagine, I'm not sure why exactly, but I am hoping for whatever cause the number of packs don't multiply like they did in Idaho.
I haven't heard that but it would be in line with everything I've read about the differences between North American wolves and their Eurasian counterparts. Russian wolves are supposed to be much more tolerant of human activity and up until recently, wolves have occurred in the middle of nowhere in the lower 48.
Post by: AspenBud on May 19, 2014, 06:21:01 AM
I watched a program last night about the wallowa area in NE oregon,elk populations are dropping and the conclusion they seem to be arriving at is cougar and bears are killing calves at an alarming rate...Now toss in the wolves in that area which of course dont cause many problems :rolleyes:..and the were not mentioned I might add...cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:
"cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:"
Never, would be your correct answer, Rasbo. WDFW won't even admit they have a bear/cougar problem. Remember Oregon and WA came out with the first wolf pack in 70 years the very same day, Oregon's wolves showed up in the middle of cattle country and look at ODFG and the USFWS's record of confirming livestock kills,, and then look at WDFW. As pitiful as ODFG confirmed wolf kills are, WDFW is far worse.
They can admit they have a problem with bear and cougars all they want, but the citizens of this state tied their hands. What part of the initiative process don't you understand?
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on May 19, 2014, 06:33:24 AM
Post by: wolfbait on May 19, 2014, 06:51:26 AM
I think it's simply a miscommunication problem. I very much doubt that the WDFW employees are telling people they are absolutely, 100% not seeing wolves. I think they question these people when they make a report. They most likely ask the people if it may have been a coyote and in talking to that person they probably try to get an idea if he or she knows the difference between a wolf and a coyote. The person then turns this around and says "the WDFW told me it was not a wolf that I saw!" When all they really did was question the validity of the report and try to determine if the witness is credible.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I suppose as long as it wasn't your cows etc. that you saw the wolf/wolves kill, then your " miscommunication problem" will work out just fine for you, Bobcat.
WDFW have made it part of their "management" plan, not to confirm wolves anywhere unless forced to do so, this has been going on in WA long before WDFW finally had to confirm the pack in the Methow Valley.
WDFW have good reasons for not acknowledging wolf problems. Wolf packs are confirmed when livestock is being killed by wolves or wolves are hanging out at a school bus stop such as the lookout pack was. With WDFW's refusal to acknowledge people's wolf problems, ranchers etc. take care of their own wolf problems and WDFW are not forced to confirm another wolf pack.
The USFWS, Ed Bangs:
"Ignore All But Known Breeding Pairs and Packs"
In his 1984 letter to Lobdell, Bangs listed the "key recovery issues that will be consistently presented to the public." Issue number 6 stated, "Only breeding pairs of wolves that have successfully raised young are important to the recovery of viable wolf populations. "At this time there is no such thing as a truly ‘confirmed’ wolf’ until it has been determined to have successfully raised young in the wild or has been captured, examined, and monitored with radio telemetry. (F)rom this dayforward we (will) use the strictest definition of confirmed wolf activity (i.e. individual wolves or members of packs that have been examined, radiocollared and monitored in the wild). "We should be comfortable with this definition in all phases of wolf recovery such as when discussing the criteria for use of an experimental rule or for delisting the species because the population viability criteria have been reached." (emphasis added)
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf)
Post by: Special T on May 19, 2014, 07:45:39 AM
Idahoehuntr you posed the question what could the WDFW's motivation be? With out :tinfoil:
By the states Definitions a wolf is not a wolf unless there is DNA evidence that confirms it. This has been stated many times by the WDFW when investigating "wolf activity" and they are waiting on DNA conformation to speak further. So as an employee or agent for the WDFW would it be hard to imagine that they have been instructed to not affirm wolf prints, scat, sightings, attacks etc until there is DNA evidence to back it up?
Special "Training" is required to determine if an attack on lives stock is a wolf attack or not, even if it is obvious..
Here is the main problem i Have with Giving the WDFW the "Benefit of the Doubt". These poor deflections are a uniform response. They have been given here in the Skagit, as well in several places on the east side and they are all nearly identical. Rather strange if it is merely "Miscommunication" and they are all alike.
Why would the WDFW respond this way? De-escalate conflict, reduce the number of "Wolf" investigations, keep it quiet... Again why would they want to do this? Lawsuits... They cost the Department LOTS of $ and do nothing beneficial for anyone.
Avoidance of lawsuits fall right in line with other WDFW in/actions in other areas regarding Tribes or Enviro groups. There is no conspiracy, it is just an attempt although a poor one, to protect itself from bleeding its funds dry via lawsuit.
Post by: bobcat on May 19, 2014, 07:52:43 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: h2ofowlr on May 19, 2014, 07:59:49 AM
Post by: bigtex on May 19, 2014, 08:08:31 AM
It's amazing how many people are 100% sure what they saw was a wolf, bear, cougar. Then they show you the picture of the "cougar" and it's fluffy the 10 lb garfield cat, or sparky the yellow lab. But by god they know it's a cougar! Don't believe me? Look at the cougar reports.
There's a link on the WDFW website that shows all the wolf reports, for some reason I have a hard time believing the wolf reports coming out of Tacoma or Seattle streets.
Are there reports that are being ignored? Probably, but find me an agency that doesn't ignore something. Is it getting to a point where 100% of the reports are ignored? No. Could WDFW do better? Yes
Sometimes people get more stuck on "the guy who's reporting it is a good guy" so it must be true! I've known hardcore hunters who reported a "cougar" and it was a fat yellow lab...
Post by: snowpack on May 19, 2014, 08:19:47 AM
Post by: Ccortez on May 19, 2014, 08:36:57 AM
Post by: AspenBud on May 19, 2014, 08:37:49 AM
In the absence of a body it's probably easier to say it was a coyote since there are arguably so many more and they kill a lot of the same animals, particularly chickens.
Post by: AspenBud on May 19, 2014, 08:38:19 AM
Eh just shoot one then call up wdfw and tell them you told me it was a coyote so I shot it :whoo:
That would actually be smart.
Post by: nwwanderer on May 19, 2014, 08:42:46 AM
Post by: Jingles on May 19, 2014, 08:47:23 AM
population reduced.....
Post by: AspenBud on May 19, 2014, 08:48:52 AM
So the solution is simple unless it is wearing a color it is a coyote, Coyotes huntable year round. Poor quality fur in the late spring, summer and early fall no need to drag out of the field.
population reduced.....
To be frank, if people would read between the lines that might actually be what they are being subtly told. If you see a problem that isn't going to change any time soon as a warden you can confirm it's a wolf and ultimately be able to do nothing or you can call it anything but that and hope the land owner is smart enough to figure out what you're trying to say.
Post by: KFhunter on May 19, 2014, 08:56:49 AM
So the solution is simple unless it is wearing a color it is a coyote, Coyotes huntable year round. Poor quality fur in the late spring, summer and early fall no need to drag out of the field.
population reduced.....
To be frank, if people would read between the lines that might actually be what they are being subtly told. If you see a problem that isn't going to change any time soon as a warden you can confirm it's a wolf and ultimately be able to do nothing or you can call it anything but that and hope the land owner is smart enough to figure out what you're trying to say.
I don't think so with all the publicity the Stevens CO wolf poaching case got.
Worth more money than a kidnapped child..
Post by: bearpaw on May 19, 2014, 09:01:16 AM
I watched a program last night about the wallowa area in NE oregon,elk populations are dropping and the conclusion they seem to be arriving at is cougar and bears are killing calves at an alarming rate...Now toss in the wolves in that area which of course dont cause many problems :rolleyes:..and the were not mentioned I might add...cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:
"cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:"
Never, would be your correct answer, Rasbo. WDFW won't even admit they have a bear/cougar problem. Remember Oregon and WA came out with the first wolf pack in 70 years the very same day, Oregon's wolves showed up in the middle of cattle country and look at ODFG and the USFWS's record of confirming livestock kills,, and then look at WDFW. As pitiful as ODFG confirmed wolf kills are, WDFW is far worse.
They can admit they have a problem with bear and cougars all they want, but the citizens of this state tied their hands. What part of the initiative process don't you understand?
Actually that's not very true at all. The voters only tied WDFW hands on hounds and baiting. The WDFW themselves have limited boot hunting of cougars to ridiculously low quota levels in most units that need twice as many cougar taken. WDFW has full control of bear seasons and could easily harvest more bear in every unit if they desired. The high numbers of bear and cougar are definitely the product of WDFW policy. :twocents:
I don't work in an area with wolves (at least not yet) so I am not an expert on the matter, but I will say this.
It's amazing how many people are 100% sure what they saw was a wolf, bear, cougar. Then they show you the picture of the "cougar" and it's fluffy the 10 lb garfield cat, or sparky the yellow lab. But by god they know it's a cougar! Don't believe me? Look at the cougar reports.
There's a link on the WDFW website that shows all the wolf reports, for some reason I have a hard time believing the wolf reports coming out of Tacoma or Seattle streets.
Are there reports that are being ignored? Probably, but find me an agency that doesn't ignore something. Is it getting to a point where 100% of the reports are ignored? No. Could WDFW do better? Yes
Sometimes people get more stuck on "the guy who's reporting it is a good guy" so it must be true! I've known hardcore hunters who reported a "cougar" and it was a fat yellow lab...
I agree people do imagine seeing some things at times, I know of specific instances of faulty reports. However, I can't understand telling people they saw something else and telling them they definitely did not see what they thought they saw unless you have proof that is what occurred. The way that WDFW is doing this makes all the residents madder and madder. I know I've been on the other end of the phone on one of these "it was coyotes" phony conversations.
In addition, these are mostly country people who see coyotes, field mousing cats, and bear on a regular basis, I doubt they are all wrong and why do they all live in the same neighborhood. One rancher lived in the middle of the wolves in Idaho and knows exactly what wolves look like. There are also more stories about wolves during the last couple years in areas close to this same neighborhood.
Eh just shoot one then call up wdfw and tell them you told me it was a coyote so I shot it :whoo:
That would actually be smart.
If it went to federal court in Spokane County hard to say what would happen, but I think it's a state issue in Stevens County due to the delisting of eastern WA. If it went to court in Stevens County we all know what the court results will likely be. Too many residents have been told "it's only coyotes" to get a conviction of wrong doing on that here in my opinion. :twocents:
Post by: AspenBud on May 19, 2014, 09:03:26 AM
So the solution is simple unless it is wearing a color it is a coyote, Coyotes huntable year round. Poor quality fur in the late spring, summer and early fall no need to drag out of the field.
population reduced.....
To be frank, if people would read between the lines that might actually be what they are being subtly told. If you see a problem that isn't going to change any time soon as a warden you can confirm it's a wolf and ultimately be able to do nothing or you can call it anything but that and hope the land owner is smart enough to figure out what you're trying to say.
I don't think so with all the publicity the Stevens CO wolf poaching case got.
Worth more money than a kidnapped child..
There's a difference between what happens on public land and private land. A poached wolf on public land, that's the public's problem and it will become news.
But on private land you can't directly come out and say "shoot the thing" as a warden. But you can suggest it isn't a wolf...in other words "shoot it and don't call me about it."
Maybe I'm giving too much benefit of the doubt, but still...
This ain't rocket science folks.
Post by: AspenBud on May 19, 2014, 09:08:00 AM
I watched a program last night about the wallowa area in NE oregon,elk populations are dropping and the conclusion they seem to be arriving at is cougar and bears are killing calves at an alarming rate...Now toss in the wolves in that area which of course dont cause many problems :rolleyes:..and the were not mentioned I might add...cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:
"cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:"
Never, would be your correct answer, Rasbo. WDFW won't even admit they have a bear/cougar problem. Remember Oregon and WA came out with the first wolf pack in 70 years the very same day, Oregon's wolves showed up in the middle of cattle country and look at ODFG and the USFWS's record of confirming livestock kills,, and then look at WDFW. As pitiful as ODFG confirmed wolf kills are, WDFW is far worse.
They can admit they have a problem with bear and cougars all they want, but the citizens of this state tied their hands. What part of the initiative process don't you understand?
Actually that's not very true at all. The voters only tied WDFW hands on hounds and baiting. The WDFW themselves have limited boot hunting of cougars to ridiculously low quota levels in most units that need twice as many cougar taken. WDFW has full control of bear seasons and could easily harvest more bear in every unit if they desired. The high numbers of bear and cougar are definitely the product of WDFW policy. :twocents:
You and I both know the best way to reduce bear and cougar numbers is with hounds. Even with increased harvests hunters are at a disadvantage in this state.
Post by: buckfvr on May 19, 2014, 09:15:43 AM
There is a piece of state land right behind both of these ranches, oddly enough two days after the last wolf sighting I sent two hunters over to check their shotgun on a target at the state land, this happened to be right behind both ranches that have seen the wolves. Oddly enough the same warden and his sergeant happened to be there and checked the hunters out. If this was only coyote sightings why were they both right behind both of these ranches?
That's right, they know they are wolves, but they are going to keep telling local people we are seeing coyotes! This is exactly what makes everyone so darn mad about this wolf issue. If WDFW would at least be honest and understanding, tell the people they will try to monitor the situation and will do what they can to prevent problems. Instead people get these phony lies! I know this is exactly what people are being told because I tried to report a wolf attack on German Shepherd dogs and the WDFW called me back and told me it was 5 coyotes trying to attack the German Shepherds. :bash:
Two days ago at a rural residence only about 1 mile away from the other ranchers the lady looks out her window and watches a wolf snatch one of her chickens and trot away. She told my wife about it at the rodeo yesterday. My wife asked her if she was sure it was a wolf and not a coyote YES, then she asked if the lady reported it, NOPE! My wife tried to convince her that she needed to report it or we will never get wolves delisted. But we doubt it gets reported.
Faith is so low in WDFW that many people have quit reporting most wildlife incidents. Mostly I am hearing that people are just going to take of things themselves because WDFW is a waste of time. In fact the one rancher told WDFW that if the wolf comes back to their yard it's getting shot. Maybe that's why WDFW is spending time right there in that area.
People have no faith in the WDFW reaction anymore! I hope it's better in other areas of Washington! :bash:
Rant Over....
WDFW is still looking for a "poster child" to destroy as a psychological deterrent for perceived future shooters.
The fact that local wardens go along with all the bs involved is disheartening to many residents of Stevens county.....they have sold out the public and are viewed in a very negative aspect by many. They no longer stand for right and wrong in many peoples minds, rather they stand for messengers lacking their own set of personal ethics regarding wolves.
This is not a personal rant, but a common opinion shared by way too many good folks. I feel sorry for the wardens who have abandoned the interests of the public and let their image slip so low as to be disrespected, all for the wolf.
Post by: KFhunter on May 19, 2014, 09:18:44 AM
Like I said I was very disappointed to hear the local wardens doing this
Post by: grundy53 on May 19, 2014, 09:18:55 AM
That's just lip service. One of the only things our game department is good at....Go find a thread on here about game wardens or point systems and then report back to me about how good I am at sticking up for WDFW :chuckle:What is the motivation for WDFW to tell people lies about seeing wolves? And please don't give me some wolfbait contrived conspiracy here...Seriously, what do they have to gain? I am not saying a few good ranchers are not seeing wolves, but all of my interaction with wdfw staff has been them saying that wolves can be absolutely anywhere and everywhere in WA and the population is growing. The wolf bios also preach about getting any wolf sightings or activity into them that you can, especially if it includes pictures of the animal or tracks etc. so they can focus their trapping efforts. This seems inconsistent with what you are posting :dunno:
You seem to act like you represent WDFW wolf division! I'm just presenting the information, you tell me?
Seriously though, every GMAC meeting I've been to we discuss wolves and every darn time there is nothing but discussion about how wolves are absolutely everywhere, they have a tough time collaring them, and please send information about wolf location/information to help our trappers. They freely admit that they only have absolute minimum counts on wolves, that confirmed packs are also minimum numbers etc. It just does not fit the description you've provided and I can't think of good motivation for anyone to be lying really...Ranchers are not going to waste time making up stories about wolves and wdfw would love to confirm more wolves/packs to meet de-listing criteria. :dunno:
sent from my typewriter
Post by: lokidog on May 19, 2014, 09:35:49 AM
I watched a program last night about the wallowa area in NE oregon,elk populations are dropping and the conclusion they seem to be arriving at is cougar and bears are killing calves at an alarming rate...Now toss in the wolves in that area which of course dont cause many problems :rolleyes:..and the were not mentioned I might add...cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:
"cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:"
Never, would be your correct answer, Rasbo. WDFW won't even admit they have a bear/cougar problem. Remember Oregon and WA came out with the first wolf pack in 70 years the very same day, Oregon's wolves showed up in the middle of cattle country and look at ODFG and the USFWS's record of confirming livestock kills,, and then look at WDFW. As pitiful as ODFG confirmed wolf kills are, WDFW is far worse.
They can admit they have a problem with bear and cougars all they want, but the citizens of this state tied their hands. What part of the initiative process don't you understand?
Actually that's not very true at all. The voters only tied WDFW hands on hounds and baiting. The WDFW themselves have limited boot hunting of cougars to ridiculously low quota levels in most units that need twice as many cougar taken. WDFW has full control of bear seasons and could easily harvest more bear in every unit if they desired. The high numbers of bear and cougar are definitely the product of WDFW policy. :twocents:
You and I both know the best way to reduce bear and cougar numbers is with hounds. Even with increased harvests hunters are at a disadvantage in this state.
The legislature can reverse this initiative to my understanding, heck they ignore other ones whenever they feel like it doesn't meet their agenda or needs (ie. state voter passed raise for teachers that still has not shown up after many years).
If I lived over there, I'd be shooting all the "coyotes" I could to help my animals and my neighbors. :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on May 19, 2014, 09:45:24 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: headshot5 on May 19, 2014, 09:49:51 AM
Quote
To be frank, if people would read between the lines that might actually be what they are being subtly told. If you see a problem that isn't going to change any time soon as a warden you can confirm it's a wolf and ultimately be able to do nothing or you can call it anything but that and hope the land owner is smart enough to figure out what you're trying to say.
Quote
But on private land you can't directly come out and say "shoot the thing" as a warden. But you can suggest it isn't a wolf...in other words "shoot it and don't call me about it."
I smell a rat. Here is Aspen telling us to go ahead. The WDFW told you it was a coyote, do what feels right. Yet the WDFW is hanging around the places where they tell people that they have "coyote" problems. I think the anti's (they know who they are) are wanting above all else for someone to get caught so they can make an example out of them. Hence the 20,000 + dollar reward for the last wolf. I'm betting the next person caught killing a wolf (without proof of damages caused by said wolf) is going to be a pretty big target. I'm betting the anti's will swarm. :twocents:
Post by: wolfbait on May 19, 2014, 09:50:26 AM
I don't work in an area with wolves (at least not yet) so I am not an expert on the matter, but I will say this.
It's amazing how many people are 100% sure what they saw was a wolf, bear, cougar. Then they show you the picture of the "cougar" and it's fluffy the 10 lb garfield cat, or sparky the yellow lab. But by god they know it's a cougar! Don't believe me? Look at the cougar reports.
There's a link on the WDFW website that shows all the wolf reports, for some reason I have a hard time believing the wolf reports coming out of Tacoma or Seattle streets.
Are there reports that are being ignored? Probably, but find me an agency that doesn't ignore something. Is it getting to a point where 100% of the reports are ignored? No. Could WDFW do better? Yes
Sometimes people get more stuck on "the guy who's reporting it is a good guy" so it must be true! I've known hardcore hunters who reported a "cougar" and it was a fat yellow lab...
How many times did WDFW lie to the McIrvin's of the Diamond M ranch in Stevens County? How many times has WDFW lied about livestock etc. attacked or killed in other areas of WA? I can name several.
Ranchers, generally know what is killing their stock, they have been at the business of protecting their stock for quite a while, and yet WDFW lie to them, even when the evidence clearly points to wolves.
So if WDFW will lie to ranchers, would it be hard to believe that WDFW would ignore wolf reports from the public, or say they probably saw a cougar, a coyote, the neighbors dog, anything but a wolf? Remember John Stevie's dog, first thing that popped out of WDFW's mouth was, are you sure it wasn't a cougar?
There are probably a few people who might mistake a coyote for a wolf, but not too many when comparing the size. Take the wolf that attacked John's dog. Some folks saw a wolf that looked just like the one that jumped on John's dog, they said they thought it was huge coyote, but it acted strange, when the guy whistled the wolf stopped and then started pacing back and fourth. This was just outside of their yard.
"Are there reports that are being ignored? Probably, but find me an agency that doesn't ignore something. Is it getting to a point where 100% of the reports are ignored? No. Could WDFW do better? Yes"
What happened to Honesty? WDF&Wolves has not equaled honesty. All though we do now have a new wolf specialists who told WDFW's biologist there would be no more lying to the public about wolf attacks. WDFW still came out in the papers that the wolves were only trying to get the little dog to submit. ;) Yep I think WDFW could do a lot better.
Post by: buckfvr on May 19, 2014, 10:10:45 AM
WHat else are they being dishonest about ????????? Nothing ?????? Ya , right.
Post by: bearpaw on May 19, 2014, 10:14:47 AM
I watched a program last night about the wallowa area in NE oregon,elk populations are dropping and the conclusion they seem to be arriving at is cougar and bears are killing calves at an alarming rate...Now toss in the wolves in that area which of course dont cause many problems :rolleyes:..and the were not mentioned I might add...cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:
"cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:"
Never, would be your correct answer, Rasbo. WDFW won't even admit they have a bear/cougar problem. Remember Oregon and WA came out with the first wolf pack in 70 years the very same day, Oregon's wolves showed up in the middle of cattle country and look at ODFG and the USFWS's record of confirming livestock kills,, and then look at WDFW. As pitiful as ODFG confirmed wolf kills are, WDFW is far worse.
They can admit they have a problem with bear and cougars all they want, but the citizens of this state tied their hands. What part of the initiative process don't you understand?
Actually that's not very true at all. The voters only tied WDFW hands on hounds and baiting. The WDFW themselves have limited boot hunting of cougars to ridiculously low quota levels in most units that need twice as many cougar taken. WDFW has full control of bear seasons and could easily harvest more bear in every unit if they desired. The high numbers of bear and cougar are definitely the product of WDFW policy. :twocents:
You and I both know the best way to reduce bear and cougar numbers is with hounds. Even with increased harvests hunters are at a disadvantage in this state.
Again not correct. WDFW purposefully limited boot hunting of cougar because they said too many cougars were being taken. They also have limited bear seasons in areas where they wanted more bear.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 19, 2014, 10:15:37 AM
I am with you on the hiring qualifications issue...I don't think they are getting the right people for the job either and I raised this issue at a meeting...they reiterated that its just darn tough to trap wolves and they didn't feel like the staff were the problem :dunno: I asked if they could get that fella IDFG sent into the Frank that killed what 8 wolves in like a week! I have college degrees too and I completely agree they are overrated for most jobs...particularly wolf trapping :chuckle:
Here is a fact, please feel free to review the job description WDFW had posted for their wolf trappers:
I have nothing against college grads, I have a daughter attending college. But if you will please remember that was the primary qualification for their new hire wolf trappers. Most any knowledgeable trapper (who can catch wolves) will probably tell you that they should have hired experienced trappers as the first priority qualification if they wanted to catch wolves. :twocents:
A couple years ago my neighbor who's kenneled german shepherd dogs were being attacked in his backyard had to fire shots to scare away 5 wolves that were attacking his dogs. I wanted to be sure this was reported, he told me OK to report it.
The region 1 manager Steve Pozzanghera called me from Spokane to tell me my neighbor did not see wolves attacking his german shepherds. Pozzanghera told me in a not so pleasant manner they were coyotes from his office desk in Spokane. That is how WDFW seems to handle wolf sightings and everyone knows it.
Maybe that will give you something new to bring up at your next GMAC meeting. I know from experience exactly why people are saying what they do about how WDFW reacts to wolf reports! We have coyotes all over Stevens County, these ranchers see coyotes every week of their life. It's one thing if WDFW said they can't find proof that a sighting was wolf, but it's quite a different story when they insist you saw a coyote when you know it was a wolf and they won't even consider your report a wolf report. :twocents:
Still not sure what motive wdfw would have to say without any evidence (i.e., sitting at their desk) that someone didn't see a wolf. :dunno:
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on May 19, 2014, 10:24:38 AM
I'm at the give up point Dale, probably noticed I haven't been in the wolf section too much lately.
Painfully obvious NE/WA is a forgone conclusion and the wolf huggers here admit that freely. WDFW isn't going to lift a finger to do anything and quite the opposite they suppress wolf sightings and fail to document.
The only thing that'll bring about change is more pain, lot's more pain.
I've been busy hunting so have not been on the forum much in a month. I agree that NE may be in for a lot of hurt. WDFW told us directly at the Colville meeting they were not going to do anything even if game numbers dropped. I'm certain that was the wrong thing to tell people. :chuckle:
Every moose I have seen this spring I am glad to know survived the wolves another year. But I also noticed in the regs that the moose permit numbers are dropping in some wolf areas. There are some impacts and I'm sure WDFW knows it.
I'm afraid that many of these single wolves may be teaming up with a mate to form new packs. But on the other hand some packs do not seem to be surviving well in our human populated countryside. Maybe they don't like all the human activity here and that's why some are going back to Canada, maybe locals are putting more hurt on them than we imagine, I'm not sure why exactly, but I am hoping for whatever cause the number of packs don't multiply like they did in Idaho.
I suspect that wolves may end up being the bigger problem in western Washington before this is all finished. :twocents:
Yep!
When they arrive in the Skagit Valley and clean out what little game we have here all the farms here will need cyclone cemented in fences to keep them off our livestock.
Post by: mossy8352 on May 19, 2014, 10:33:52 AM
Post by: bearpaw on May 19, 2014, 10:46:40 AM
I am with you on the hiring qualifications issue...I don't think they are getting the right people for the job either and I raised this issue at a meeting...they reiterated that its just darn tough to trap wolves and they didn't feel like the staff were the problem :dunno: I asked if they could get that fella IDFG sent into the Frank that killed what 8 wolves in like a week! I have college degrees too and I completely agree they are overrated for most jobs...particularly wolf trapping :chuckle:
Here is a fact, please feel free to review the job description WDFW had posted for their wolf trappers:
I have nothing against college grads, I have a daughter attending college. But if you will please remember that was the primary qualification for their new hire wolf trappers. Most any knowledgeable trapper (who can catch wolves) will probably tell you that they should have hired experienced trappers as the first priority qualification if they wanted to catch wolves. :twocents:
A couple years ago my neighbor who's kenneled german shepherd dogs were being attacked in his backyard had to fire shots to scare away 5 wolves that were attacking his dogs. I wanted to be sure this was reported, he told me OK to report it.
The region 1 manager Steve Pozzanghera called me from Spokane to tell me my neighbor did not see wolves attacking his german shepherds. Pozzanghera told me in a not so pleasant manner they were coyotes from his office desk in Spokane. That is how WDFW seems to handle wolf sightings and everyone knows it.
Maybe that will give you something new to bring up at your next GMAC meeting. I know from experience exactly why people are saying what they do about how WDFW reacts to wolf reports! We have coyotes all over Stevens County, these ranchers see coyotes every week of their life. It's one thing if WDFW said they can't find proof that a sighting was wolf, but it's quite a different story when they insist you saw a coyote when you know it was a wolf and they won't even consider your report a wolf report. :twocents:
Still not sure what motive wdfw would have to say without any evidence (i.e., sitting at their desk) that someone didn't see a wolf. :dunno:
Yes, it's really tough if you've never trapped many, if any, wild canines! There is a learning curve to catch wild canines that experienced wolf or even coyote trappers would have already have been through. Currently, it seems hunters are paying wages to teach these "trappers" to be trappers since only 1 wolf has been trapped. Please understand this is nothing personal against anyone who got the job. It's just that this state needs some real trappers to get the job done.
As an outfitter operating in the private sector if I hired a hunting guide and he only produced 1 successful trip in a full season I would be forced to remedy that situation or quickly suffer a significant loss of business as a result of such epic failure. :twocents:
If the state really wants to prove there are wolves out there, open these trapping positions up to bid and require proven trapping experience as a requirement to register to bid. In a few weeks I bet we could come up with a 4 man crew who could catch wolves and then the people might appreciate WDFW efforts. :twocents:
Post by: jasnt on May 19, 2014, 10:51:41 AM
What is the motivation for WDFW to tell people lies about seeing wolves? And please don't give me some wolfbait contrived conspiracy here...Seriously, what do they have to gain? I am not saying a few good ranchers are not seeing wolves, but all of my interaction with wdfw staff has been them saying that wolves can be absolutely anywhere and everywhere in WA and the population is growing. The wolf bios also preach about getting any wolf sightings or activity into them that you can, especially if it includes pictures of the animal or tracks etc. so they can focus their trapping efforts. This seems inconsistent with what you are posting :dunno:
to avoid panic!
I say go with their coyote story and shoot every dam coyote that you see
Post by: bearpaw on May 19, 2014, 11:13:09 AM
I am with you on the hiring qualifications issue...I don't think they are getting the right people for the job either and I raised this issue at a meeting...they reiterated that its just darn tough to trap wolves and they didn't feel like the staff were the problem :dunno: I asked if they could get that fella IDFG sent into the Frank that killed what 8 wolves in like a week! I have college degrees too and I completely agree they are overrated for most jobs...particularly wolf trapping :chuckle:
Here is a fact, please feel free to review the job description WDFW had posted for their wolf trappers:
I have nothing against college grads, I have a daughter attending college. But if you will please remember that was the primary qualification for their new hire wolf trappers. Most any knowledgeable trapper (who can catch wolves) will probably tell you that they should have hired experienced trappers as the first priority qualification if they wanted to catch wolves. :twocents:
A couple years ago my neighbor who's kenneled german shepherd dogs were being attacked in his backyard had to fire shots to scare away 5 wolves that were attacking his dogs. I wanted to be sure this was reported, he told me OK to report it.
The region 1 manager Steve Pozzanghera called me from Spokane to tell me my neighbor did not see wolves attacking his german shepherds. Pozzanghera told me in a not so pleasant manner they were coyotes from his office desk in Spokane. That is how WDFW seems to handle wolf sightings and everyone knows it.
Maybe that will give you something new to bring up at your next GMAC meeting. I know from experience exactly why people are saying what they do about how WDFW reacts to wolf reports! We have coyotes all over Stevens County, these ranchers see coyotes every week of their life. It's one thing if WDFW said they can't find proof that a sighting was wolf, but it's quite a different story when they insist you saw a coyote when you know it was a wolf and they won't even consider your report a wolf report. :twocents:
Still not sure what motive wdfw would have to say without any evidence (i.e., sitting at their desk) that someone didn't see a wolf. :dunno:
Yes, it's really tough if you've never trapped many, if any, wild canines! There is a learning curve to catch wild canines that experienced wolf or even coyote trappers would have already have been through. Currently, it seems hunters are paying wages to teach these "trappers" to be trappers since only 1 wolf has been trapped. Please understand this is nothing personal against anyone who got the job. It's just that this state needs some real trappers to get the job done.
As an outfitter operating in the private sector if I hired a hunting guide and he only produced 1 successful trip in a full season I would be forced to remedy that situation or quickly suffer a significant loss of business as a result of such epic failure. :twocents:
If the state really wants to prove there are wolves out there, open these trapping positions up to bid and require proven trapping experience as a requirement to register to bid. In a few weeks I bet we could come up with a 4 man crew who could catch wolves and then the people might appreciate WDFW efforts. :twocents:
I should have said:
As an outfitter operating in the private sector if I hired 4 hunting guides and they collectively produced only 1 successful hunt in a full season I would be forced out of business by the reputation gained as a result of such epic failure. :twocents:
Post by: wolfbait on May 19, 2014, 11:35:09 AM
There is a piece of state land right behind both of these ranches, oddly enough two days after the last wolf sighting I sent two hunters over to check their shotgun on a target at the state land, this happened to be right behind both ranches that have seen the wolves. Oddly enough the same warden and his sergeant happened to be there and checked the hunters out. If this was only coyote sightings why were they both right behind both of these ranches?
That's right, they know they are wolves, but they are going to keep telling local people we are seeing coyotes! This is exactly what makes everyone so darn mad about this wolf issue. If WDFW would at least be honest and understanding, tell the people they will try to monitor the situation and will do what they can to prevent problems. Instead people get these phony lies! I know this is exactly what people are being told because I tried to report a wolf attack on German Shepherd dogs and the WDFW called me back and told me it was 5 coyotes trying to attack the German Shepherds. :bash:
Two days ago at a rural residence only about 1 mile away from the other ranchers the lady looks out her window and watches a wolf snatch one of her chickens and trot away. She told my wife about it at the rodeo yesterday. My wife asked her if she was sure it was a wolf and not a coyote YES, then she asked if the lady reported it, NOPE! My wife tried to convince her that she needed to report it or we will never get wolves delisted. But we doubt it gets reported.
Faith is so low in WDFW that many people have quit reporting most wildlife incidents. Mostly I am hearing that people are just going to take of things themselves because WDFW is a waste of time. In fact the one rancher told WDFW that if the wolf comes back to their yard it's getting shot. Maybe that's why WDFW is spending time right there in that area.
People have no faith in the WDFW reaction anymore! I hope it's better in other areas of Washington! :bash:
Rant Over....
WDFW is still looking for a "poster child" to destroy as a psychological deterrent for perceived future shooters.
The fact that local wardens go along with all the bs involved is disheartening to many residents of Stevens county.....they have sold out the public and are viewed in a very negative aspect by many. They no longer stand for right and wrong in many peoples minds, rather they stand for messengers lacking their own set of personal ethics regarding wolves.
This is not a personal rant, but a common opinion shared by way too many good folks. I feel sorry for the wardens who have abandoned the interests of the public and let their image slip so low as to be disrespected, all for the wolf.
"I feel sorry for the wardens who have abandoned the interests of the public and let their image slip so low as to be disrespected, all for the wolf."
It's either go along or go down the road, no more job. I know some are counting the days to retirement. They are seeing the very same impact as we are, and yet they can not say anything except what they are told to say.
Last spring when a local rancher lost a new calf to wolves, I helped the rancher cover the evidence, took pictures of a pile of wolf scat where the calf was killed. A new WDFW warden showed up and we had a little discussion about wolves and where they came from, I think he left with a few more ideas other then the BS he was told to say. WDFW confirmed the wolf kill as a coyote kill. Whats one more lie from WDFW?
Post by: wolfbait on May 19, 2014, 11:41:19 AM
So I gather from all of the above that WDFG wants each and everyone of us to carry a DNA kit (not yet invented) around and if we see a "WOLF/YOTE" we are to run up to it draw a sample and verify it is only a coyote and then bang bang. I remember when wardens on certain rivers on the West side would try and get people to take a fish they had in hand and then write them a ticket. The trust in any government agency has dropped to a new low and until things change it will stay that way. The veterans poor health treatment was first reported in"2008" and as with WDFG we are all wrong and can not tell the difference in a wolf and a yote -ridiculous!
I wonder how hard it is to crease a wolf/wolves? Would it leave a little scar or a big one?
Post by: idahohuntr on May 19, 2014, 11:46:07 AM
A new WDFW warden showed up and we had a little discussion about wolves and where they came from, I think he left with a few more ideas other then the BS he was told to say.
For all of you who report wolves and wonder why WDFW has a hard time taking many of them seriously...it is because of people like wolfbait that they have to listen to rant every darn day that are clueless and full of government conspiracies. So...if we can get the wolfbaits of the world to keep their crazy to themselves it can only help. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 19, 2014, 11:57:42 AM
Post by: buckfvr on May 19, 2014, 01:21:42 PM
Post by: KFhunter on May 19, 2014, 01:26:37 PM
A new WDFW warden showed up and we had a little discussion about wolves and where they came from, I think he left with a few more ideas other then the BS he was told to say.
For all of you who report wolves and wonder why WDFW has a hard time taking many of them seriously...it is because of people like wolfbait that they have to listen to rant every darn day that are clueless and full of government conspiracies. So...if we can get the wolfbaits of the world to keep their crazy to themselves it can only help. :twocents:
I'm sure the rants and anti-wolf ranchers pissed off about wolf eating their cattle are causing WDFW to not confirm wolf kills out of pure spite, got to be it.
Thanks for enlightening all of us.
I make sure to tell everyone when they got a wolf kill to be nicer to the WDFW employees, maybe offer them a glass of tea and tell them how thrilled they are wolves are back, maybe show them some receipts for donations to conservation northwest; maybe even offer some quality alone time with the ranchers wife - then perhaps they'll get an honest adjudication of depredation by wolf.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 19, 2014, 01:40:30 PM
Boy you just nailed exactly what I said. Good thing you are so smart. :rolleyes:A new WDFW warden showed up and we had a little discussion about wolves and where they came from, I think he left with a few more ideas other then the BS he was told to say.
For all of you who report wolves and wonder why WDFW has a hard time taking many of them seriously...it is because of people like wolfbait that they have to listen to rant every darn day that are clueless and full of government conspiracies. So...if we can get the wolfbaits of the world to keep their crazy to themselves it can only help. :twocents:
I'm sure the rants and anti-wolf ranchers pissed off about wolf eating their cattle are causing WDFW to not confirm wolf kills out of pure spite, got to be it.
Thanks for enlightening all of us.
I make sure to tell everyone when they got a wolf kill to be nicer to the WDFW employees, maybe offer them a glass of tea and tell them how thrilled they are wolves are back, maybe show them some receipts for donations to conservation northwest; maybe even offer some quality alone time with the ranchers wife - then perhaps they'll get an honest adjudication of depredation by wolf.
Its got nothing to do with being nice...its all about credibility. Go read the story of the boy who cried wolf. you might learn something.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 19, 2014, 01:48:06 PM
and if he is at one end of the spectrum, you truley are at the absolute other end of the spectrum.Oh absolutely! I actually hunt big game, I don't believe in secret government conspiracies about wolves, I think public land is a good thing, I think state based management of wildlife is a good thing, I support the North American Model of Wildlife Management and I think guys like Randy Newberg are model sportsmen compared to the cronies at outfits like big game forever and SFW. :tup:
Post by: KFhunter on May 19, 2014, 01:51:58 PM
Boy you just nailed exactly what I said. Good thing you are so smart. :rolleyes:A new WDFW warden showed up and we had a little discussion about wolves and where they came from, I think he left with a few more ideas other then the BS he was told to say.
For all of you who report wolves and wonder why WDFW has a hard time taking many of them seriously...it is because of people like wolfbait that they have to listen to rant every darn day that are clueless and full of government conspiracies. So...if we can get the wolfbaits of the world to keep their crazy to themselves it can only help. :twocents:
I'm sure the rants and anti-wolf ranchers pissed off about wolf eating their cattle are causing WDFW to not confirm wolf kills out of pure spite, got to be it.
Thanks for enlightening all of us.
I make sure to tell everyone when they got a wolf kill to be nicer to the WDFW employees, maybe offer them a glass of tea and tell them how thrilled they are wolves are back, maybe show them some receipts for donations to conservation northwest; maybe even offer some quality alone time with the ranchers wife - then perhaps they'll get an honest adjudication of depredation by wolf.
Its got nothing to do with being nice...its all about credibility. Go read the story of the boy who cried wolf. you might learn something.
I've yet to meet a truly dishonest rancher, I'm sure it happens but it's not the norm.
Let's discuss WDFW credibility. We can make a poll if you like?
WDFW serves hunters, so what better place to make a poll than on the largest hunting forum in WA?
Post by: KFhunter on May 19, 2014, 02:04:06 PM
and if he is at one end of the spectrum, you truley are at the absolute other end of the spectrum.Oh absolutely! I actually hunt big game, I don't believe in secret government conspiracies about wolves, I think public land is a good thing, I think state based management of wildlife is a good thing, I support the North American Model of Wildlife Management and I think guys like Randy Newberg are model sportsmen compared to the cronies at outfits like big game forever and SFW. :tup:
better hurry up and get your vote in, might make WDFW look good for a minute or two
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,153477.0/viewresults.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,153477.0/viewresults.html)
Post by: grundy53 on May 19, 2014, 02:04:40 PM
They used to serve hunters. But not anymore. We are about fifth in line.....Boy you just nailed exactly what I said. Good thing you are so smart. :rolleyes:A new WDFW warden showed up and we had a little discussion about wolves and where they came from, I think he left with a few more ideas other then the BS he was told to say.
For all of you who report wolves and wonder why WDFW has a hard time taking many of them seriously...it is because of people like wolfbait that they have to listen to rant every darn day that are clueless and full of government conspiracies. So...if we can get the wolfbaits of the world to keep their crazy to themselves it can only help. :twocents:
I'm sure the rants and anti-wolf ranchers pissed off about wolf eating their cattle are causing WDFW to not confirm wolf kills out of pure spite, got to be it.
Thanks for enlightening all of us.
I make sure to tell everyone when they got a wolf kill to be nicer to the WDFW employees, maybe offer them a glass of tea and tell them how thrilled they are wolves are back, maybe show them some receipts for donations to conservation northwest; maybe even offer some quality alone time with the ranchers wife - then perhaps they'll get an honest adjudication of depredation by wolf.
Its got nothing to do with being nice...its all about credibility. Go read the story of the boy who cried wolf. you might learn something.
I've yet to meet a truly dishonest rancher, I'm sure it happens but it's not the norm.
Let's discuss WDFW credibility. We can make a poll if you like?
WDFW serves hunters, so what better place to make a poll than on the largest hunting forum in WA?
sent from my typewriter
Post by: KFhunter on May 19, 2014, 02:05:20 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on May 19, 2014, 02:18:29 PM
I have no interest in making wdfw look good or bad. I call a spade a spade. The topic was about people reporting wolves and wondering why some experienced wdfw brushing them off. I believe it is a combination of poor communication and being barraged with tons of non-credible information...particularly non-credible information supplied by people who continually make outrageous and unsubstantiated claims about WDFW staff.and if he is at one end of the spectrum, you truley are at the absolute other end of the spectrum.Oh absolutely! I actually hunt big game, I don't believe in secret government conspiracies about wolves, I think public land is a good thing, I think state based management of wildlife is a good thing, I support the North American Model of Wildlife Management and I think guys like Randy Newberg are model sportsmen compared to the cronies at outfits like big game forever and SFW. :tup:
better hurry up and get your vote in, might make WDFW look good for a minute or two
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,153477.0/viewresults.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,153477.0/viewresults.html)
have fun with your little poll...I'm sure it will solve the problems raised in this topic. :tup:
Post by: jasnt on May 19, 2014, 02:19:41 PM
It may just be that wolfbait is over towards one end of the spectrum, however his account of events is closer to real than yours, Ida..........and if he is at one end of the spectrum, you truley are at the absolute other end of the spectrum.
I 2nd that
I was skeptical of alot of wolfbaits posts. But sofar he has been spot on! Seems that the closer your words are to truth the more people think your nuts.
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
Post by: KFhunter on May 19, 2014, 02:25:14 PM
Who will be vindicated? Wolfbait or Idahohunter?
OH another Poll idea!
Post by: Special T on May 19, 2014, 02:35:29 PM
Yep!
When they arrive in the Skagit Valley and clean out what little game we have here all the farms here will need cyclone cemented in fences to keep them off our livestock.
They are already here. I saw 4 2 miles outside of Sedro woolley and then moments later a coyote for comparison. 10 years ago. There was several pics posted on here of a pack of wolves on a gravel bar some where in the valley, I think it was posted by WABowhuntr a few years ago. I have been told by Loggers that they are seenN of the skagit to the nooksack on a semi regular basis.
BigTex is right that many people (in general) do not know what they are looking at, I would be inclined to agree with him. There is a few very large BUTs... This is in area with known wolf packs, by people that generally should have a better idea, AND the responces from the agents is too similar and too dismissive.
Why would a Agent want to give a paring slap to the face with those "I bet you saw a X" statements instead of just investigating it.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 19, 2014, 02:42:36 PM
fast forward 10-15 years.....Every time I think you can't possibly come up with a dumber post...
Who will be vindicated? Wolfbait or Idahohunter?
OH another Poll idea!
Post by: KFhunter on May 19, 2014, 02:44:47 PM
fast forward 10-15 years.....Every time I think you can't possibly come up with a dumber post...
Who will be vindicated? Wolfbait or Idahohunter?
OH another Poll idea!
looks like someone's worried :chuckle:
Post by: iusmc2002 on May 19, 2014, 03:19:54 PM
I've seen coyotes in that field prior to that. Since then, I haven't seen any more coyotes there, nor have I seen any of the Canadian geese that were frequently there. I've seen a couple ducks in the pond right on the other side of the road, but no living creatures in the pond on the west side of the road There were also cows in that field during last summer, and most of the winter. Haven't seen any cows there in a while. I don't think the wolf/wolves killed all the cattle, that's not what I'm saying. But now that I think about it, I wonder if the lack of cows is because of the wolves around there?
Post by: AspenBud on May 19, 2014, 03:20:57 PM
fast forward 10-15 years.....Every time I think you can't possibly come up with a dumber post...
Who will be vindicated? Wolfbait or Idahohunter?
OH another Poll idea!
looks like someone's worried :chuckle:
You're both kind of yelling into an echo chamber. It's almost always the same people who post here with the same opinions and comments.
If you want to gain traction you need to convince more than like minded people on H-W.
Post by: bearpaw on May 19, 2014, 03:59:33 PM
I saw a wolf standing next to a pond, right off Artman-Gibson Rd. We were on our way home during this last winter, about 1400-1430 and it was standing next to the water. I thought I was seeing *censored*, so I stopped and backed up. Both the wife and I looked at it, and it was definitely a wolf!
I've seen coyotes in that field prior to that. Since then, I haven't seen any more coyotes there, nor have I seen any of the Canadian geese that were frequently there. I've seen a couple ducks in the pond right on the other side of the road, but no living creatures in the pond on the west side of the road There were also cows in that field during last summer, and most of the winter. Haven't seen any cows there in a while. I don't think the wolf/wolves killed all the cattle, that's not what I'm saying. But now that I think about it, I wonder if the lack of cows is because of the wolves around there?
I know exactly where you are describing. That's only about a mile from the two ranches who have been seeing the wolves and a mile from the other place where the wolf grabbed the chicken.
What color was the wolf you saw?
Post by: iusmc2002 on May 19, 2014, 04:06:15 PM
I saw a wolf standing next to a pond, right off Artman-Gibson Rd. We were on our way home during this last winter, about 1400-1430 and it was standing next to the water. I thought I was seeing *censored*, so I stopped and backed up. Both the wife and I looked at it, and it was definitely a wolf!
I've seen coyotes in that field prior to that. Since then, I haven't seen any more coyotes there, nor have I seen any of the Canadian geese that were frequently there. I've seen a couple ducks in the pond right on the other side of the road, but no living creatures in the pond on the west side of the road There were also cows in that field during last summer, and most of the winter. Haven't seen any cows there in a while. I don't think the wolf/wolves killed all the cattle, that's not what I'm saying. But now that I think about it, I wonder if the lack of cows is because of the wolves around there?
I know exactly where you are describing. That's only about a mile from the two ranches who have been seeing the wolves and a mile from the other place where the wolf grabbed the chicken.
What color was the wolf you saw?
I thought you'd know it :tup:
It was black with some gray on it. If WDFW thinks the canines in that area are coyotes, those are some BIG coyotes!! The three coyotes we had in the yard with our dog a couple days ago were less than half the size of that big, black SOB
Post by: CAMPMEAT on May 19, 2014, 04:30:22 PM
A new WDFW warden showed up and we had a little discussion about wolves and where they came from, I think he left with a few more ideas other then the BS he was told to say.
For all of you who report wolves and wonder why WDFW has a hard time taking many of them seriously...it is because of people like wolfbait that they have to listen to rant every darn day that are clueless and full of government conspiracies. So...if we can get the wolfbaits of the world to keep their crazy to themselves it can only help. :twocents:
I know wolfbait personally and believe him more that your liberal rearend. Guys like you don't want to believe the truth for your own agenda........typical !
Post by: bigtex on May 19, 2014, 08:13:17 PM
If it went to federal court in Spokane County hard to say what would happen, but I think it's a state issue in Stevens County due to the delisting of eastern WA. If it went to court in Stevens County we all know what the court results will likely be. Too many residents have been told "it's only coyotes" to get a conviction of wrong doing on that here in my opinion. :twocents:Although wolves in Stevens County are no longer listed under the ESA a potential federal case could happen. If you shot a wolf on federal lands it could go to federal court, if you shot a wolf on non-federal lands but then transported it across federal lands (say shot it in your buddy's pasture and you have to get to USFS lands to get home) you could be charged under the Lacey Act in federal court, or of course if you transported the dead wolf across the state/international border.
Now as far as the court in Stevens County. Under state law if a county prosecutor fails to act then the WDFW Commission can request the Attorney General's Office essentially step in and prosecute the case. This is very rare, but you can imagine it wouldn't be that unfeasible for a case involving a state endangered species.
Post by: bigtex on May 19, 2014, 08:20:11 PM
I'm not attacking any one person. But unfortunately, idahohuntr has a point. The more people rant and rave every time and blah blah, you get written off as the crazy guy, and people stop listening to you. At times it can be very hard to be calm, but if you blow up and make yourself look like the pissed off guy, you will basically lose any type of reputation/respect from whatever agency you deal with.I know wolfbait personally and believe him more that your liberal rearend. Guys like you don't want to believe the truth for your own agenda........typical !A new WDFW warden showed up and we had a little discussion about wolves and where they came from, I think he left with a few more ideas other then the BS he was told to say.For all of you who report wolves and wonder why WDFW has a hard time taking many of them seriously...it is because of people like wolfbait that they have to listen to rant every darn day that are clueless and full of government conspiracies. So...if we can get the wolfbaits of the world to keep their crazy to themselves it can only help. :twocents:
You'd be hard pressed to find any government department (anything from the local sewer district to FBI) who knows when certain people call it's going to be a rant and rave and your going to hang up your phone and do nothing regarding what they were saying, every department has "those people."
Post by: bigmacc on May 19, 2014, 08:21:54 PM
fast forward 10-15 years.....Every time I think you can't possibly come up with a dumber post...
Who will be vindicated? Wolfbait or Idahohunter?
OH another Poll idea!
I think the same way about some of your posts idaho...but to my amasement you always come through :hello:
By the way KF-funny post :tup: :chuckle:
Post by: idahohuntr on May 19, 2014, 10:22:20 PM
I think folks also confuse politeness/professionalism on behalf of WDFW staff as some kind of acceptance when in reality they are just ignoring those who are ranting and raving as they see no point or value in telling people they are full of bs...let them rant and then move on to something useful to do for the day.I'm not attacking any one person. But unfortunately, idahohuntr has a point. The more people rant and rave every time and blah blah, you get written off as the crazy guy, and people stop listening to you. At times it can be very hard to be calm, but if you blow up and make yourself look like the pissed off guy, you will basically lose any type of reputation/respect from whatever agency you deal with.I know wolfbait personally and believe him more that your liberal rearend. Guys like you don't want to believe the truth for your own agenda........typical !A new WDFW warden showed up and we had a little discussion about wolves and where they came from, I think he left with a few more ideas other then the BS he was told to say.For all of you who report wolves and wonder why WDFW has a hard time taking many of them seriously...it is because of people like wolfbait that they have to listen to rant every darn day that are clueless and full of government conspiracies. So...if we can get the wolfbaits of the world to keep their crazy to themselves it can only help. :twocents:
You'd be hard pressed to find any government department (anything from the local sewer district to FBI) who knows when certain people call it's going to be a rant and rave and your going to hang up your phone and do nothing regarding what they were saying, every department has "those people."
Post by: villageidiot on May 19, 2014, 10:46:50 PM
So, you can see why the public does not trust any wildlife people. So why did they doubt the rancher so many times when in the end his pictures proved he was telling the truth all along and the Bios were not. All the ranchers friends have heard his story and the credibility of the Bios. He reported his sightings to is zero.
Post by: wolfbait on May 20, 2014, 05:38:03 AM
I'm not attacking any one person. But unfortunately, idahohuntr has a point. The more people rant and rave every time and blah blah, you get written off as the crazy guy, and people stop listening to you. At times it can be very hard to be calm, but if you blow up and make yourself look like the pissed off guy, you will basically lose any type of reputation/respect from whatever agency you deal with.I know wolfbait personally and believe him more that your liberal rearend. Guys like you don't want to believe the truth for your own agenda........typical !A new WDFW warden showed up and we had a little discussion about wolves and where they came from, I think he left with a few more ideas other then the BS he was told to say.For all of you who report wolves and wonder why WDFW has a hard time taking many of them seriously...it is because of people like wolfbait that they have to listen to rant every darn day that are clueless and full of government conspiracies. So...if we can get the wolfbaits of the world to keep their crazy to themselves it can only help. :twocents:
You'd be hard pressed to find any government department (anything from the local sewer district to FBI) who knows when certain people call it's going to be a rant and rave and your going to hang up your phone and do nothing regarding what they were saying, every department has "those people."
I think it depends on whether you are agenda driven or a WDFW pro-wolfer or a person who has been lie to time and again by wildlife agencies who protect wolves above all else. I can show you several discussions (rant's & raves) with the USFWS and state game agencies over the years, most of these were from people who were fed up with watching the game herds or their livestock being slaughtered by wolves, only to have the culls in charge deny wolves did the killing when everyone knew damn well it was wolves. What the environmentalists and WDFW would like everyone to do is shut the hell up unless you have something good to say about wolves.
Do to the fact that WDFW refuse to be honest with the people of WA, and the fact that they are openly protecting predators, there is getting to be less discussion (rants and raves) and more public wolf control, which from the looks of things will be the only wolf control there will ever be.
Post by: wolfbait on May 20, 2014, 05:58:55 AM
If it went to federal court in Spokane County hard to say what would happen, but I think it's a state issue in Stevens County due to the delisting of eastern WA. If it went to court in Stevens County we all know what the court results will likely be. Too many residents have been told "it's only coyotes" to get a conviction of wrong doing on that here in my opinion. :twocents:Although wolves in Stevens County are no longer listed under the ESA a potential federal case could happen. If you shot a wolf on federal lands it could go to federal court, if you shot a wolf on non-federal lands but then transported it across federal lands (say shot it in your buddy's pasture and you have to get to USFS lands to get home) you could be charged under the Lacey Act in federal court, or of course if you transported the dead wolf across the state/international border.
Now as far as the court in Stevens County. Under state law if a county prosecutor fails to act then the WDFW Commission can request the Attorney General's Office essentially step in and prosecute the case. This is very rare, but you can imagine it wouldn't be that unfeasible for a case involving a state endangered species.
Speaking of the Lacey Act, the USFWS broke that law when they brought wolves into Idaho with no paper work, do you think they will ever be held accountable?
Post by: AspenBud on May 20, 2014, 06:35:53 AM
I watched a program last night about the wallowa area in NE oregon,elk populations are dropping and the conclusion they seem to be arriving at is cougar and bears are killing calves at an alarming rate...Now toss in the wolves in that area which of course dont cause many problems :rolleyes:..and the were not mentioned I might add...cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:
"cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:"
Never, would be your correct answer, Rasbo. WDFW won't even admit they have a bear/cougar problem. Remember Oregon and WA came out with the first wolf pack in 70 years the very same day, Oregon's wolves showed up in the middle of cattle country and look at ODFG and the USFWS's record of confirming livestock kills,, and then look at WDFW. As pitiful as ODFG confirmed wolf kills are, WDFW is far worse.
They can admit they have a problem with bear and cougars all they want, but the citizens of this state tied their hands. What part of the initiative process don't you understand?
Actually that's not very true at all. The voters only tied WDFW hands on hounds and baiting. The WDFW themselves have limited boot hunting of cougars to ridiculously low quota levels in most units that need twice as many cougar taken. WDFW has full control of bear seasons and could easily harvest more bear in every unit if they desired. The high numbers of bear and cougar are definitely the product of WDFW policy. :twocents:
You and I both know the best way to reduce bear and cougar numbers is with hounds. Even with increased harvests hunters are at a disadvantage in this state.
Again not correct. WDFW purposefully limited boot hunting of cougar because they said too many cougars were being taken. They also have limited bear seasons in areas where they wanted more bear.
I stand corrected about hunter effectiveness, but then upon closer examination it looks like what you're saying is a little misleading from the perspective of harvests...
From the Seattle Times article below, I believe it's from around 2008...
"The number of cats killed by hunters in Washington has climbed in recent years, exceeding levels in the 1950s when the state paid a $75 bounty to encourage eradication.
Before 1996, hunters killed an average of 156 cougars a year. Since the initiative, the harvest rate increased more than 40 percent, to an average of 225 animals a year.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html)
And then this from WDFW a year or two ago...
"Last year, hunters harvested 156 cougars statewide, up from 145 in 2011 and 108 in 2010. Ware said the number of cougars harvested this season is expected to be similar to last year. "
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/)
See, now here's the problem. People read that and see that limits, at least for a while, were increased and more cats were harvested. Then they see that in recent years the harvest has been at least close to or right at what it was when hound hunting was still going on.
So are you trying to say that we weren't harvesting enough cats as far back as the 1950's? Because it looks an awful lot like the state has been harvesting as many, or more, than we were back then. Or do you have some other information I'm missing? :dunno:
Post by: jackmaster on May 20, 2014, 06:58:21 AM
Eh just shoot one then call up wdfw and tell them you told me it was a coyote so I shot it :whoo::yeah: :yeah: :chuckle: :chuckle: thats what i am gonna do when these yotes show up on the wetside in my backyard, pretty tough for WDFW to hammer you in a court of law when they are the ones telling you its a coyote, i do however beleive in what bixtex has said about people thinking they saw this when they really saw a house cat or a fluffy dog! but if it comes from a farmer in wolf country that has seen coyotes everyday of his life, it should be taken a little more serious, for craps sake, that a game wardens or a wdfw bio's job, earn your paycheck, if a "CUSTOMER" calls then it should be followed up on, i would lose my damn job if i didnt respond to a customer report plain and simple, it might suck but thats what they signed up for :tup:
Post by: AspenBud on May 20, 2014, 08:38:22 AM
Eh just shoot one then call up wdfw and tell them you told me it was a coyote so I shot it :whoo::yeah: :yeah: :chuckle: :chuckle: thats what i am gonna do when these yotes show up on the wetside in my backyard, pretty tough for WDFW to hammer you in a court of law when they are the ones telling you its a coyote, i do however beleive in what bixtex has said about people thinking they saw this when they really saw a house cat or a fluffy dog! but if it comes from a farmer in wolf country that has seen coyotes everyday of his life, it should be taken a little more serious, for craps sake, that a game wardens or a wdfw bio's job, earn your paycheck, if a "CUSTOMER" calls then it should be followed up on, i would lose my damn job if i didnt respond to a customer report plain and simple, it might suck but thats what they signed up for :tup:
I stand by my previous comment. The warden can't outright say it, but by saying it's a coyote he's effectively saying "take care of it, I don't want to know about it."
Post by: bearpaw on May 20, 2014, 08:54:08 AM
I watched a program last night about the wallowa area in NE oregon,elk populations are dropping and the conclusion they seem to be arriving at is cougar and bears are killing calves at an alarming rate...Now toss in the wolves in that area which of course dont cause many problems :rolleyes:..and the were not mentioned I might add...cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:
"cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:"
Never, would be your correct answer, Rasbo. WDFW won't even admit they have a bear/cougar problem. Remember Oregon and WA came out with the first wolf pack in 70 years the very same day, Oregon's wolves showed up in the middle of cattle country and look at ODFG and the USFWS's record of confirming livestock kills,, and then look at WDFW. As pitiful as ODFG confirmed wolf kills are, WDFW is far worse.
They can admit they have a problem with bear and cougars all they want, but the citizens of this state tied their hands. What part of the initiative process don't you understand?
Actually that's not very true at all. The voters only tied WDFW hands on hounds and baiting. The WDFW themselves have limited boot hunting of cougars to ridiculously low quota levels in most units that need twice as many cougar taken. WDFW has full control of bear seasons and could easily harvest more bear in every unit if they desired. The high numbers of bear and cougar are definitely the product of WDFW policy. :twocents:
You and I both know the best way to reduce bear and cougar numbers is with hounds. Even with increased harvests hunters are at a disadvantage in this state.
Again not correct. WDFW purposefully limited boot hunting of cougar because they said too many cougars were being taken. They also have limited bear seasons in areas where they wanted more bear.
I stand corrected about hunter effectiveness, but then upon closer examination it looks like what you're saying is a little misleading from the perspective of harvests...
From the Seattle Times article below, I believe it's from around 2008...
"The number of cats killed by hunters in Washington has climbed in recent years, exceeding levels in the 1950s when the state paid a $75 bounty to encourage eradication.
Before 1996, hunters killed an average of 156 cougars a year. Since the initiative, the harvest rate increased more than 40 percent, to an average of 225 animals a year.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html)
And then this from WDFW a year or two ago...
"Last year, hunters harvested 156 cougars statewide, up from 145 in 2011 and 108 in 2010. Ware said the number of cougars harvested this season is expected to be similar to last year. "
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/)
See, now here's the problem. People read that and see that limits, at least for a while, were increased and more cats were harvested. Then they see that in recent years the harvest has been at least close to or right at what it was when hound hunting was still going on.
So are you trying to say that we weren't harvesting enough cats as far back as the 1950's? Because it looks an awful lot like the state has been harvesting as many, or more, than we were back then. Or do you have some other information I'm missing? :dunno:
You are wrong again. :chuckle:
Maybe you need to give up on getting your wildlife data from the Seattle Times. :chuckle:
Since 2008 WDFW has dropped the quotas in traditional cougar producing units to very low levels, lower than ever before. Compare the current harvest data for all the traditional high cougar producing units to previous data.
The only reason harvest data gathered on a statewide basis is near previous harvest levels is because WDFW has allowed cougar to populate into many more areas of the state. Many cougar are being taken in units that previously held few, if any cougars. A good percentage of the cougar harvest is coming from areas that were not previously producing much if any cougar harvest, which means far fewer cougar are being taken in the traditional high cougar producing areas.
This attempt to hide the real numbers of cougars and lack of harvest is more or less the same reasoning and method used by wolfers to hide the impacts of wolves on elk in Idaho and Montana.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 20, 2014, 08:57:39 AM
I'm not sure I would go with that logic. I think it would be pretty easy for WDFW to railroad somebody who shot a wolf . Not sure I would want a jury trial in western Washington either!!Eh just shoot one then call up wdfw and tell them you told me it was a coyote so I shot it :whoo::yeah: :yeah: :chuckle: :chuckle: thats what i am gonna do when these yotes show up on the wetside in my backyard, pretty tough for WDFW to hammer you in a court of law when they are the ones telling you its a coyote
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: idahohuntr on May 20, 2014, 09:01:02 AM
Are you saying the state agencies are hiding the impacts of predators on ungulates ? Or just some Seattle Times reporters?I watched a program last night about the wallowa area in NE oregon,elk populations are dropping and the conclusion they seem to be arriving at is cougar and bears are killing calves at an alarming rate...Now toss in the wolves in that area which of course dont cause many problems :rolleyes:..and the were not mentioned I might add...cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:
"cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:"
Never, would be your correct answer, Rasbo. WDFW won't even admit they have a bear/cougar problem. Remember Oregon and WA came out with the first wolf pack in 70 years the very same day, Oregon's wolves showed up in the middle of cattle country and look at ODFG and the USFWS's record of confirming livestock kills,, and then look at WDFW. As pitiful as ODFG confirmed wolf kills are, WDFW is far worse.
They can admit they have a problem with bear and cougars all they want, but the citizens of this state tied their hands. What part of the initiative process don't you understand?
Actually that's not very true at all. The voters only tied WDFW hands on hounds and baiting. The WDFW themselves have limited boot hunting of cougars to ridiculously low quota levels in most units that need twice as many cougar taken. WDFW has full control of bear seasons and could easily harvest more bear in every unit if they desired. The high numbers of bear and cougar are definitely the product of WDFW policy. :twocents:
You and I both know the best way to reduce bear and cougar numbers is with hounds. Even with increased harvests hunters are at a disadvantage in this state.
Again not correct. WDFW purposefully limited boot hunting of cougar because they said too many cougars were being taken. They also have limited bear seasons in areas where they wanted more bear.
I stand corrected about hunter effectiveness, but then upon closer examination it looks like what you're saying is a little misleading from the perspective of harvests...
From the Seattle Times article below, I believe it's from around 2008...
"The number of cats killed by hunters in Washington has climbed in recent years, exceeding levels in the 1950s when the state paid a $75 bounty to encourage eradication.
Before 1996, hunters killed an average of 156 cougars a year. Since the initiative, the harvest rate increased more than 40 percent, to an average of 225 animals a year.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html)
And then this from WDFW a year or two ago...
"Last year, hunters harvested 156 cougars statewide, up from 145 in 2011 and 108 in 2010. Ware said the number of cougars harvested this season is expected to be similar to last year. "
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/)
See, now here's the problem. People read that and see that limits, at least for a while, were increased and more cats were harvested. Then they see that in recent years the harvest has been at least close to or right at what it was when hound hunting was still going on.
So are you trying to say that we weren't harvesting enough cats as far back as the 1950's? Because it looks an awful lot like the state has been harvesting as many, or more, than we were back then. Or do you have some other information I'm missing? :dunno:
This attempt to hide the real numbers of cougars and lack of harvest is more or less the same reasoning and method used by wolfers to hide the impacts of wolves on elk in Idaho and Montana.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on May 20, 2014, 09:02:13 AM
Are you saying the state agencies are hiding the impacts of predators on ungulates ? Or just some Seattle Times reporters?I watched a program last night about the wallowa area in NE oregon,elk populations are dropping and the conclusion they seem to be arriving at is cougar and bears are killing calves at an alarming rate...Now toss in the wolves in that area which of course dont cause many problems :rolleyes:..and the were not mentioned I might add...cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:
"cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:"
Never, would be your correct answer, Rasbo. WDFW won't even admit they have a bear/cougar problem. Remember Oregon and WA came out with the first wolf pack in 70 years the very same day, Oregon's wolves showed up in the middle of cattle country and look at ODFG and the USFWS's record of confirming livestock kills,, and then look at WDFW. As pitiful as ODFG confirmed wolf kills are, WDFW is far worse.
They can admit they have a problem with bear and cougars all they want, but the citizens of this state tied their hands. What part of the initiative process don't you understand?
Actually that's not very true at all. The voters only tied WDFW hands on hounds and baiting. The WDFW themselves have limited boot hunting of cougars to ridiculously low quota levels in most units that need twice as many cougar taken. WDFW has full control of bear seasons and could easily harvest more bear in every unit if they desired. The high numbers of bear and cougar are definitely the product of WDFW policy. :twocents:
You and I both know the best way to reduce bear and cougar numbers is with hounds. Even with increased harvests hunters are at a disadvantage in this state.
Again not correct. WDFW purposefully limited boot hunting of cougar because they said too many cougars were being taken. They also have limited bear seasons in areas where they wanted more bear.
I stand corrected about hunter effectiveness, but then upon closer examination it looks like what you're saying is a little misleading from the perspective of harvests...
From the Seattle Times article below, I believe it's from around 2008...
"The number of cats killed by hunters in Washington has climbed in recent years, exceeding levels in the 1950s when the state paid a $75 bounty to encourage eradication.
Before 1996, hunters killed an average of 156 cougars a year. Since the initiative, the harvest rate increased more than 40 percent, to an average of 225 animals a year.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html)
And then this from WDFW a year or two ago...
"Last year, hunters harvested 156 cougars statewide, up from 145 in 2011 and 108 in 2010. Ware said the number of cougars harvested this season is expected to be similar to last year. "
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/)
See, now here's the problem. People read that and see that limits, at least for a while, were increased and more cats were harvested. Then they see that in recent years the harvest has been at least close to or right at what it was when hound hunting was still going on.
So are you trying to say that we weren't harvesting enough cats as far back as the 1950's? Because it looks an awful lot like the state has been harvesting as many, or more, than we were back then. Or do you have some other information I'm missing? :dunno:
This attempt to hide the real numbers of cougars and lack of harvest is more or less the same reasoning and method used by wolfers to hide the impacts of wolves on elk in Idaho and Montana.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Pretty obvious, it's happening both places.
Post by: bearpaw on May 20, 2014, 09:05:27 AM
I'm not sure I would go with that logic. I think it would be pretty easy for WDFW to railroad somebody who shot a wolf . Not sure I would want a jury trial in western Washington either!!Eh just shoot one then call up wdfw and tell them you told me it was a coyote so I shot it :whoo::yeah: :yeah: :chuckle: :chuckle: thats what i am gonna do when these yotes show up on the wetside in my backyard, pretty tough for WDFW to hammer you in a court of law when they are the ones telling you its a coyote
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
I agree, you better be careful, especially in western WA because wolves are still federally listed in western WA which means federal court. :twocents:
Post by: AspenBud on May 20, 2014, 09:15:06 AM
I watched a program last night about the wallowa area in NE oregon,elk populations are dropping and the conclusion they seem to be arriving at is cougar and bears are killing calves at an alarming rate...Now toss in the wolves in that area which of course dont cause many problems :rolleyes:..and the were not mentioned I might add...cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:
"cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:"
Never, would be your correct answer, Rasbo. WDFW won't even admit they have a bear/cougar problem. Remember Oregon and WA came out with the first wolf pack in 70 years the very same day, Oregon's wolves showed up in the middle of cattle country and look at ODFG and the USFWS's record of confirming livestock kills,, and then look at WDFW. As pitiful as ODFG confirmed wolf kills are, WDFW is far worse.
They can admit they have a problem with bear and cougars all they want, but the citizens of this state tied their hands. What part of the initiative process don't you understand?
Actually that's not very true at all. The voters only tied WDFW hands on hounds and baiting. The WDFW themselves have limited boot hunting of cougars to ridiculously low quota levels in most units that need twice as many cougar taken. WDFW has full control of bear seasons and could easily harvest more bear in every unit if they desired. The high numbers of bear and cougar are definitely the product of WDFW policy. :twocents:
You and I both know the best way to reduce bear and cougar numbers is with hounds. Even with increased harvests hunters are at a disadvantage in this state.
Again not correct. WDFW purposefully limited boot hunting of cougar because they said too many cougars were being taken. They also have limited bear seasons in areas where they wanted more bear.
I stand corrected about hunter effectiveness, but then upon closer examination it looks like what you're saying is a little misleading from the perspective of harvests...
From the Seattle Times article below, I believe it's from around 2008...
"The number of cats killed by hunters in Washington has climbed in recent years, exceeding levels in the 1950s when the state paid a $75 bounty to encourage eradication.
Before 1996, hunters killed an average of 156 cougars a year. Since the initiative, the harvest rate increased more than 40 percent, to an average of 225 animals a year.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html)
And then this from WDFW a year or two ago...
"Last year, hunters harvested 156 cougars statewide, up from 145 in 2011 and 108 in 2010. Ware said the number of cougars harvested this season is expected to be similar to last year. "
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/)
See, now here's the problem. People read that and see that limits, at least for a while, were increased and more cats were harvested. Then they see that in recent years the harvest has been at least close to or right at what it was when hound hunting was still going on.
So are you trying to say that we weren't harvesting enough cats as far back as the 1950's? Because it looks an awful lot like the state has been harvesting as many, or more, than we were back then. Or do you have some other information I'm missing? :dunno:
You are wrong again. :chuckle:
Maybe you need to give up on getting your wildlife data from the Seattle Times. :chuckle:
Since 2008 WDFW has dropped the quotas in traditional cougar producing units to very low levels, lower than ever before. Compare the current harvest data for all the traditional high cougar producing units to previous data.
The only reason harvest data gathered on a statewide basis is near previous harvest levels is because WDFW has allowed cougar to populate into many more areas of the state. Many cougar are being taken in units that previously held few, if any cougars. A good percentage of the cougar harvest is coming from areas that were not previously producing much if any cougar harvest, which means far fewer cougar are being taken in the traditional high cougar producing areas.
This attempt to hide the real numbers of cougars and lack of harvest is more or less the same reasoning and method used by wolfers to hide the impacts of wolves on elk in Idaho and Montana.
No, I'm not wrong. The numbers don't lie, the state has harvested just as many as it always has if not more. Just not in the areas you want to see it. So don't go saying the state isn't harvesting as many cats as they used to because that really isn't true. Now on a unit by unit basis, that's a different story and a different discussion.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on May 20, 2014, 09:17:45 AM
I think someone on the east side should try this and see if my theory is correct. :chuckle:
Post by: idahohuntr on May 20, 2014, 09:52:32 AM
Isn't Bearpaw arguing that the state agencies are lying about the numbers though?I watched a program last night about the wallowa area in NE oregon,elk populations are dropping and the conclusion they seem to be arriving at is cougar and bears are killing calves at an alarming rate...Now toss in the wolves in that area which of course dont cause many problems :rolleyes:..and the were not mentioned I might add...cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:
"cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:"
Never, would be your correct answer, Rasbo. WDFW won't even admit they have a bear/cougar problem. Remember Oregon and WA came out with the first wolf pack in 70 years the very same day, Oregon's wolves showed up in the middle of cattle country and look at ODFG and the USFWS's record of confirming livestock kills,, and then look at WDFW. As pitiful as ODFG confirmed wolf kills are, WDFW is far worse.
They can admit they have a problem with bear and cougars all they want, but the citizens of this state tied their hands. What part of the initiative process don't you understand?
Actually that's not very true at all. The voters only tied WDFW hands on hounds and baiting. The WDFW themselves have limited boot hunting of cougars to ridiculously low quota levels in most units that need twice as many cougar taken. WDFW has full control of bear seasons and could easily harvest more bear in every unit if they desired. The high numbers of bear and cougar are definitely the product of WDFW policy. :twocents:
You and I both know the best way to reduce bear and cougar numbers is with hounds. Even with increased harvests hunters are at a disadvantage in this state.
Again not correct. WDFW purposefully limited boot hunting of cougar because they said too many cougars were being taken. They also have limited bear seasons in areas where they wanted more bear.
I stand corrected about hunter effectiveness, but then upon closer examination it looks like what you're saying is a little misleading from the perspective of harvests...
From the Seattle Times article below, I believe it's from around 2008...
"The number of cats killed by hunters in Washington has climbed in recent years, exceeding levels in the 1950s when the state paid a $75 bounty to encourage eradication.
Before 1996, hunters killed an average of 156 cougars a year. Since the initiative, the harvest rate increased more than 40 percent, to an average of 225 animals a year.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html)
And then this from WDFW a year or two ago...
"Last year, hunters harvested 156 cougars statewide, up from 145 in 2011 and 108 in 2010. Ware said the number of cougars harvested this season is expected to be similar to last year. "
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/)
See, now here's the problem. People read that and see that limits, at least for a while, were increased and more cats were harvested. Then they see that in recent years the harvest has been at least close to or right at what it was when hound hunting was still going on.
So are you trying to say that we weren't harvesting enough cats as far back as the 1950's? Because it looks an awful lot like the state has been harvesting as many, or more, than we were back then. Or do you have some other information I'm missing? :dunno:
You are wrong again. :chuckle:
Maybe you need to give up on getting your wildlife data from the Seattle Times. :chuckle:
Since 2008 WDFW has dropped the quotas in traditional cougar producing units to very low levels, lower than ever before. Compare the current harvest data for all the traditional high cougar producing units to previous data.
The only reason harvest data gathered on a statewide basis is near previous harvest levels is because WDFW has allowed cougar to populate into many more areas of the state. Many cougar are being taken in units that previously held few, if any cougars. A good percentage of the cougar harvest is coming from areas that were not previously producing much if any cougar harvest, which means far fewer cougar are being taken in the traditional high cougar producing areas.
This attempt to hide the real numbers of cougars and lack of harvest is more or less the same reasoning and method used by wolfers to hide the impacts of wolves on elk in Idaho and Montana.
No, I'm not wrong. The numbers don't lie, the state has harvested just as many as it always has if not more. Just not in the areas you want to see it. So don't go saying the state isn't harvesting as many cats as they used to because that really isn't true. Now on a unit by unit basis, that's a different story and a different discussion.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: CavemantheHunter on May 20, 2014, 10:06:07 AM
I watched a program last night about the wallowa area in NE oregon,elk populations are dropping and the conclusion they seem to be arriving at is cougar and bears are killing calves at an alarming rate...Now toss in the wolves in that area which of course dont cause many problems :rolleyes:..and the were not mentioned I might add...cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:
"cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:"
Never, would be your correct answer, Rasbo. WDFW won't even admit they have a bear/cougar problem. Remember Oregon and WA came out with the first wolf pack in 70 years the very same day, Oregon's wolves showed up in the middle of cattle country and look at ODFG and the USFWS's record of confirming livestock kills,, and then look at WDFW. As pitiful as ODFG confirmed wolf kills are, WDFW is far worse.
They can admit they have a problem with bear and cougars all they want, but the citizens of this state tied their hands. What part of the initiative process don't you understand?
Actually that's not very true at all. The voters only tied WDFW hands on hounds and baiting. The WDFW themselves have limited boot hunting of cougars to ridiculously low quota levels in most units that need twice as many cougar taken. WDFW has full control of bear seasons and could easily harvest more bear in every unit if they desired. The high numbers of bear and cougar are definitely the product of WDFW policy. :twocents:
You and I both know the best way to reduce bear and cougar numbers is with hounds. Even with increased harvests hunters are at a disadvantage in this state.
Again not correct. WDFW purposefully limited boot hunting of cougar because they said too many cougars were being taken. They also have limited bear seasons in areas where they wanted more bear.
I stand corrected about hunter effectiveness, but then upon closer examination it looks like what you're saying is a little misleading from the perspective of harvests...
From the Seattle Times article below, I believe it's from around 2008...
"The number of cats killed by hunters in Washington has climbed in recent years, exceeding levels in the 1950s when the state paid a $75 bounty to encourage eradication.
Before 1996, hunters killed an average of 156 cougars a year. Since the initiative, the harvest rate increased more than 40 percent, to an average of 225 animals a year.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html)
And then this from WDFW a year or two ago...
"Last year, hunters harvested 156 cougars statewide, up from 145 in 2011 and 108 in 2010. Ware said the number of cougars harvested this season is expected to be similar to last year. "
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/)
See, now here's the problem. People read that and see that limits, at least for a while, were increased and more cats were harvested. Then they see that in recent years the harvest has been at least close to or right at what it was when hound hunting was still going on.
So are you trying to say that we weren't harvesting enough cats as far back as the 1950's? Because it looks an awful lot like the state has been harvesting as many, or more, than we were back then. Or do you have some other information I'm missing? :dunno:
Or could it possibly be that with the elimination of hound hunting years ago, the cougar population has exploded exponentially? With the drastically increased population, it has made it easier (still not effective) for boot hunters to kill what looks like a decent number of cats, until you compare the number of cats taken to the total cat population. I can promise you that if the number of cats harvested today with boot hunters appears similar to the harvest numbers from when hound hunting was allowed, it is because there are a ton more cats today. And if there are that many more cats, it is quite obvious that it is negatively affecting the big game population.
Post by: AspenBud on May 20, 2014, 10:13:44 AM
I watched a program last night about the wallowa area in NE oregon,elk populations are dropping and the conclusion they seem to be arriving at is cougar and bears are killing calves at an alarming rate...Now toss in the wolves in that area which of course dont cause many problems :rolleyes:..and the were not mentioned I might add...cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:
"cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:"
Never, would be your correct answer, Rasbo. WDFW won't even admit they have a bear/cougar problem. Remember Oregon and WA came out with the first wolf pack in 70 years the very same day, Oregon's wolves showed up in the middle of cattle country and look at ODFG and the USFWS's record of confirming livestock kills,, and then look at WDFW. As pitiful as ODFG confirmed wolf kills are, WDFW is far worse.
They can admit they have a problem with bear and cougars all they want, but the citizens of this state tied their hands. What part of the initiative process don't you understand?
Actually that's not very true at all. The voters only tied WDFW hands on hounds and baiting. The WDFW themselves have limited boot hunting of cougars to ridiculously low quota levels in most units that need twice as many cougar taken. WDFW has full control of bear seasons and could easily harvest more bear in every unit if they desired. The high numbers of bear and cougar are definitely the product of WDFW policy. :twocents:
You and I both know the best way to reduce bear and cougar numbers is with hounds. Even with increased harvests hunters are at a disadvantage in this state.
Again not correct. WDFW purposefully limited boot hunting of cougar because they said too many cougars were being taken. They also have limited bear seasons in areas where they wanted more bear.
I stand corrected about hunter effectiveness, but then upon closer examination it looks like what you're saying is a little misleading from the perspective of harvests...
From the Seattle Times article below, I believe it's from around 2008...
"The number of cats killed by hunters in Washington has climbed in recent years, exceeding levels in the 1950s when the state paid a $75 bounty to encourage eradication.
Before 1996, hunters killed an average of 156 cougars a year. Since the initiative, the harvest rate increased more than 40 percent, to an average of 225 animals a year.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html)
And then this from WDFW a year or two ago...
"Last year, hunters harvested 156 cougars statewide, up from 145 in 2011 and 108 in 2010. Ware said the number of cougars harvested this season is expected to be similar to last year. "
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/)
See, now here's the problem. People read that and see that limits, at least for a while, were increased and more cats were harvested. Then they see that in recent years the harvest has been at least close to or right at what it was when hound hunting was still going on.
So are you trying to say that we weren't harvesting enough cats as far back as the 1950's? Because it looks an awful lot like the state has been harvesting as many, or more, than we were back then. Or do you have some other information I'm missing? :dunno:
Or could it possibly be that with the elimination of hound hunting years ago, the cougar population has exploded exponentially? With the drastically increased population, it has made it easier (still not effective) for boot hunters to kill what looks like a decent number of cats, until you compare the number of cats taken to the total cat population. I can promise you that if the number of cats harvested today with boot hunters appears similar to the harvest numbers from when hound hunting was allowed, it is because there are a ton more cats today. And if there are that many more cats, it is quite obvious that it is negatively affecting the big game population.
No argument there, but the question you have to ask is why is there the explosion in numbers? Were cats getting killed and not reported before the ban? I'd actually believe that given how much more efficiently you can track down a cougar with dogs. Or is there more prey? Saying it's because the state isn't harvesting as many as they used to is obviously a blatant distortion of the facts if not an outright lie. The harvest might not be where people want it, but the cats are getting taken. So why are there so many more cats? What has changed? Or has the number stayed the same (I confess I haven't checked) but there are more in areas that people don't want them?
Post by: snowpack on May 20, 2014, 10:17:29 AM
Post by: bearpaw on May 20, 2014, 10:21:17 AM
Isn't Bearpaw arguing that the state agencies are lying about the numbers though?I watched a program last night about the wallowa area in NE oregon,elk populations are dropping and the conclusion they seem to be arriving at is cougar and bears are killing calves at an alarming rate...Now toss in the wolves in that area which of course dont cause many problems :rolleyes:..and the were not mentioned I might add...cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:
"cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:"
Never, would be your correct answer, Rasbo. WDFW won't even admit they have a bear/cougar problem. Remember Oregon and WA came out with the first wolf pack in 70 years the very same day, Oregon's wolves showed up in the middle of cattle country and look at ODFG and the USFWS's record of confirming livestock kills,, and then look at WDFW. As pitiful as ODFG confirmed wolf kills are, WDFW is far worse.
They can admit they have a problem with bear and cougars all they want, but the citizens of this state tied their hands. What part of the initiative process don't you understand?
Actually that's not very true at all. The voters only tied WDFW hands on hounds and baiting. The WDFW themselves have limited boot hunting of cougars to ridiculously low quota levels in most units that need twice as many cougar taken. WDFW has full control of bear seasons and could easily harvest more bear in every unit if they desired. The high numbers of bear and cougar are definitely the product of WDFW policy. :twocents:
You and I both know the best way to reduce bear and cougar numbers is with hounds. Even with increased harvests hunters are at a disadvantage in this state.
Again not correct. WDFW purposefully limited boot hunting of cougar because they said too many cougars were being taken. They also have limited bear seasons in areas where they wanted more bear.
I stand corrected about hunter effectiveness, but then upon closer examination it looks like what you're saying is a little misleading from the perspective of harvests...
From the Seattle Times article below, I believe it's from around 2008...
"The number of cats killed by hunters in Washington has climbed in recent years, exceeding levels in the 1950s when the state paid a $75 bounty to encourage eradication.
Before 1996, hunters killed an average of 156 cougars a year. Since the initiative, the harvest rate increased more than 40 percent, to an average of 225 animals a year.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html)
And then this from WDFW a year or two ago...
"Last year, hunters harvested 156 cougars statewide, up from 145 in 2011 and 108 in 2010. Ware said the number of cougars harvested this season is expected to be similar to last year. "
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/)
See, now here's the problem. People read that and see that limits, at least for a while, were increased and more cats were harvested. Then they see that in recent years the harvest has been at least close to or right at what it was when hound hunting was still going on.
So are you trying to say that we weren't harvesting enough cats as far back as the 1950's? Because it looks an awful lot like the state has been harvesting as many, or more, than we were back then. Or do you have some other information I'm missing? :dunno:
You are wrong again. :chuckle:
Maybe you need to give up on getting your wildlife data from the Seattle Times. :chuckle:
Since 2008 WDFW has dropped the quotas in traditional cougar producing units to very low levels, lower than ever before. Compare the current harvest data for all the traditional high cougar producing units to previous data.
The only reason harvest data gathered on a statewide basis is near previous harvest levels is because WDFW has allowed cougar to populate into many more areas of the state. Many cougar are being taken in units that previously held few, if any cougars. A good percentage of the cougar harvest is coming from areas that were not previously producing much if any cougar harvest, which means far fewer cougar are being taken in the traditional high cougar producing areas.
This attempt to hide the real numbers of cougars and lack of harvest is more or less the same reasoning and method used by wolfers to hide the impacts of wolves on elk in Idaho and Montana.
No, I'm not wrong. The numbers don't lie, the state has harvested just as many as it always has if not more. Just not in the areas you want to see it. So don't go saying the state isn't harvesting as many cats as they used to because that really isn't true. Now on a unit by unit basis, that's a different story and a different discussion.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Actually I asked WDFW pointedly at the Colville wolf meeting about cougar numbers. They said probably close to 4,000 in the state. We used to have about 2,000 in the state, I think that was fairly honest, so numbers have doubled. The point is that WDFW is under managing the high population of cougars that we now have.
We have twice as many cougars today but we are taking fewer than we did when there were 2000 cougars. In units where there was little or no previous harvest, those areas are now accounting for a good portion of the harvest, so certain people can say harvest has stayed the same statewide, but in reality harvest is lower in the traditional producing cougar areas.
The current cougar population could easily provide twice as much recreational opportunity for hunters without population decline. We would need three times the harvest to get cougar numbers back to a level that has fewer impacts on other wildlife.
Here's the bigger problem, WDFW doesn't want to properly manage bear, cougar, or wolves, they are all breeding and we have more of them every year, any ideas how this will result?
Post by: CavemantheHunter on May 20, 2014, 10:25:15 AM
I watched a program last night about the wallowa area in NE oregon,elk populations are dropping and the conclusion they seem to be arriving at is cougar and bears are killing calves at an alarming rate...Now toss in the wolves in that area which of course dont cause many problems :rolleyes:..and the were not mentioned I might add...cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:
"cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:"
Never, would be your correct answer, Rasbo. WDFW won't even admit they have a bear/cougar problem. Remember Oregon and WA came out with the first wolf pack in 70 years the very same day, Oregon's wolves showed up in the middle of cattle country and look at ODFG and the USFWS's record of confirming livestock kills,, and then look at WDFW. As pitiful as ODFG confirmed wolf kills are, WDFW is far worse.
They can admit they have a problem with bear and cougars all they want, but the citizens of this state tied their hands. What part of the initiative process don't you understand?
Actually that's not very true at all. The voters only tied WDFW hands on hounds and baiting. The WDFW themselves have limited boot hunting of cougars to ridiculously low quota levels in most units that need twice as many cougar taken. WDFW has full control of bear seasons and could easily harvest more bear in every unit if they desired. The high numbers of bear and cougar are definitely the product of WDFW policy. :twocents:
You and I both know the best way to reduce bear and cougar numbers is with hounds. Even with increased harvests hunters are at a disadvantage in this state.
Again not correct. WDFW purposefully limited boot hunting of cougar because they said too many cougars were being taken. They also have limited bear seasons in areas where they wanted more bear.
I stand corrected about hunter effectiveness, but then upon closer examination it looks like what you're saying is a little misleading from the perspective of harvests...
From the Seattle Times article below, I believe it's from around 2008...
"The number of cats killed by hunters in Washington has climbed in recent years, exceeding levels in the 1950s when the state paid a $75 bounty to encourage eradication.
Before 1996, hunters killed an average of 156 cougars a year. Since the initiative, the harvest rate increased more than 40 percent, to an average of 225 animals a year.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html)
And then this from WDFW a year or two ago...
"Last year, hunters harvested 156 cougars statewide, up from 145 in 2011 and 108 in 2010. Ware said the number of cougars harvested this season is expected to be similar to last year. "
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/)
See, now here's the problem. People read that and see that limits, at least for a while, were increased and more cats were harvested. Then they see that in recent years the harvest has been at least close to or right at what it was when hound hunting was still going on.
So are you trying to say that we weren't harvesting enough cats as far back as the 1950's? Because it looks an awful lot like the state has been harvesting as many, or more, than we were back then. Or do you have some other information I'm missing? :dunno:
Or could it possibly be that with the elimination of hound hunting years ago, the cougar population has exploded exponentially? With the drastically increased population, it has made it easier (still not effective) for boot hunters to kill what looks like a decent number of cats, until you compare the number of cats taken to the total cat population. I can promise you that if the number of cats harvested today with boot hunters appears similar to the harvest numbers from when hound hunting was allowed, it is because there are a ton more cats today. And if there are that many more cats, it is quite obvious that it is negatively affecting the big game population.
No argument there, but the question you have to ask is why is there the explosion in numbers? Were cats getting killed and not reported before the ban? I'd actually believe that given how much more efficiently you can track down a cougar with dogs. Or is there more prey? Saying it's because the state isn't harvesting as many as they used to is obviously a blatant distortion of the facts if not an outright lie. The harvest might not be where people want it, but the cats are getting taken. So why are there so many more cats? What has changed? Or has the number stayed the same (I confess I haven't checked) but there are more in areas that people don't want them?
To answer that question, I would refer you to Bearpaw's previous post: "
You are wrong again.
Maybe you need to give up on getting your wildlife data from the Seattle Times.
Since 2008 WDFW has dropped the quotas in traditional cougar producing units to very low levels, lower than ever before. Compare the current harvest data for all the traditional high cougar producing units to previous data.
The only reason harvest data gathered on a statewide basis is near previous harvest levels is because WDFW has allowed cougar to populate into many more areas of the state. Many cougar are being taken in units that previously held few, if any cougars. A good percentage of the cougar harvest is coming from areas that were not previously producing much if any cougar harvest, which means far fewer cougar are being taken in the traditional high cougar producing areas.
This attempt to hide the real numbers of cougars and lack of harvest is more or less the same reasoning and method used by wolfers to hide the impacts of wolves on elk in Idaho and Montana."
I'm assuming that the harvest numbers for boot hunters on the few years immediately following the banning of hound hunting were fairly low. And then giving the cats several years to reproduce and spread without harvesting with hounds exponentially exploded their populations. Now, years later, the quotas seem similar, but the areas in which a lot of today's harvests are coming from are areas that didn't use to have many cats. The cats have spread to the point that total harvest numbers look good to the blind eye, but if you compare total cats taken to total cats present, I bet the number would scare you.
Post by: AspenBud on May 20, 2014, 10:27:38 AM
Isn't Bearpaw arguing that the state agencies are lying about the numbers though?I watched a program last night about the wallowa area in NE oregon,elk populations are dropping and the conclusion they seem to be arriving at is cougar and bears are killing calves at an alarming rate...Now toss in the wolves in that area which of course dont cause many problems :rolleyes:..and the were not mentioned I might add...cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:
"cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:"
Never, would be your correct answer, Rasbo. WDFW won't even admit they have a bear/cougar problem. Remember Oregon and WA came out with the first wolf pack in 70 years the very same day, Oregon's wolves showed up in the middle of cattle country and look at ODFG and the USFWS's record of confirming livestock kills,, and then look at WDFW. As pitiful as ODFG confirmed wolf kills are, WDFW is far worse.
They can admit they have a problem with bear and cougars all they want, but the citizens of this state tied their hands. What part of the initiative process don't you understand?
Actually that's not very true at all. The voters only tied WDFW hands on hounds and baiting. The WDFW themselves have limited boot hunting of cougars to ridiculously low quota levels in most units that need twice as many cougar taken. WDFW has full control of bear seasons and could easily harvest more bear in every unit if they desired. The high numbers of bear and cougar are definitely the product of WDFW policy. :twocents:
You and I both know the best way to reduce bear and cougar numbers is with hounds. Even with increased harvests hunters are at a disadvantage in this state.
Again not correct. WDFW purposefully limited boot hunting of cougar because they said too many cougars were being taken. They also have limited bear seasons in areas where they wanted more bear.
I stand corrected about hunter effectiveness, but then upon closer examination it looks like what you're saying is a little misleading from the perspective of harvests...
From the Seattle Times article below, I believe it's from around 2008...
"The number of cats killed by hunters in Washington has climbed in recent years, exceeding levels in the 1950s when the state paid a $75 bounty to encourage eradication.
Before 1996, hunters killed an average of 156 cougars a year. Since the initiative, the harvest rate increased more than 40 percent, to an average of 225 animals a year.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html)
And then this from WDFW a year or two ago...
"Last year, hunters harvested 156 cougars statewide, up from 145 in 2011 and 108 in 2010. Ware said the number of cougars harvested this season is expected to be similar to last year. "
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/)
See, now here's the problem. People read that and see that limits, at least for a while, were increased and more cats were harvested. Then they see that in recent years the harvest has been at least close to or right at what it was when hound hunting was still going on.
So are you trying to say that we weren't harvesting enough cats as far back as the 1950's? Because it looks an awful lot like the state has been harvesting as many, or more, than we were back then. Or do you have some other information I'm missing? :dunno:
You are wrong again. :chuckle:
Maybe you need to give up on getting your wildlife data from the Seattle Times. :chuckle:
Since 2008 WDFW has dropped the quotas in traditional cougar producing units to very low levels, lower than ever before. Compare the current harvest data for all the traditional high cougar producing units to previous data.
The only reason harvest data gathered on a statewide basis is near previous harvest levels is because WDFW has allowed cougar to populate into many more areas of the state. Many cougar are being taken in units that previously held few, if any cougars. A good percentage of the cougar harvest is coming from areas that were not previously producing much if any cougar harvest, which means far fewer cougar are being taken in the traditional high cougar producing areas.
This attempt to hide the real numbers of cougars and lack of harvest is more or less the same reasoning and method used by wolfers to hide the impacts of wolves on elk in Idaho and Montana.
No, I'm not wrong. The numbers don't lie, the state has harvested just as many as it always has if not more. Just not in the areas you want to see it. So don't go saying the state isn't harvesting as many cats as they used to because that really isn't true. Now on a unit by unit basis, that's a different story and a different discussion.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Actually I asked WDFW pointedly at the Colville wolf meeting about cougar numbers. They said probably close to 4,000 in the state. We used to have about 2,000 in the state, I think that was fairly honest, so numbers have doubled. The point is that WDFW is under managing the high population of cougars that we now have.
We have twice as many cougars today but we are taking fewer than we did when there were 2000 cougars. In units where there was little or no previous harvest, those areas are now accounting for a good portion of the harvest, so certain people can say harvest has stayed the same statewide, but in reality harvest is lower in the traditional producing cougar areas.
The current cougar population could easily provide twice as much recreational opportunity for hunters without population decline. We would need three times the harvest to get cougar numbers back to a level that has fewer impacts on other wildlife.
Here's the bigger problem, WDFW doesn't want to properly manage bear, cougar, or wolves, they are all breeding and we have more of them every year, any ideas how this will result?
The bold part is simply not true. They might be under harvesting cats, and again you have to ask why the explosion has happened, but what you are saying there is not true. This state harvests just as many cats now as it did 60 years ago, at least if you base it on reported kills. If more were getting harvested and not being reported before, well, you see what that is apparently getting everyone now.
If you want to argue they need to up the numbers, I'll buy that.
Post by: AspenBud on May 20, 2014, 10:30:14 AM
Be kind of my guess. In the 20's and 30's there were bounties on the cougars and some of the houndsmen were getting 50-60 cats annually each. One of the differences between the old days and these days with cougars, the houndsmen would take the FS roads farther in the backcountry (after the wolves/cougars were hit hard) and were seeking out the cougars in hard to reach areas. Most of the cougars I hear taken now are close to some kind of development. (Around farms vs forty miles in on FS roads that are now decommissioned.)
A lot of those developed areas were wild/undeveloped back in the 20's and 30's.
Post by: bearpaw on May 20, 2014, 10:52:01 AM
Be kind of my guess. In the 20's and 30's there were bounties on the cougars and some of the houndsmen were getting 50-60 cats annually each. One of the differences between the old days and these days with cougars, the houndsmen would take the FS roads farther in the backcountry (after the wolves/cougars were hit hard) and were seeking out the cougars in hard to reach areas. Most of the cougars I hear taken now are close to some kind of development. (Around farms vs forty miles in on FS roads that are now decommissioned.)
Actually bounties went through the 50's and ended in the 60's. That was why we had the mule deer boom years until cougars multiplied to high levels in the mid 80's and then mule deer started a serious decline. I knew several of the NE WA bounty hunters, Cougar Sam, Bert Edwards, and others. They had some interesting stories.
Post by: AspenBud on May 20, 2014, 10:55:27 AM
Be kind of my guess. In the 20's and 30's there were bounties on the cougars and some of the houndsmen were getting 50-60 cats annually each. One of the differences between the old days and these days with cougars, the houndsmen would take the FS roads farther in the backcountry (after the wolves/cougars were hit hard) and were seeking out the cougars in hard to reach areas. Most of the cougars I hear taken now are close to some kind of development. (Around farms vs forty miles in on FS roads that are now decommissioned.)
Actually bounties went through the 50's and ended in the 60's. That was why we had the mule deer boom years until cougars multiplied to high levels in the mid 80's and then mule deer started a serious decline. I knew several of the NE WA bounty hunters, Cougar Sam, Bert Edwards, and others. They had some interesting stories.
Yep, and the state was actually getting more cats reported as harvested after the hound ban than they were when the bounty existed. Why?
Post by: bearpaw on May 20, 2014, 11:05:25 AM
Be kind of my guess. In the 20's and 30's there were bounties on the cougars and some of the houndsmen were getting 50-60 cats annually each. One of the differences between the old days and these days with cougars, the houndsmen would take the FS roads farther in the backcountry (after the wolves/cougars were hit hard) and were seeking out the cougars in hard to reach areas. Most of the cougars I hear taken now are close to some kind of development. (Around farms vs forty miles in on FS roads that are now decommissioned.)
Actually bounties went through the 50's and ended in the 60's. That was why we had the mule deer boom years until cougars multiplied to high levels in the mid 80's and then mule deer started a serious decline. I knew several of the NE WA bounty hunters, Cougar Sam, Bert Edwards, and others. They had some interesting stories.
Yep, and the state was actually getting more cats reported as harvested after the hound ban than they were when the bounty existed. Why?
I can tell you specifically why, but I would rather see you post your reasoning so everyone can have another laugh! :chuckle:
Post by: AspenBud on May 20, 2014, 11:18:01 AM
Be kind of my guess. In the 20's and 30's there were bounties on the cougars and some of the houndsmen were getting 50-60 cats annually each. One of the differences between the old days and these days with cougars, the houndsmen would take the FS roads farther in the backcountry (after the wolves/cougars were hit hard) and were seeking out the cougars in hard to reach areas. Most of the cougars I hear taken now are close to some kind of development. (Around farms vs forty miles in on FS roads that are now decommissioned.)
Actually bounties went through the 50's and ended in the 60's. That was why we had the mule deer boom years until cougars multiplied to high levels in the mid 80's and then mule deer started a serious decline. I knew several of the NE WA bounty hunters, Cougar Sam, Bert Edwards, and others. They had some interesting stories.
Yep, and the state was actually getting more cats reported as harvested after the hound ban than they were when the bounty existed. Why?
I can tell you specifically why, but I would rather see you post your reasoning so everyone can have another laugh! :chuckle:
I don't find this to be a particularly funny argument. You want to blame a state agency for the actions of people who failed to report what they were actually doing or were outright poaching. WDFW can only set limits if they have data to prove that something is or is not working. Historically the harvests they set today have always worked and yet magically the population of cats has exploded. My, I wonder how that happened.
Post by: bearpaw on May 20, 2014, 11:21:19 AM
Isn't Bearpaw arguing that the state agencies are lying about the numbers though?I watched a program last night about the wallowa area in NE oregon,elk populations are dropping and the conclusion they seem to be arriving at is cougar and bears are killing calves at an alarming rate...Now toss in the wolves in that area which of course dont cause many problems :rolleyes:..and the were not mentioned I might add...cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:
"cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? :bash:"
Never, would be your correct answer, Rasbo. WDFW won't even admit they have a bear/cougar problem. Remember Oregon and WA came out with the first wolf pack in 70 years the very same day, Oregon's wolves showed up in the middle of cattle country and look at ODFG and the USFWS's record of confirming livestock kills,, and then look at WDFW. As pitiful as ODFG confirmed wolf kills are, WDFW is far worse.
They can admit they have a problem with bear and cougars all they want, but the citizens of this state tied their hands. What part of the initiative process don't you understand?
Actually that's not very true at all. The voters only tied WDFW hands on hounds and baiting. The WDFW themselves have limited boot hunting of cougars to ridiculously low quota levels in most units that need twice as many cougar taken. WDFW has full control of bear seasons and could easily harvest more bear in every unit if they desired. The high numbers of bear and cougar are definitely the product of WDFW policy. :twocents:
You and I both know the best way to reduce bear and cougar numbers is with hounds. Even with increased harvests hunters are at a disadvantage in this state.
Again not correct. WDFW purposefully limited boot hunting of cougar because they said too many cougars were being taken. They also have limited bear seasons in areas where they wanted more bear.
I stand corrected about hunter effectiveness, but then upon closer examination it looks like what you're saying is a little misleading from the perspective of harvests...
From the Seattle Times article below, I believe it's from around 2008...
"The number of cats killed by hunters in Washington has climbed in recent years, exceeding levels in the 1950s when the state paid a $75 bounty to encourage eradication.
Before 1996, hunters killed an average of 156 cougars a year. Since the initiative, the harvest rate increased more than 40 percent, to an average of 225 animals a year.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html)
And then this from WDFW a year or two ago...
"Last year, hunters harvested 156 cougars statewide, up from 145 in 2011 and 108 in 2010. Ware said the number of cougars harvested this season is expected to be similar to last year. "
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/)
See, now here's the problem. People read that and see that limits, at least for a while, were increased and more cats were harvested. Then they see that in recent years the harvest has been at least close to or right at what it was when hound hunting was still going on.
So are you trying to say that we weren't harvesting enough cats as far back as the 1950's? Because it looks an awful lot like the state has been harvesting as many, or more, than we were back then. Or do you have some other information I'm missing? :dunno:
You are wrong again. :chuckle:
Maybe you need to give up on getting your wildlife data from the Seattle Times. :chuckle:
Since 2008 WDFW has dropped the quotas in traditional cougar producing units to very low levels, lower than ever before. Compare the current harvest data for all the traditional high cougar producing units to previous data.
The only reason harvest data gathered on a statewide basis is near previous harvest levels is because WDFW has allowed cougar to populate into many more areas of the state. Many cougar are being taken in units that previously held few, if any cougars. A good percentage of the cougar harvest is coming from areas that were not previously producing much if any cougar harvest, which means far fewer cougar are being taken in the traditional high cougar producing areas.
This attempt to hide the real numbers of cougars and lack of harvest is more or less the same reasoning and method used by wolfers to hide the impacts of wolves on elk in Idaho and Montana.
No, I'm not wrong. The numbers don't lie, the state has harvested just as many as it always has if not more. Just not in the areas you want to see it. So don't go saying the state isn't harvesting as many cats as they used to because that really isn't true. Now on a unit by unit basis, that's a different story and a different discussion.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Actually I asked WDFW pointedly at the Colville wolf meeting about cougar numbers. They said probably close to 4,000 in the state. We used to have about 2,000 in the state, I think that was fairly honest, so numbers have doubled. The point is that WDFW is under managing the high population of cougars that we now have.
We have twice as many cougars today but we are taking fewer than we did when there were 2000 cougars. In units where there was little or no previous harvest, those areas are now accounting for a good portion of the harvest, so certain people can say harvest has stayed the same statewide, but in reality harvest is lower in the traditional producing cougar areas.
The current cougar population could easily provide twice as much recreational opportunity for hunters without population decline. We would need three times the harvest to get cougar numbers back to a level that has fewer impacts on other wildlife.
Here's the bigger problem, WDFW doesn't want to properly manage bear, cougar, or wolves, they are all breeding and we have more of them every year, any ideas how this will result?
The bold part is simply not true. They might be under harvesting cats, and again you have to ask why the explosion has happened, but what you are saying there is not true. This state harvests just as many cats now as it did 60 years ago, at least if you base it on reported kills. If more were getting harvested and not being reported before, well, you see what that is apparently getting everyone now.
If you want to argue they need to up the numbers, I'll buy that.
Wrong again, you need to recheck your info. :chuckle:
The state really doesn't know how many cats were harvested 60 years ago. It was handy for you to go back that far and cherry pick outdated incomplete data to cite so that you could justify the reduced cougar harvest we have seen in recent years. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
The WDFW cougar population estimate used to be 2000 cougars, they now say 4000, like it or not, the cougar population has doubled in WA. FACT....
It's obvious you are only on this forum to push your propaganda to try and prevent hunting of predators, why don't you find another place to spew your rubbish? :chuckle:
I never argued that there weren't more cats. Just your harvest numbers. You're lying when you say we are harvesting fewer or you are conceding many more were taken than reported.
The thing is, if more cats were taken than reported the state has no idea what is going on. In other words that means for decades they based their targets on numbers that weren't real because of people not reporting what they were doing. If you want to blame today's dilemma on anyone, look in the mirror, not at the state.
That's pretty brazen to call me a liar while at the same time you're trying to cherry pick antique data from decades ago and use that to refute current data. :chuckle:
Sorry Abud, it doesn't float.
Post by: bearpaw on May 20, 2014, 11:23:50 AM
Be kind of my guess. In the 20's and 30's there were bounties on the cougars and some of the houndsmen were getting 50-60 cats annually each. One of the differences between the old days and these days with cougars, the houndsmen would take the FS roads farther in the backcountry (after the wolves/cougars were hit hard) and were seeking out the cougars in hard to reach areas. Most of the cougars I hear taken now are close to some kind of development. (Around farms vs forty miles in on FS roads that are now decommissioned.)
Actually bounties went through the 50's and ended in the 60's. That was why we had the mule deer boom years until cougars multiplied to high levels in the mid 80's and then mule deer started a serious decline. I knew several of the NE WA bounty hunters, Cougar Sam, Bert Edwards, and others. They had some interesting stories.
Yep, and the state was actually getting more cats reported as harvested after the hound ban than they were when the bounty existed. Why?
I can tell you specifically why, but I would rather see you post your reasoning so everyone can have another laugh! :chuckle:
I don't find this to be a particularly funny argument. You want to blame a state agency for the actions of people who failed to report what they were actually doing or were outright poaching. WDFW can only set limits if they have data to prove that something is or is not working. Historically the harvests they set today have always worked and yet magically the population of cats has exploded. My, I wonder how that happened.
Wrong again Abud, they have reduced harvest in most traditional cougar producing units. You need to try and keep your facts straight please.
Post by: AspenBud on May 20, 2014, 11:34:28 AM
Be kind of my guess. In the 20's and 30's there were bounties on the cougars and some of the houndsmen were getting 50-60 cats annually each. One of the differences between the old days and these days with cougars, the houndsmen would take the FS roads farther in the backcountry (after the wolves/cougars were hit hard) and were seeking out the cougars in hard to reach areas. Most of the cougars I hear taken now are close to some kind of development. (Around farms vs forty miles in on FS roads that are now decommissioned.)
Actually bounties went through the 50's and ended in the 60's. That was why we had the mule deer boom years until cougars multiplied to high levels in the mid 80's and then mule deer started a serious decline. I knew several of the NE WA bounty hunters, Cougar Sam, Bert Edwards, and others. They had some interesting stories.
Yep, and the state was actually getting more cats reported as harvested after the hound ban than they were when the bounty existed. Why?
I can tell you specifically why, but I would rather see you post your reasoning so everyone can have another laugh! :chuckle:
I don't find this to be a particularly funny argument. You want to blame a state agency for the actions of people who failed to report what they were actually doing or were outright poaching. WDFW can only set limits if they have data to prove that something is or is not working. Historically the harvests they set today have always worked and yet magically the population of cats has exploded. My, I wonder how that happened.
Wrong again Abud, they have reduced harvest in most traditional cougar producing units.
So what? The state still harvests the same number of cats overall unless you want to include unreported cats, in which case you can't blame the state for data they don't have.
When the state averages about 165 reported cats a year as harvested going back decades you can't say they aren't harvesting as many as they used to. That is a lie. You can however say they aren't taking as many relative to the increased population.
Post by: bearpaw on May 20, 2014, 11:35:22 AM
Post by: AspenBud on May 20, 2014, 11:41:42 AM
In the 1950's cougar were shot on site by residents protecting their livestock and bounty hunters took them regularly. There were no sport seasons, no collecting of detailed cougar harvest data, and no such concept existed of poaching cougars, for Aspen to suggest they were poachers is nothing more than laughable. At that time anyone who killed a cougar was a local hero with front page news headlines about such noteworthy deeds.
And? Have you been saying this whole time that we should go back to 1950's style cougar management? Just how many years back does your gripe with the state go?
Post by: AspenBud on May 20, 2014, 11:46:27 AM
Be kind of my guess. In the 20's and 30's there were bounties on the cougars and some of the houndsmen were getting 50-60 cats annually each. One of the differences between the old days and these days with cougars, the houndsmen would take the FS roads farther in the backcountry (after the wolves/cougars were hit hard) and were seeking out the cougars in hard to reach areas. Most of the cougars I hear taken now are close to some kind of development. (Around farms vs forty miles in on FS roads that are now decommissioned.)
Actually bounties went through the 50's and ended in the 60's. That was why we had the mule deer boom years until cougars multiplied to high levels in the mid 80's and then mule deer started a serious decline. I knew several of the NE WA bounty hunters, Cougar Sam, Bert Edwards, and others. They had some interesting stories.
Yep, and the state was actually getting more cats reported as harvested after the hound ban than they were when the bounty existed. Why?
I can tell you specifically why, but I would rather see you post your reasoning so everyone can have another laugh! :chuckle:
I don't find this to be a particularly funny argument. You want to blame a state agency for the actions of people who failed to report what they were actually doing or were outright poaching. WDFW can only set limits if they have data to prove that something is or is not working. Historically the harvests they set today have always worked and yet magically the population of cats has exploded. My, I wonder how that happened.
Wrong again Abud, they have reduced harvest in most traditional cougar producing units.
So what? The state still harvests the same number of cats overall unless you want to include unreported cats, in which case you can't blame the state for data they don't have.
When the state averages about 165 reported cats a year as harvested going back decades you can't say they aren't harvesting as many as they used to. That is a lie. You can however say they aren't taking as many relative to the increased population.
Dude, the bottom line is that you don't know jack about cougars. All you have is your emotion and what you thought was enough details to sail through this conversation like you knew what you were talking about. Bottom line, you are BUSTED....
If anyone has nothing but their emotion here it's you. You like facts, okay, here's a FACT, this state has taken just as many mountain lions, overall, as it did prior to the hound ban. You are lying when you say that is not so unless you want to include poached cats. You have a leg to stand on if you want to point to specific units, but not the state as a whole.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 20, 2014, 11:51:35 AM
Post by: bearpaw on May 20, 2014, 11:59:29 AM
Be kind of my guess. In the 20's and 30's there were bounties on the cougars and some of the houndsmen were getting 50-60 cats annually each. One of the differences between the old days and these days with cougars, the houndsmen would take the FS roads farther in the backcountry (after the wolves/cougars were hit hard) and were seeking out the cougars in hard to reach areas. Most of the cougars I hear taken now are close to some kind of development. (Around farms vs forty miles in on FS roads that are now decommissioned.)
Actually bounties went through the 50's and ended in the 60's. That was why we had the mule deer boom years until cougars multiplied to high levels in the mid 80's and then mule deer started a serious decline. I knew several of the NE WA bounty hunters, Cougar Sam, Bert Edwards, and others. They had some interesting stories.
Yep, and the state was actually getting more cats reported as harvested after the hound ban than they were when the bounty existed. Why?
I can tell you specifically why, but I would rather see you post your reasoning so everyone can have another laugh! :chuckle:
I don't find this to be a particularly funny argument. You want to blame a state agency for the actions of people who failed to report what they were actually doing or were outright poaching. WDFW can only set limits if they have data to prove that something is or is not working. Historically the harvests they set today have always worked and yet magically the population of cats has exploded. My, I wonder how that happened.
Wrong again Abud, they have reduced harvest in most traditional cougar producing units.
So what? The state still harvests the same number of cats overall unless you want to include unreported cats, in which case you can't blame the state for data they don't have.
When the state averages about 165 reported cats a year as harvested going back decades you can't say they aren't harvesting as many as they used to. That is a lie. You can however say they aren't taking as many relative to the increased population.
Dude, the bottom line is that you don't know jack about cougars. All you have is your emotion and what you thought was enough details to sail through this conversation like you knew what you were talking about. Bottom line, you are BUSTED....
If anyone has nothing but their emotion here it's you. You like facts, okay, here's a FACT, this state has taken just as many mountain lions, overall, as it did prior to the hound ban. You are lying when you say that is not so unless you want to include poached cats. You have a leg to stand on if you want to point to specific units, but not the state as a whole.
It's clear you are again baiting for the type of reply you would like to get.
The fact is that all the traditionally most productive cougar units, mostly northeast units now have low harvest quotas implemented only a few years ago. The state cougar population has doubled per WDFW stats and yet we are taking fewer cougar than just a few years ago. It's my opinion the state should be harvesting 3 times as many cougar if they hope to curtail this continued cougar population increase and particularly if they want to put hundreds of wolves on the landscape who will add to the predation footprint of large predators in WA.
Post by: Special T on May 20, 2014, 12:08:42 PM
Here are just a few of ther pertinant threads so you wouldnt have to search them out. Note they were all Posted since you have been a member so in theory you could/should have read them.
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,80387.msg1015114.html#msg1015114 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,80387.msg1015114.html#msg1015114)
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,132247.msg1763328.html#msg1763328 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,132247.msg1763328.html#msg1763328)
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,76638.msg952988.html#msg952988 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,76638.msg952988.html#msg952988)
Post by: JLS on May 20, 2014, 01:19:29 PM
You guys appear to be arguing different points here.
Post by: KFhunter on May 20, 2014, 09:54:30 PM
In the 1950's cougar were shot on site by residents protecting their livestock and bounty hunters took them regularly. There were no sport seasons, no collecting of detailed cougar harvest data, and no such concept existed of poaching cougars, for Aspen to suggest they were poachers is nothing more than laughable. At that time anyone who killed a cougar was a local hero with front page news headlines about such noteworthy deeds.
True story there
got some news paper photos of my wife's granddad posing downtown with a cougar and a bunch of towns folks gathered around to have a look.
Post by: whitey on May 21, 2014, 05:15:32 AM
Sheep and Goats getting attack now.
Time to thin the herd. :dunno:
Post by: KFhunter on May 21, 2014, 10:32:50 AM
Just got word from My daughter that they seen a few behind there house in Deer Park. They had a little problem a few years ago. It appears the problem is back in a big way.
Sheep and Goats getting attack now.
Time to thin the herd. :dunno:
Got them on my place too. I wanted to put a small flock of blackbellys out but they'd just get ate by wolves. Wolf fence is crazy expensive when just a couple strands of hot fence will keep in sheep but nooo I gotta build a 7 foot tall no climb fencing with hot strands on top of that and lay more wire on the ground to keep them from going under...
not worth it, not even close
Post by: jasnt on May 21, 2014, 12:52:26 PM
Just got word from My daughter that they seen a few behind there house in Deer Park. They had a little problem a few years ago. It appears the problem is back in a big way.
Sheep and Goats getting attack now.
Time to thin the herd. :dunno:
Seeing lots of cougar here. Till 2 years ago I had never seen one. Now I see them once a month it seems
Post by: whitey on May 21, 2014, 09:47:20 PM
Post by: AspenBud on May 22, 2014, 09:17:06 AM
I have absolutely no dog in this fight and have no idea if Aspen is a hunter. Based on his knowledge of grouse hunting I would guess yes.
Correct
That said, Aspen's claim that we are harvesting as many cougars statewide after I655 as opposed to before it is correct.
You guys appear to be arguing different points here.
We were, and I let my temper get the best of me. So before the world, sorry Dale, I was out of line.
Post by: AspenBud on May 22, 2014, 09:19:33 AM
In the 1950's cougar were shot on site by residents protecting their livestock and bounty hunters took them regularly. There were no sport seasons, no collecting of detailed cougar harvest data, and no such concept existed of poaching cougars, for Aspen to suggest they were poachers is nothing more than laughable. At that time anyone who killed a cougar was a local hero with front page news headlines about such noteworthy deeds.
True story there
got some news paper photos of my wife's granddad posing downtown with a cougar and a bunch of towns folks gathered around to have a look.
My Dad has told me stories about going into a tavern in Pacific County with his Dad back in the late 40's/early 50's and seeing dead cougars shot by the proprietor of the establishment hanging by the entrance. No one gave it a second thought.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 22, 2014, 09:51:43 AM
Well thats never happened on hunt-wa before :chuckle: Glad you are back :tup:
You guys appear to be arguing different points here.
We were, and I let my temper get the best of me.
Post by: KFhunter on May 22, 2014, 10:06:41 AM
Post by: 92xj on May 22, 2014, 10:10:08 AM
I have absolutely no dog in this fight and have no idea if Aspen is a hunter. Based on his knowledge of grouse hunting I would guess yes.
CorrectThat said, Aspen's claim that we are harvesting as many cougars statewide after I655 as opposed to before it is correct.
You guys appear to be arguing different points here.
We were, and I let my temper get the best of me. So before the world, sorry Dale, I was out of line.
That's huge. :tup:
There are a few on here that could learn from you.
Post by: jasnt on May 22, 2014, 10:47:16 AM
Post by: bearpaw on May 24, 2014, 08:12:33 PM
I have absolutely no dog in this fight and have no idea if Aspen is a hunter. Based on his knowledge of grouse hunting I would guess yes.
CorrectThat said, Aspen's claim that we are harvesting as many cougars statewide after I655 as opposed to before it is correct.
You guys appear to be arguing different points here.
We were, and I let my temper get the best of me. So before the world, sorry Dale, I was out of line.
No worries, after sending you a message and getting your reply back, I want everyone to know that I sent you an apology too. So we're even, hopefully we can both keep our discussions to a higher standard in the future.
:tup: :brew: