Post by: Limhangerslayer on August 25, 2014, 07:55:54 PM
Post by: daydreamn on August 25, 2014, 10:29:57 PM
Post by: KFhunter on August 25, 2014, 11:16:09 PM
Given the potential for harassment by wolf-huggers and what the Diamond M went through; I'd think long and hard about bringing that to my family had I problems with wolves.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/hunter-hired-washington-state-kills-wolf-25118910 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/hunter-hired-washington-state-kills-wolf-25118910)
Quote
One wolf has been killed by a hunter hired by Washington, a state where the animals have been regaining a foothold in recent years after being hunted to extinction in the early 1900s.
The state Department of Fish and Wildlife said hunters were back out Monday, targeting three more wolves in the Huckleberry Pack to protect sheep in rural southern Stevens County.
Wolves from the Huckleberry Pack this month have killed 22 sheep and injured three more, despite preventive measures, the agency said.
Environmental groups oppose the hunt.
Wolves began moving back into the state in the early 2000s from Idaho and Canada, and they are protected under state and federal law. The state exterminated an entire pack of wolves to protect a herd of cattle in mountainous Stevens County in 2012.
The most recent hunt is designed to protect a herd of 1,800 sheep owned by Dave Dashiell of the town of Hunters, located about 50 miles northwest of Spokane.
"Unfortunately, lethal action is clearly warranted in this case," said Nate Pamplin, the agency's wildlife program director, on Monday. "Before we considered reducing the size of the pack, our staff and Mr. Dashiell used a wide range of preventive measures to keep the wolves from preying on the pack."
Non-lethal activities are continuing, he said.
Amaroq Weiss of the Center for Biological Diversity said the hunt proves the state prefers to kill the wolves.
"The department has never been interested in making sure sufficient non-lethal conflict measures are in place," Weiss said. "They have wanted to gun for these wolves from the start."
The state could have used rubber bullets or paintball rounds to harass the wolves, but instead resorted immediately to airborne snipers, she said.
On Saturday, crews found five dead and three injured sheep that were attacked Friday night or early Saturday morning, the agency said. Investigators confirmed that wolves were responsible for all of the attacks.
On Saturday evening, a marksman contracted by the Department of Fish and Wildlife killed one member of the pack from a helicopter. The agency has authorized killing three more wolves from the pack, which contains about a dozen wolves.
Wolves were driven to extinction in Washington in the early 1900s by a government-sponsored eradication program on behalf of the livestock industry. Their population has grown to at least 52 wolves today.
Some ranchers and hunters vehemently oppose the return of the wolves, saying the animals prey on livestock and deer populations.
The current situation in Stevens County meets all of the agency's conditions for lethal removal, Pamplin said. That includes repeated wolf kills; the failure of non-lethal methods to stop the predation; the attacks are likely to continue; and the livestock owner has not done anything to attract the wolves.
Dashiell has maintained a continual human presence with his flock since Aug. 14, when the Department of Fish and Wildlife confirmed the first wolf attacks. He has used four large guard dogs to safeguard the pack and has buried sheep carcasses whenever possible, the agency said. Up to four Department of Fish and Wildlife employees and two range riders also have helped watch the flock.
comments from the article:
wiseoldindian • 9 hours ago
"Environmental groups oppose the hunt."
So do I. Wolves were here many thousands of years before any man. Many thousands of more years before the white man. This is their home and they have a right to live here. If your sheep need land to destroy, let them destroy land you already occupy. If there isn't enough land for that, maybe there are just too many people.
blockmccloud > wiseoldindian • 5 hours ago
Wolves were on this planet far longer than non native invasive livestock and "welfare" RANCHERS
DavidShellenberger • 8 hours ago
Wolves should be protected. Ranchers and farmers should use non-lethal deterrence to protect their livestock. The state's killing wolves is inhumane and is a subsidy of a special interest.
blockmccloud • 5 hours ago
Gray wolves are an endangered species in WA State. A few non native invasive sheep were killed. Who can blame the wolves for doing what comes natural to them? This lazy welfare rancher, where was he when his sheep were being eaten by the wolves? Wolves will be wolves, but lazy ignorant ranchers need to change their tactics when watching over their non native vermin sheep.
Becky Tufts • 5 hours ago
TELL THE TRUTH HERE!!! NOT JUST THE WDFW's side!! This is a witch hunt plain and simple. They have 2 dogs for 1800 sheep....the rancher left his herds unattended for DAYS!!! He has them spread out all over the place unattended!! They have taken NO Non Lethal measures what so ever to deter the wolf!! They have purposely left rotting Sheep carcass' out to lure the wolfs in to kill them. This is a SLAUGHTER!!!!
123tl78 • 2 hours ago
It takes time to set up a system of nonlethal methods to protect thousands and thousands of livestock (prey animals). It can't be done in a few days. Different types of livestock guardian dogs each have a purpose in what job they perform when protecting this large a number of livestock. Range riders, noise and lights and fencing help but it has to be a 24/7 operation and it should have been part of the cost of doing business as a livestock owner when knowingly living in wild country that has predators (aka everywhere on the earth). Livestock are easy pickings with no protection. The predator will go for the easy prey to avoid getting hurt or killed. Unfortunately ranches were able to expand to gigantic size and numbers of livestock in this country for so long without having to pay for and implement nonlethal livestock protection practices because the predators were almost wiped out because in the past people in this country thought of them as vermin instead of an integral part of nature and the predator, prey, plant life connection. There are always consequences when predators are killed off. The prey populations explode and overgraze plant life and spread diseases that normally would have been taken care of if the predators were able to weed out the ill and weak prey animals. You think the wolves are going to figure out that if a few of their pack are killed that some livestock owner doesn't want them there? They don't think that way. They just know some place has plenty of easy pickings because no one is protecting them, so the predator will pay the price because of a system in this country that encourages livestock owners from using nonlethal methods of protecting livestock as a standard part of doing business. Paying off livestock owners for killed livestock only encourages them to not do anything to protect their livestock and killing predators to appease livestock owners perpetuates the failed system and the predators will lose again after all this effort to restore apex predators to their rightful place in nature. So now we have these enormous livestock ranches with thousands of prey animals with no protection for their livestock except once again killing off predators. Some ranchers care and will put in the effort to coexist but not enough yet.
Don Dashiell • 5 hours ago
So far your comments have been extremely ill-informed.
blockmccloud > Don Dashiell • 4 hours ago
You're ignorant and you're a "welfare" rancher
blockmccloud > Don Dashiell • 4 hours ago
You're one of those wingnut commissioners in Stevens County who want all the wolves REMOVED. You're are an extremist and a rural parasite
Post by: pope on August 25, 2014, 11:19:48 PM
Post by: KFhunter on August 25, 2014, 11:34:53 PM
I understand there's probably 4 culprits that's responsible for the bulk of the killings, but really does anyone think there's a wolf made that can skip by a flock of sheep and not take a couple out then come back for 2nds, 3rds and so on?
There can only be one outcome, the sheep removed or the wolves removed. Killing 4 wolves and leaving an estimated 8 left (probably double that in reality) is just asking for more dead sheep.
Post by: Bango skank on August 26, 2014, 04:32:42 AM
Post by: Miles on August 26, 2014, 05:17:44 AM
Post by: AspenBud on August 26, 2014, 06:10:58 AM
WDFW sure splashes the owner of the livestock's name all over the interwebs.
Given the potential for harassment by wolf-huggers and what the Diamond M went through; I'd think long and hard about bringing that to my family had I problems with wolves.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/hunter-hired-washington-state-kills-wolf-25118910 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/hunter-hired-washington-state-kills-wolf-25118910)QuoteOne wolf has been killed by a hunter hired by Washington, a state where the animals have been regaining a foothold in recent years after being hunted to extinction in the early 1900s.
The state Department of Fish and Wildlife said hunters were back out Monday, targeting three more wolves in the Huckleberry Pack to protect sheep in rural southern Stevens County.
Wolves from the Huckleberry Pack this month have killed 22 sheep and injured three more, despite preventive measures, the agency said.
Environmental groups oppose the hunt.
Wolves began moving back into the state in the early 2000s from Idaho and Canada, and they are protected under state and federal law. The state exterminated an entire pack of wolves to protect a herd of cattle in mountainous Stevens County in 2012.
The most recent hunt is designed to protect a herd of 1,800 sheep owned by Dave Dashiell of the town of Hunters, located about 50 miles northwest of Spokane.
"Unfortunately, lethal action is clearly warranted in this case," said Nate Pamplin, the agency's wildlife program director, on Monday. "Before we considered reducing the size of the pack, our staff and Mr. Dashiell used a wide range of preventive measures to keep the wolves from preying on the pack."
Non-lethal activities are continuing, he said.
Amaroq Weiss of the Center for Biological Diversity said the hunt proves the state prefers to kill the wolves.
"The department has never been interested in making sure sufficient non-lethal conflict measures are in place," Weiss said. "They have wanted to gun for these wolves from the start."
The state could have used rubber bullets or paintball rounds to harass the wolves, but instead resorted immediately to airborne snipers, she said.
On Saturday, crews found five dead and three injured sheep that were attacked Friday night or early Saturday morning, the agency said. Investigators confirmed that wolves were responsible for all of the attacks.
On Saturday evening, a marksman contracted by the Department of Fish and Wildlife killed one member of the pack from a helicopter. The agency has authorized killing three more wolves from the pack, which contains about a dozen wolves.
Wolves were driven to extinction in Washington in the early 1900s by a government-sponsored eradication program on behalf of the livestock industry. Their population has grown to at least 52 wolves today.
Some ranchers and hunters vehemently oppose the return of the wolves, saying the animals prey on livestock and deer populations.
The current situation in Stevens County meets all of the agency's conditions for lethal removal, Pamplin said. That includes repeated wolf kills; the failure of non-lethal methods to stop the predation; the attacks are likely to continue; and the livestock owner has not done anything to attract the wolves.
Dashiell has maintained a continual human presence with his flock since Aug. 14, when the Department of Fish and Wildlife confirmed the first wolf attacks. He has used four large guard dogs to safeguard the pack and has buried sheep carcasses whenever possible, the agency said. Up to four Department of Fish and Wildlife employees and two range riders also have helped watch the flock.
comments from the article:
wiseoldindian • 9 hours ago
"Environmental groups oppose the hunt."
So do I. Wolves were here many thousands of years before any man. Many thousands of more years before the white man. This is their home and they have a right to live here. If your sheep need land to destroy, let them destroy land you already occupy. If there isn't enough land for that, maybe there are just too many people.
blockmccloud > wiseoldindian • 5 hours ago
Wolves were on this planet far longer than non native invasive livestock and "welfare" RANCHERS
DavidShellenberger • 8 hours ago
Wolves should be protected. Ranchers and farmers should use non-lethal deterrence to protect their livestock. The state's killing wolves is inhumane and is a subsidy of a special interest.
blockmccloud • 5 hours ago
Gray wolves are an endangered species in WA State. A few non native invasive sheep were killed. Who can blame the wolves for doing what comes natural to them? This lazy welfare rancher, where was he when his sheep were being eaten by the wolves? Wolves will be wolves, but lazy ignorant ranchers need to change their tactics when watching over their non native vermin sheep.
Becky Tufts • 5 hours ago
TELL THE TRUTH HERE!!! NOT JUST THE WDFW's side!! This is a witch hunt plain and simple. They have 2 dogs for 1800 sheep....the rancher left his herds unattended for DAYS!!! He has them spread out all over the place unattended!! They have taken NO Non Lethal measures what so ever to deter the wolf!! They have purposely left rotting Sheep carcass' out to lure the wolfs in to kill them. This is a SLAUGHTER!!!!
123tl78 • 2 hours ago
It takes time to set up a system of nonlethal methods to protect thousands and thousands of livestock (prey animals). It can't be done in a few days. Different types of livestock guardian dogs each have a purpose in what job they perform when protecting this large a number of livestock. Range riders, noise and lights and fencing help but it has to be a 24/7 operation and it should have been part of the cost of doing business as a livestock owner when knowingly living in wild country that has predators (aka everywhere on the earth). Livestock are easy pickings with no protection. The predator will go for the easy prey to avoid getting hurt or killed. Unfortunately ranches were able to expand to gigantic size and numbers of livestock in this country for so long without having to pay for and implement nonlethal livestock protection practices because the predators were almost wiped out because in the past people in this country thought of them as vermin instead of an integral part of nature and the predator, prey, plant life connection. There are always consequences when predators are killed off. The prey populations explode and overgraze plant life and spread diseases that normally would have been taken care of if the predators were able to weed out the ill and weak prey animals. You think the wolves are going to figure out that if a few of their pack are killed that some livestock owner doesn't want them there? They don't think that way. They just know some place has plenty of easy pickings because no one is protecting them, so the predator will pay the price because of a system in this country that encourages livestock owners from using nonlethal methods of protecting livestock as a standard part of doing business. Paying off livestock owners for killed livestock only encourages them to not do anything to protect their livestock and killing predators to appease livestock owners perpetuates the failed system and the predators will lose again after all this effort to restore apex predators to their rightful place in nature. So now we have these enormous livestock ranches with thousands of prey animals with no protection for their livestock except once again killing off predators. Some ranchers care and will put in the effort to coexist but not enough yet.
Don Dashiell • 5 hours ago
So far your comments have been extremely ill-informed.
blockmccloud > Don Dashiell • 4 hours ago
You're ignorant and you're a "welfare" rancher
blockmccloud > Don Dashiell • 4 hours ago
You're one of those wingnut commissioners in Stevens County who want all the wolves REMOVED. You're are an extremist and a rural parasite
The comments always kill me. They really show what a crappy position WDFW is in. Environmentalists flame them for shooting the wolves and folks here flame them for not doing enough.
Post by: pd on August 26, 2014, 06:46:40 AM
Having said that, I am almost shocked by the effort Washington state puts into wolf removal. Relocating the sheep flock? Hiring a sniper? Shooting from a helicopter? How many staff man hours involved?
We are not talking about saving the last Blue whale. This is a problem with a dog. A mangy, aggressive, worm-infested DOG. Just shoot the D%^& thing, OK?
By the way, I love my dogs, they are with me 24/7. I just don't see the need to coddle wolves, as if they were on the highest pedestal of our civilization.
Post by: bhawley76 on August 26, 2014, 06:47:54 AM
Post by: grousefether on August 26, 2014, 08:22:04 AM
WDFW sure splashes the owner of the livestock's name all over the interwebs.we're screwed. I love how its the ranchers fault. This state doesn't stand a chance
Given the potential for harassment by wolf-huggers and what the Diamond M went through; I'd think long and hard about bringing that to my family had I problems with wolves.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/hunter-hired-washington-state-kills-wolf-25118910 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/hunter-hired-washington-state-kills-wolf-25118910)QuoteOne wolf has been killed by a hunter hired by Washington, a state where the animals have been regaining a foothold in recent years after being hunted to extinction in the early 1900s.
The state Department of Fish and Wildlife said hunters were back out Monday, targeting three more wolves in the Huckleberry Pack to protect sheep in rural southern Stevens County.
Wolves from the Huckleberry Pack this month have killed 22 sheep and injured three more, despite preventive measures, the agency said.
Environmental groups oppose the hunt.
Wolves began moving back into the state in the early 2000s from Idaho and Canada, and they are protected under state and federal law. The state exterminated an entire pack of wolves to protect a herd of cattle in mountainous Stevens County in 2012.
The most recent hunt is designed to protect a herd of 1,800 sheep owned by Dave Dashiell of the town of Hunters, located about 50 miles northwest of Spokane.
"Unfortunately, lethal action is clearly warranted in this case," said Nate Pamplin, the agency's wildlife program director, on Monday. "Before we considered reducing the size of the pack, our staff and Mr. Dashiell used a wide range of preventive measures to keep the wolves from preying on the pack."
Non-lethal activities are continuing, he said.
Amaroq Weiss of the Center for Biological Diversity said the hunt proves the state prefers to kill the wolves.
"The department has never been interested in making sure sufficient non-lethal conflict measures are in place," Weiss said. "They have wanted to gun for these wolves from the start."
The state could have used rubber bullets or paintball rounds to harass the wolves, but instead resorted immediately to airborne snipers, she said.
On Saturday, crews found five dead and three injured sheep that were attacked Friday night or early Saturday morning, the agency said. Investigators confirmed that wolves were responsible for all of the attacks.
On Saturday evening, a marksman contracted by the Department of Fish and Wildlife killed one member of the pack from a helicopter. The agency has authorized killing three more wolves from the pack, which contains about a dozen wolves.
Wolves were driven to extinction in Washington in the early 1900s by a government-sponsored eradication program on behalf of the livestock industry. Their population has grown to at least 52 wolves today.
Some ranchers and hunters vehemently oppose the return of the wolves, saying the animals prey on livestock and deer populations.
The current situation in Stevens County meets all of the agency's conditions for lethal removal, Pamplin said. That includes repeated wolf kills; the failure of non-lethal methods to stop the predation; the attacks are likely to continue; and the livestock owner has not done anything to attract the wolves.
Dashiell has maintained a continual human presence with his flock since Aug. 14, when the Department of Fish and Wildlife confirmed the first wolf attacks. He has used four large guard dogs to safeguard the pack and has buried sheep carcasses whenever possible, the agency said. Up to four Department of Fish and Wildlife employees and two range riders also have helped watch the flock.
comments from the article:
wiseoldindian • 9 hours ago
"Environmental groups oppose the hunt."
So do I. Wolves were here many thousands of years before any man. Many thousands of more years before the white man. This is their home and they have a right to live here. If your sheep need land to destroy, let them destroy land you already occupy. If there isn't enough land for that, maybe there are just too many people.
blockmccloud > wiseoldindian • 5 hours ago
Wolves were on this planet far longer than non native invasive livestock and "welfare" RANCHERS
DavidShellenberger • 8 hours ago
Wolves should be protected. Ranchers and farmers should use non-lethal deterrence to protect their livestock. The state's killing wolves is inhumane and is a subsidy of a special interest.
blockmccloud • 5 hours ago
Gray wolves are an endangered species in WA State. A few non native invasive sheep were killed. Who can blame the wolves for doing what comes natural to them? This lazy welfare rancher, where was he when his sheep were being eaten by the wolves? Wolves will be wolves, but lazy ignorant ranchers need to change their tactics when watching over their non native vermin sheep.
Becky Tufts • 5 hours ago
TELL THE TRUTH HERE!!! NOT JUST THE WDFW's side!! This is a witch hunt plain and simple. They have 2 dogs for 1800 sheep....the rancher left his herds unattended for DAYS!!! He has them spread out all over the place unattended!! They have taken NO Non Lethal measures what so ever to deter the wolf!! They have purposely left rotting Sheep carcass' out to lure the wolfs in to kill them. This is a SLAUGHTER!!!!
123tl78 • 2 hours ago
It takes time to set up a system of nonlethal methods to protect thousands and thousands of livestock (prey animals). It can't be done in a few days. Different types of livestock guardian dogs each have a purpose in what job they perform when protecting this large a number of livestock. Range riders, noise and lights and fencing help but it has to be a 24/7 operation and it should have been part of the cost of doing business as a livestock owner when knowingly living in wild country that has predators (aka everywhere on the earth). Livestock are easy pickings with no protection. The predator will go for the easy prey to avoid getting hurt or killed. Unfortunately ranches were able to expand to gigantic size and numbers of livestock in this country for so long without having to pay for and implement nonlethal livestock protection practices because the predators were almost wiped out because in the past people in this country thought of them as vermin instead of an integral part of nature and the predator, prey, plant life connection. There are always consequences when predators are killed off. The prey populations explode and overgraze plant life and spread diseases that normally would have been taken care of if the predators were able to weed out the ill and weak prey animals. You think the wolves are going to figure out that if a few of their pack are killed that some livestock owner doesn't want them there? They don't think that way. They just know some place has plenty of easy pickings because no one is protecting them, so the predator will pay the price because of a system in this country that encourages livestock owners from using nonlethal methods of protecting livestock as a standard part of doing business. Paying off livestock owners for killed livestock only encourages them to not do anything to protect their livestock and killing predators to appease livestock owners perpetuates the failed system and the predators will lose again after all this effort to restore apex predators to their rightful place in nature. So now we have these enormous livestock ranches with thousands of prey animals with no protection for their livestock except once again killing off predators. Some ranchers care and will put in the effort to coexist but not enough yet.
Don Dashiell • 5 hours ago
So far your comments have been extremely ill-informed.
blockmccloud > Don Dashiell • 4 hours ago
You're ignorant and you're a "welfare" rancher
blockmccloud > Don Dashiell • 4 hours ago
You're one of those wingnut commissioners in Stevens County who want all the wolves REMOVED. You're are an extremist and a rural parasite
Post by: wolfbait on August 26, 2014, 08:36:20 AM
This is curious to me, why WDFW would bother with 4 out of the 12, and not take all 12 out or not take any out.
I understand there's probably 4 culprits that's responsible for the bulk of the killings, but really does anyone think there's a wolf made that can skip by a flock of sheep and not take a couple out then come back for 2nds, 3rds and so on?
There can only be one outcome, the sheep removed or the wolves removed. Killing 4 wolves and leaving an estimated 8 left (probably double that in reality) is just asking for more dead sheep.
This is looking just like the Wedge pack, remember WDFW played around, then say they are going to kill so many wolves, they play around some more. Mean while the pro-wolfers spin themselves into a wailing mess, which only helps WDFW as they don't want to kill any wolves either. In the end WDFW will pretend to take out the entire pack. Mean while pro-wolfers rake in the money begging to save the wolves etc.. Wolves keep killing sheep, and WDFW's hands are tied because of the outcry from their supporters, DoW-CNW etc.. And the cluster starts all over again. WDFW's wolf management in a nut shell!
For those of you who feel sorry for WDFW, remember the 15 BPS wolf plan, here we are on year 6 and don't have enough packs confirmed to delist.
1995
15 Canadian wolves relocated to Yellowstone NP
1996
17 more Canadian wolves and 10 wolf pups from NW Montana relocated to Yellowstone NP. 20 wolves relocated to Central Idaho
2000
USFWS determines their are 30 breeding pairs in tri-state area of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. First year of 3 year
countdown to meet recovery goals
2001
Estimated 550 wolves including 35 breeding pairs in 51 packs in tri-state area. 2001 is second year of countdown
2002
Estimated 663 wolves including 43 breeding pairs in tri-state area. Third year of 3 year countdown. USFWS announces
wolves are recovered in tri-state area.
http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/endangered/wolf.htm (http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/endangered/wolf.htm)
Post by: KFhunter on August 26, 2014, 08:43:23 AM
This is curious to me, why WDFW would bother with 4 out of the 12, and not take all 12 out or not take any out.
I understand there's probably 4 culprits that's responsible for the bulk of the killings, but really does anyone think there's a wolf made that can skip by a flock of sheep and not take a couple out then come back for 2nds, 3rds and so on?
There can only be one outcome, the sheep removed or the wolves removed. Killing 4 wolves and leaving an estimated 8 left (probably double that in reality) is just asking for more dead sheep.
This is looking just like the Wedge pack, remember WDFW played around, then say they are going to kill so many wolves, they play around some more. Mean while the pro-wolfers spin themselves into a wailing mess, which only helps WDFW as they don't want to kill any wolves either. In the end WDFW will pretend to take out the entire pack. Mean while pro-wolfers rake in the money begging to save the wolves etc.. Wolves keep killing sheep, and WDFW's hands are tied because of the outcry from their supporters, DoW-CNW etc.. And the cluster starts all over again. WDFW's wolf management in a nut shell!
WDFW needs to do it's business on the down low :chuckle:
They also need to not splash the name of the rancher all over the friggn news exposing them to death threats phone calls and online bullying.
That they choose to do these things leads one to believe perhaps they do want a funding drive for CNW and their ilk.
Post by: KFhunter on August 26, 2014, 08:43:34 AM
This is curious to me, why WDFW would bother with 4 out of the 12, and not take all 12 out or not take any out.
I understand there's probably 4 culprits that's responsible for the bulk of the killings, but really does anyone think there's a wolf made that can skip by a flock of sheep and not take a couple out then come back for 2nds, 3rds and so on?
There can only be one outcome, the sheep removed or the wolves removed. Killing 4 wolves and leaving an estimated 8 left (probably double that in reality) is just asking for more dead sheep.
This is looking just like the Wedge pack, remember WDFW played around, then say they are going to kill so many wolves, they play around some more. Mean while the pro-wolfers spin themselves into a wailing mess, which only helps WDFW as they don't want to kill any wolves either. In the end WDFW will pretend to take out the entire pack. Mean while pro-wolfers rake in the money begging to save the wolves etc.. Wolves keep killing sheep, and WDFW's hands are tied because of the outcry from their supporters, DoW-CNW etc.. And the cluster starts all over again. WDFW's wolf management in a nut shell!
WDFW needs to do it's business on the down low :chuckle:
They also need to not splash the name of the rancher all over the friggn news exposing them to death threats phone calls and online bullying.
That they choose to do these things leads one to believe perhaps they do want a funding drive for CNW and their ilk.
Post by: wolfbait on August 26, 2014, 08:50:53 AM
This is curious to me, why WDFW would bother with 4 out of the 12, and not take all 12 out or not take any out.
I understand there's probably 4 culprits that's responsible for the bulk of the killings, but really does anyone think there's a wolf made that can skip by a flock of sheep and not take a couple out then come back for 2nds, 3rds and so on?
There can only be one outcome, the sheep removed or the wolves removed. Killing 4 wolves and leaving an estimated 8 left (probably double that in reality) is just asking for more dead sheep.
This is looking just like the Wedge pack, remember WDFW played around, then say they are going to kill so many wolves, they play around some more. Mean while the pro-wolfers spin themselves into a wailing mess, which only helps WDFW as they don't want to kill any wolves either. In the end WDFW will pretend to take out the entire pack. Mean while pro-wolfers rake in the money begging to save the wolves etc.. Wolves keep killing sheep, and WDFW's hands are tied because of the outcry from their supporters, DoW-CNW etc.. And the cluster starts all over again. WDFW's wolf management in a nut shell!
WDFW needs to do it's business on the down low :chuckle:
They also need to not splash the name of the rancher all over the friggn news exposing them to death threats phone calls and online bullying.
That they choose to do these things leads one to believe perhaps they do want a funding drive for CNW and their ilk.
Exposing the rancher teaches other ranchers to keep their mouth shut, and handle the wolf problems on their own. WDFW doesn't like it when their wolves are exposed for doing what wolves do.
Think of the wailing DoW and CNW are doing right about now and then double it in about a week. $$$$$$$
Post by: AspenBud on August 26, 2014, 09:33:10 AM
McIrvin made one fatal mistake, he went all over TV and the papers to tell the world he didn't want wolves in the state. He has also advocated poisoning them and he has turned down anything short of lethal removal. This current guy has played by all of the rules, he hasn't marched in front of TV cameras to vent his distaste for wolves, and he's cooperated in trying "non-lethal" options before going straight to the gun. He has been smart about this. He needed a hand and got it.
Greenies that might want to go after the guy are hugely in the wrong.
Post by: turkeyfeather on August 26, 2014, 09:51:16 AM
This is curious to me, why WDFW would bother with 4 out of the 12, and not take all 12 out or not take any out.This is the same question I have. The whole pack has now been educated on this easy food source.What good is only removing a few? The rest will just step up and take over.
I understand there's probably 4 culprits that's responsible for the bulk of the killings, but really does anyone think there's a wolf made that can skip by a flock of sheep and not take a couple out then come back for 2nds, 3rds and so on?
There can only be one outcome, the sheep removed or the wolves removed. Killing 4 wolves and leaving an estimated 8 left (probably double that in reality) is just asking for more dead sheep.
Post by: AspenBud on August 26, 2014, 10:01:40 AM
This is curious to me, why WDFW would bother with 4 out of the 12, and not take all 12 out or not take any out.This is the same question I have. The whole pack has now been educated on this easy food source.What good is only removing a few? The rest will just step up and take over.
I understand there's probably 4 culprits that's responsible for the bulk of the killings, but really does anyone think there's a wolf made that can skip by a flock of sheep and not take a couple out then come back for 2nds, 3rds and so on?
There can only be one outcome, the sheep removed or the wolves removed. Killing 4 wolves and leaving an estimated 8 left (probably double that in reality) is just asking for more dead sheep.
My guess is someone has only seen four in the area so they'll start with that. If they go after the whole pack outright it will be seen as too heavy handed. If they take a more methodical and slow approach they can say they tried to limit how many they had to kill if/when it comes to killing more. Look at the comments, they are eating it from both sides. People hate them for killing any and people hate them for not killing enough. This is probably their way of walking on the knife blade.
Post by: KFhunter on August 26, 2014, 10:11:28 AM
The second he picked up the phone and asked WDFW for help it all became a matter of public record. WDFW is not in the business of witness protection and if anything, they have praised the guy over and over for being cooperative.
McIrvin made one fatal mistake, he went all over TV and the papers to tell the world he didn't want wolves in the state. He has also advocated poisoning them and he has turned down anything short of lethal removal. This current guy has played by all of the rules, he hasn't marched in front of TV cameras to vent his distaste for wolves, and he's cooperated in trying "non-lethal" options before going straight to the gun. He has been smart about this. He needed a hand and got it.
Greenies that might want to go after the guy are hugely in the wrong.
Please provide examples to back up your statements because I don't think you are correct.
If indeed "he went all over TV and the papers to tell the world he didn't want wolves in the state. He has also advocated poisoning them and he has turned down anything short of lethal removal." then it will be easy to locate sources.
Thanks.
edit to add
Quote
Bill Mcirvin, one of the owners of the Diamond M ranch that lost 17 head of cattle, gets the last word here to address accusations they had not done all they could to keep their cattle safe, that they resorted too quickly to calling for elimination of the wolf pack:
"We've done everything the department has suggested except for a range riding program and we have five riders of our own who do it very well. We refused compensation for our killed stock because it would look like it was all right if the wolves ate our cattle as long as we got compensated. It's not all right.
"If that pack was still there, we could not use that land because cattle would not go up there. They ran from that area, ran through fences. They were so tormented they would not go there.
"Half of the cattle were killed on our private ground, not on public land. Also, the game in the Wedge area is decimated. There's bears, cougars and wolves and there's no game base left. We need regional delisting.
"Last of all, thanks to the department for taking this action so myself and my family could stay in business."
Post by: timberfaller on August 26, 2014, 10:14:52 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on August 26, 2014, 10:28:22 AM
Post by: KFhunter on August 26, 2014, 10:29:58 AM
I think wdfw is handling the situation as best they can given the political makeup of this state. They have to be measured in their response or they will undermine the ability to use lethal removal in the future. :twocents:
Now that it's gone viral perhaps you're correct.
WDFW needs to learn to SSS
Post by: idahohuntr on August 26, 2014, 10:36:10 AM
All lethal wolf removal actions authorized by the state will "go viral"...have you not read the news in the last 20 years of wolf control actions in the Northern Rocky Mountains? :chuckle:I think wdfw is handling the situation as best they can given the political makeup of this state. They have to be measured in their response or they will undermine the ability to use lethal removal in the future. :twocents:
Now that it's gone viral perhaps you're correct.
WDFW needs to learn to SSS
WDFW must operate in a transparent fashion. Anything less, especially when it comes to controversial wolves, will only lead to long-term problems. They need to keep showing the public they can manage wolves...take lethal action when necessary yet still meet de-listing/recovery goals. That is the only chance we have at ever getting a hunting season or reasonable management of wolves. They kill one wolf on the sly...completely ruins any chance of future legal management...unless you think wdfw is capable of pulling off an illegal conspiracy without someone spilling the beans... :chuckle: :chuckle: I don't.
Post by: AspenBud on August 26, 2014, 10:44:08 AM
The second he picked up the phone and asked WDFW for help it all became a matter of public record. WDFW is not in the business of witness protection and if anything, they have praised the guy over and over for being cooperative.
McIrvin made one fatal mistake, he went all over TV and the papers to tell the world he didn't want wolves in the state. He has also advocated poisoning them and he has turned down anything short of lethal removal. This current guy has played by all of the rules, he hasn't marched in front of TV cameras to vent his distaste for wolves, and he's cooperated in trying "non-lethal" options before going straight to the gun. He has been smart about this. He needed a hand and got it.
Greenies that might want to go after the guy are hugely in the wrong.
Please provide examples to back up your statements because I don't think you are correct.
If indeed "he went all over TV and the papers to tell the world he didn't want wolves in the state. He has also advocated poisoning them and he has turned down anything short of lethal removal." then it will be easy to locate sources.
Thanks
Who is the guy on the horse on King 5 News?
The Wolves Of Washington State (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2H-0to6yJM#)
Here's some talk about poisoning in the paper...
http://www.capitalpress.com/content/mw-Wolves-071713#.U_zBD2PQo_c (http://www.capitalpress.com/content/mw-Wolves-071713#.U_zBD2PQo_c)
Again in the paper, partly because people questioned the use of non-lethal by him...
http://seattletimes.com/html/edcetera/2019350781_wolf_meeting_friday_in_olympia.html (http://seattletimes.com/html/edcetera/2019350781_wolf_meeting_friday_in_olympia.html)
And generally this is what is said...
http://themountainnewswa.net/2012/11/08/killing-of-wolf-pack-sparks-growing-controversy/ (http://themountainnewswa.net/2012/11/08/killing-of-wolf-pack-sparks-growing-controversy/)
At the end of it people feel how they feel about the guy. I just think this current rancher has been smarter in his approach.
Post by: KFhunter on August 26, 2014, 11:06:56 AM
Not that it wouldn't be effective (poison) but because it would kill everything including eagles that fed on it.
They fought the first wolf battle in WA and all the other ranchers learned a great deal from that battle. I still applaud the Diamond M for their efforts that led the way for ranchers and livestock owners coming along behind fight a better battle and avoiding the pitfalls the Diamond M faced.
So no I won't be an apologist for Diamond M as I feel they are right and fought a mostly successful battle. The wedge pack was "removed", the ranchers got a reprieve.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 26, 2014, 11:07:57 AM
McIrvin explained to NBC News that he believes groups with “a radical environmental agenda” are conspiring to introduce gray wolves in order “to take our (grazing) lease from us.”
If the public doesn't want grazing on their lands, they will tell McIrvin to take a hike. Right now, they allow it. In the future? Maybe not...wolves are not necessary to stop McIrvin from grazing should the public decide they don't want their resources used in that manner.
“We have the right to protect our property,” McIrvin said, adding that he considered the wildlife department “a rogue government agency”...
So does the public...if they don't want their land grazed or their wolves killed, then they will protect their property and not allow grazing or wolf harvest.
Post by: KFhunter on August 26, 2014, 11:15:10 AM
All lethal wolf removal actions authorized by the state will "go viral"...have you not read the news in the last 20 years of wolf control actions in the Northern Rocky Mountains? :chuckle:I think wdfw is handling the situation as best they can given the political makeup of this state. They have to be measured in their response or they will undermine the ability to use lethal removal in the future. :twocents:
Now that it's gone viral perhaps you're correct.
WDFW needs to learn to SSS
WDFW must operate in a transparent fashion. Anything less, especially when it comes to controversial wolves, will only lead to long-term problems. They need to keep showing the public they can manage wolves...take lethal action when necessary yet still meet de-listing/recovery goals. That is the only chance we have at ever getting a hunting season or reasonable management of wolves. They kill one wolf on the sly...completely ruins any chance of future legal management...unless you think wdfw is capable of pulling off an illegal conspiracy without someone spilling the beans... :chuckle: :chuckle: I don't.
"WDFW needs to learn to SSS" was meant to be a funny tongue in cheek comment...but you managed to turn it into a burn in on wolfbait and others pushing wolf relocating conspiracies.
Post by: KFhunter on August 26, 2014, 11:23:28 AM
Some interesting quotes from that last article link:
McIrvin explained to NBC News that he believes groups with “a radical environmental agenda” are conspiring to introduce gray wolves in order “to take our (grazing) lease from us.”
If the public doesn't want grazing on their lands, they will tell McIrvin to take a hike. Right now, they allow it. In the future? Maybe not...wolves are not necessary to stop McIrvin from grazing should the public decide they don't want their resources used in that manner.
“We have the right to protect our property,” McIrvin said, adding that he considered the wildlife department “a rogue government agency”...
So does the public...if they don't want their land grazed or their wolves killed, then they will protect their property and not allow grazing or wolf harvest.
Half the Diamond M's cattle was killed on private ground, but they weren't the only ranch suffering losses.
Another rancher lost almost as many cattle, all on private ground.
The sheep killed recently was on private ground as well.
You and a lot of other folks were calling for an end to public grazing, right here on HW forums. Easy to think that wolves are a tool to help end a lot of things, including public grazing and hunting.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 26, 2014, 11:29:01 AM
Post by: KFhunter on August 26, 2014, 11:30:52 AM
I've never called for an end to public land grazing. I wasn't judging McIrvin...just pointing out the public owns the wildlife and the land the leases are on...if he doesn't like how they (the public) decides to manage their property, then he can go buy private land to graze on. Very simple.
ah - maybe I confused a different issue I was opposed to your viewpoint...like blazing roads through private property to access public property.
there are so many, I loose track :chuckle:
my bad
Post by: idahohuntr on August 26, 2014, 11:34:46 AM
Post by: KFhunter on August 26, 2014, 11:43:25 AM
I think you tell so many lies you are having a hard time keeping track of the truth...for example another lie is you saying I ever supported "blazing roads through private property to access public property". Life is easier if you just stick to the truth...then you don't have to track your web of lies and misinformation. :tup:
yup you're correct, those were my words.
Here's your words:
I think we need serious revision to hunter access programs in this state and at the federal level we need to make sure every piece of public land is accessible to the public and not landlocked by some jerk with a 50,000 acre ranch.
Guess my memory hasn't failed me :tup:
Post by: idahohuntr on August 26, 2014, 11:49:39 AM
Post by: timberfaller on August 26, 2014, 08:17:29 PM
Interesting debate!
So I'll ask a couple of questions, How do you suppose, to MAKE "access" to public land if land locked by some Legal land owner? if roads aren't available.
Private land owners(jerks as you call them) PAY taxes to the government for just OWNING it. Their lively hood is attached to said land(which usually means MORE taxes to pay). LOTS of people don't "respect" private lands by how they treat it and leave it.
I am assuming by your post, idaho, you don't believe the "owner" of said land has a RIGHT to say what happens or who steps on his/her land?? Is that right?
Inquiring minds would like to know.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 26, 2014, 09:35:15 PM
To answer your question, an access easement does not require a road. Such an easement across private land can be for foot traffic only and requires no alteration or disturbance to the private land...folks like me that see 10-15,000 acres of public land with great elk and deer hunting on it think...gee...maybe the public should have access to their land just like if a private landowner has a chunk of ground surrounded on all sides by private land. Not road/motorized/etc. access...just legal foot access would be fine with me. :tup:
Post by: VarmintVentilator on August 27, 2014, 12:26:11 PM
Post by: wolfbait on August 27, 2014, 09:08:45 PM
Unfortnately because of the all the media attention, this whole situation is a lose, lose for everyone involved. The rancher and WDFW. But I'm not sure where the information came from that the state of Washingtion hired a hunter, aka sniper, aka sharpshooter when he is already there employee. :twocents: Hope this thing gets resolved soon, so things can quiet down, (at least until the next eruption.)
About the only one who is and will have a loss is the rancher, environmentalists will wail about the poor wolves, begging money to save them, and WDFW will drag this out just like they did with the Wedge. Anyone who still thinks WDFW care about hunters etc. need only look at the wolf plan and uncontrolled predators.
WDFW like the media as their supporters are pro-wolf.
Post by: Earshot on August 30, 2014, 12:49:10 AM
"Wolves we don't need no stinking wolves"
Post by: timberfaller on August 30, 2014, 10:47:08 AM
Canada will always have enough to share. Those who want to hunt them can and those who think the lovely and cuddly can go and take pictures too.
Post by: demontang on August 30, 2014, 11:43:59 AM
Post by: wolfbait on August 30, 2014, 12:17:43 PM
Untell the hunters unite and stop battling each other the pro wolf people will get there way. Knowledge and accurate knowledge at that needs to be spread before we can get anywhere.02. The wolves we have are the wrong one for starting arguement bigger and more agressive.
By now most hunters etc. have united as one over wolf management/control, those you see on W-H and elsewhere who fail to recognize the impact wolves have had on the game herds etc. after 18 years, are not your average hunters, if they are hunters at all. These people either have drank the greenie cool-aid and are basically brain-washed, or they are benefitting from wolves in one way or another.
The problem we as hunters etc. have is mainstream media will not report the other side of the wolf issue, so other then word of mouth we don't get too much coverage.
Yellowstone is Dead Yellowstone is Dead (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYxGJB5dJxI#ws)
Yellowstone is Dead Theatrical Trailer Yellowstone is Dead Theatrical Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhnZvan_uT8#ws)
Post by: nwwanderer on August 30, 2014, 02:06:07 PM
Post by: buglebrush on August 30, 2014, 02:38:46 PM
Timber, please do not follow the lead of KF and twist what I say into these exaggerated lies. Nowhere did I equate all landowners as "jerks"...its absurd for you to even suggest this. I presume you are a landowner?
To answer your question, an access easement does not require a road. Such an easement across private land can be for foot traffic only and requires no alteration or disturbance to the private land...folks like me that see 10-15,000 acres of public land with great elk and deer hunting on it think...gee...maybe the public should have access to their land just like if a private landowner has a chunk of ground surrounded on all sides by private land. Not road/motorized/etc. access...just legal foot access would be fine with me. :tup:
Big time slippery slope to mandate that a private landowner has to give access of any kind. BAD IDEA! My family owned several hundred acres backed up to NF growing up, and it was a constant battle keeping people out. I am a huge proponent of property rights. They are already screwing landowners enough with building permits, property taxes, etc.... However, if you have some property you have worked your butt off and poured your money into for the past forty years, and want to allow public access be my guest. Just don't try to force your view on those of us who have worked our butts off building what we've got. :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on August 30, 2014, 10:34:21 PM
If you buy/own a chunk of private land you must have legal access to your property...that is, your neighbors can not landlock you out of your property. So in a private/private land ownership situation, a private landowner does have to give access...that is law...so there is no slippery slope...its already mandated. All I would like is for that same right to extend to publicly owned lands.Timber, please do not follow the lead of KF and twist what I say into these exaggerated lies. Nowhere did I equate all landowners as "jerks"...its absurd for you to even suggest this. I presume you are a landowner?
To answer your question, an access easement does not require a road. Such an easement across private land can be for foot traffic only and requires no alteration or disturbance to the private land...folks like me that see 10-15,000 acres of public land with great elk and deer hunting on it think...gee...maybe the public should have access to their land just like if a private landowner has a chunk of ground surrounded on all sides by private land. Not road/motorized/etc. access...just legal foot access would be fine with me. :tup:
Big time slippery slope to mandate that a private landowner has to give access of any kind. BAD IDEA! My family owned several hundred acres backed up to NF growing up, and it was a constant battle keeping people out. I am a huge proponent of property rights. They are already screwing landowners enough with building permits, property taxes, etc.... However, if you have some property you have worked your butt off and poured your money into for the past forty years, and want to allow public access be my guest. Just don't try to force your view on those of us who have worked our butts off building what we've got. :twocents:
Post by: KFhunter on August 30, 2014, 11:15:01 PM
If you buy/own a chunk of private land you must have legal access to your property...that is, your neighbors can not landlock you out of your property. So in a private/private land ownership situation, a private landowner does have to give access...that is law...so there is no slippery slope...its already mandated. All I would like is for that same right to extend to publicly owned lands.Timber, please do not follow the lead of KF and twist what I say into these exaggerated lies. Nowhere did I equate all landowners as "jerks"...its absurd for you to even suggest this. I presume you are a landowner?
To answer your question, an access easement does not require a road. Such an easement across private land can be for foot traffic only and requires no alteration or disturbance to the private land...folks like me that see 10-15,000 acres of public land with great elk and deer hunting on it think...gee...maybe the public should have access to their land just like if a private landowner has a chunk of ground surrounded on all sides by private land. Not road/motorized/etc. access...just legal foot access would be fine with me. :tup:
Big time slippery slope to mandate that a private landowner has to give access of any kind. BAD IDEA! My family owned several hundred acres backed up to NF growing up, and it was a constant battle keeping people out. I am a huge proponent of property rights. They are already screwing landowners enough with building permits, property taxes, etc.... However, if you have some property you have worked your butt off and poured your money into for the past forty years, and want to allow public access be my guest. Just don't try to force your view on those of us who have worked our butts off building what we've got. :twocents:
IE: blaze roads through private property. (I'll let the readers decide if I'm the liar here)
We should get back to talking about the sheep farmer and his wolf problem.
Post by: AspenBud on August 31, 2014, 07:33:24 AM
If there is a bigger threat to hunting in this state than wolves it is limited land access. Weyerhaeuser has already priced a lot of people out of the game on the west side. That said, they still allow access to public lands via roads on their property.
Post by: AspenBud on August 31, 2014, 07:45:51 AM
If you buy/own a chunk of private land you must have legal access to your property...that is, your neighbors can not landlock you out of your property. So in a private/private land ownership situation, a private landowner does have to give access...that is law...so there is no slippery slope...its already mandated. All I would like is for that same right to extend to publicly owned lands.Timber, please do not follow the lead of KF and twist what I say into these exaggerated lies. Nowhere did I equate all landowners as "jerks"...its absurd for you to even suggest this. I presume you are a landowner?
To answer your question, an access easement does not require a road. Such an easement across private land can be for foot traffic only and requires no alteration or disturbance to the private land...folks like me that see 10-15,000 acres of public land with great elk and deer hunting on it think...gee...maybe the public should have access to their land just like if a private landowner has a chunk of ground surrounded on all sides by private land. Not road/motorized/etc. access...just legal foot access would be fine with me. :tup:
Big time slippery slope to mandate that a private landowner has to give access of any kind. BAD IDEA! My family owned several hundred acres backed up to NF growing up, and it was a constant battle keeping people out. I am a huge proponent of property rights. They are already screwing landowners enough with building permits, property taxes, etc.... However, if you have some property you have worked your butt off and poured your money into for the past forty years, and want to allow public access be my guest. Just don't try to force your view on those of us who have worked our butts off building what we've got. :twocents:
IE: blaze roads through private property. (I'll let the readers decide if I'm the liar here)
We should get back to talking about the sheep farmer and his wolf problem.
Indeed, I think a one way ticket to hard feelings with many hunters is for landowners who want their help with wolves to say "please help us out with wolves, just don't come asking for land access to hunt."
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 31, 2014, 09:08:08 AM
Wolves and Coyotes SHOULD have one thing in common! Open season year around :tup:
Canada will always have enough to share. Those who want to hunt them can and those who think the lovely and cuddly can go and take pictures too.
Unfortunately, by the time there's open season on wolves in WA it'll be because there's no season for anything else we want to hunt.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 31, 2014, 10:01:06 AM
Access does not mean road KF. Access is a different word than road. A road is a driveable surface for a motorized vehicle. Access is a means of entering a place...including on foot. Stop intentionally lying about what I say and confusing the two...words mean things. :tup:If you buy/own a chunk of private land you must have legal access to your property...that is, your neighbors can not landlock you out of your property. So in a private/private land ownership situation, a private landowner does have to give access...that is law...so there is no slippery slope...its already mandated. All I would like is for that same right to extend to publicly owned lands.Timber, please do not follow the lead of KF and twist what I say into these exaggerated lies. Nowhere did I equate all landowners as "jerks"...its absurd for you to even suggest this. I presume you are a landowner?
To answer your question, an access easement does not require a road. Such an easement across private land can be for foot traffic only and requires no alteration or disturbance to the private land...folks like me that see 10-15,000 acres of public land with great elk and deer hunting on it think...gee...maybe the public should have access to their land just like if a private landowner has a chunk of ground surrounded on all sides by private land. Not road/motorized/etc. access...just legal foot access would be fine with me. :tup:
Big time slippery slope to mandate that a private landowner has to give access of any kind. BAD IDEA! My family owned several hundred acres backed up to NF growing up, and it was a constant battle keeping people out. I am a huge proponent of property rights. They are already screwing landowners enough with building permits, property taxes, etc.... However, if you have some property you have worked your butt off and poured your money into for the past forty years, and want to allow public access be my guest. Just don't try to force your view on those of us who have worked our butts off building what we've got. :twocents:
IE: blaze roads through private property. (I'll let the readers decide if I'm the liar here)
We should get back to talking about the sheep farmer and his wolf problem.
Good point Aspen on why depredation claims may not be a priority in the future...its kind of like the bear/tree damage proposal we are seeing from wdfw. You have problem bears but you want to charge hunters to access your land? :chuckle: Let us know how that works for ya!
Post by: wolfbait on August 31, 2014, 10:02:03 AM
One legally taken wolf gets more press than all of the dozens of privately owned, valuable, cattle, sheep, guard dogs, and pets combined. Timberfaller has it right, 365 and 24/7 wolf take on private land. If the feds and DNR can garner public support for different management on there land, more power to them. Grazing on millions of acres of public land is a tool that has benefit if used properly. State owned wildlife on private land is becoming more and more a risk and cost that the state talks about but does little. Ask the land owners in the Skagit Valley about elk, private land grazers in Stevens county about predators, grain farmers about deer, elk and turkey losses and the performance of the agencies involved rarely gets a passing grade. The solutions require communication and understanding of complicated systems and issues not control mentalities.
"Ask the land owners in the Skagit Valley about elk, private land grazers in Stevens county about predators, grain farmers about deer, elk and turkey losses and the performance of the agencies involved rarely gets a passing grade. " The solutions require communication and understanding of complicated systems and issues not control mentalities."
As wolves impact the game herds, the herds move down into private land, and refuse to leave causing ranchers etc. problems that use to only occur during heavy snow years, and yet the USFWS and state game agencies refuse to acknowledge the reason is wolves.
Farmers, ranchers etc. have tried to communicate with the USFWS, and state game agencies over these problems, look at the input to the WDFW wolf plan, ranchers wanted six BPS we ended up with 15. Now according to WDFW the wolves are populating WA faster then they anticipated, and yet known wolf packs are still not being confirmed.
After 18 years and every study that could be thought up has been studied to death and WDFW want to continue with new studies? And After 18 years many of the problems are not complicated at all, all fingers point at wolves, but the solution does not fit into the narrative of the USFWS and some state game agencies. Look at WDFW wildlands plan and the players involved. http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,150293.175.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,150293.175.html) http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00727/cwcs_executive_summary.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00727/cwcs_executive_summary.pdf)
The problem is not "communication and understanding of complicated systems and issues", the problem is the the solutions do not fit in with the USFWS and WDFW agenda, or the lawyers that make up DoW, CNW, and other groups that make money suing the USFWS and receiving federal grants for studies that have already been done numerous times.
The nature conservancy etc. buy up private lands and then resell the land to the feds at huge profit, in other wards the "environmental groups" are the middle men for the feds, so it doesn't look like the feds are buying up as much land as they are. Look at WDFW and their land purchases, it has nothing to do with conserving habitat with wolves in the picture, because with uncontrolled wolves there will be no game.
How long will it be before WDFW confirms enough wolf packs to delist, and what kind of impact will the wolves have had on our game herds and livestock by then? Does WDFW care? Six years later with a wolf plan that calls for 15 BPS and where are we today?
Six years for ID, MT, and Wyoming:
2002
Estimated 663 wolves including 43 breeding pairs in tri-state area. Third year of 3 year countdown. USFWS announces
wolves are recovered in tri-state area.
2003
Estimated 761 wolves including 51 breeding pairs in tri-state area. Wolves downlisted from endangered to threatened in the
tri-state area.
WDFW said they are waiting until after the labor day weekend, before they continue to drag out their wolf predation management, 33 wolf killed sheep later.
After 18 years there are no secrets.
Stevensvill Montana Ranching & Agenda 21-How wolves are used as a tool
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SX4wpTSszFQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SX4wpTSszFQ)
Post by: rim_runner on August 31, 2014, 10:50:20 AM
Quote
The nature conservancy etc. buy up private lands and then resell the land to the feds at huge profitCan you provide some examples of where the Nature Conservancy has sold lands to the feds for a huge profit?
Post by: wolfbait on August 31, 2014, 11:44:18 AM
QuoteThe nature conservancy etc. buy up private lands and then resell the land to the feds at huge profitCan you provide some examples of where the Nature Conservancy has sold lands to the feds for a huge profit?
Check this thread out, should be plenty of info. scroll down to the bottom
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,150293.475.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,150293.475.html)
Post by: wolfbait on August 31, 2014, 08:53:35 PM
Huckleberry Pack attacks more sheep in Stevens County
ENDANGERED SPECIES — Even though two more sheep were found injured from wolf attacks this week, the Washington Fish and Wildlife Department is planning to suspend trapping and ground helicopter gunners through the Labor Day weekend to avoid conflicts with recreationists and hunters out for the Sept. 1 opening of grouse hunting season.
At least 24 sheep have been killed in eight confirmed wolf attacks on a flock of 1,800 sheep grazing private timber company land in southern Stevens County since Aug. 14
One wolf was killed by a helicopter gunner on Aug. 22. Although officers and ranch crews have been authorized to shoot up to four wolves in the pack of up to 12 members, no others have been killed.
Meanwhile, rancher Dave Dashiell of Hunters apparently is making plans to move some or all of his sheep flock to other pasture he's secured.
Here's the latest update, through today and looking at plans from next week, from Nate Pamplin, WDFW assistant wildlife program director:
WDFW staff, along with the rancher, a contracted range rider, and four guard dogs continue to provide on-going presence to protect the flock of 1,800 sheep.
Two injured lambs were found by the operator yesterday. This morning, one lamb died of its injuries, the other was euthanized. Investigators attributed the injuries to wolves, making this confirmed depredation event #8. The attack likely occurred a few days ago.
As of this morning, no wolves were trapped/euthanized. Trapping will cease after tomorrow morning. Also, there will not be further aerial operations this weekend (the last flight was Tuesday morning). We want to avoid conflicts and possible public safety issues with Labor Day weekend recreationists and Monday’s grouse and archery deer hunting opener. Department staff and the rancher will continue to have authorization to lethally remove up to two wolves observed in the vicinity of the flock, and we will not exceed a total of four wolves removed under the current authorizations for all lethal methods being utilized.
We learned that the rancher will likely be able to move his sheep off of this allotment and to an interim pasture next week. We appreciate his efforts to expedite the move and will continue to offer and provide assistance where it is needed.
We have discussed compensation for sheep injured and killed by wolves with the rancher and will continue that dialogue with him at a later date, once the more immediate issues are resolved.
In addition to continued work with this operator, Department staff will reach out to neighboring livestock owners. Our focus is to ensure awareness of this wolf pack, and to offer technical and cost-share assistance to in an effort to avoid and minimize potential depredations to these adjacent operations.
Attached is a chronology of activities associated with the Huckleberry Pack. We will update it next week, once sheep are removed from the allotment. It has been a dynamic situation, with information coming from the field, often times as new events are unfolding. We understand the intense interest in and the desire for us to get information out to all interested parties. Thus the chronology may have additional technical edits as field staff review and update. http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2014/aug/28/huckleberry-pack-attacks-more-sheep-stevens-county/ (http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2014/aug/28/huckleberry-pack-attacks-more-sheep-stevens-county/)
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml)
Post by: villageidiot on September 01, 2014, 06:30:04 AM
Brilliant! :bdid:
Post by: wolfbait on September 01, 2014, 07:41:58 AM
So WDFW gives a go ahead to kill 4 of the 12. What's the difference if you are diagnosed with cancer and the doctor says he will only remove one third of your cancer and see if that will stop your detoriation?
Brilliant! :bdid:
The longer WDFW drag this out the better the fund raising for DoW, CNW etc..
Post by: wolfbait on September 01, 2014, 07:43:13 AM
ENDANGERED SPECIES — Environmental groups who've been unable to persuade Washington wildlife officials into letting wolves eat as many sheep as they like in southern Stevens County are pressuring Gov. Jay Inslee to clamp down on wolf management when it comes to lethal control efforts. Here's the story just moved by the Associated Press:
SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) — Environmental groups on Thursday asked Gov. Jay Inslee to push for the creation of strict rules limiting when wolves can be killed in response to livestock depredations.
Their petition sought to limit when the state Department of Fish and Wildlife can kill wolves. It would also require ranchers to use nonlethal measures to protect their livestock.
Rules similar to those requested by the petition are in place in Oregon.
The groups made the request as the state was in the process this week of trying to kill four wolves in the Huckleberry Pack in an effort to protect a herd of sheep. One wolf has been killed so far.
Wolves were hunted to extinction a century ago in Washington. Since the early 2000s, the animals have started to make a comeback by entering Washington from Idaho and British Columbia. The state is estimated to have 52 wolves in 13 packs.
“All we’re asking for are some very reasonable standards on what ranchers need to do to protect their livestock and when the state can step in and kill an endangered species,” said Amaroq Weiss of the Center for Biological Diversity.
The governor’s office has 45 days to respond to the request. The office has received the petition and will review the request, Inslee spokeswoman Jaime Smith said.
In 2012, the state killed seven wolves in the Wedge Pack despite the fact that the rancher had taken little action to protect his stock, the environmental groups said.
They contend the situation is similar with the Huckleberry Pack.
However, the Department of Fish and Wildlife has said the owner of the sheep herd has taken numerous nonlethal steps to protect his 1,800 animals. But wolves keep killing the sheep.
Conservation groups filed a similar petition in 2013, but they withdrew it based on promises from the Fish and Wildlife to negotiate new rules governing lethal methods of wolf management. No negotiations have taken place, the environmental groups said.
The groups appealing to Inslee also include Cascadia Wildlands, Western Environmental Law Center, Gifford Pinchot Task Force, The Lands Council, Wildlands Network, Kettle Range Conservation Group and the Washington State Chapter of the Sierra Club. http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2014/aug/28/pro-wolf-groups-pressure-gov-inslee-curb-wolf-control/ (http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2014/aug/28/pro-wolf-groups-pressure-gov-inslee-curb-wolf-control/)
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml)
Post by: nwwanderer on September 01, 2014, 01:31:31 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 01, 2014, 02:33:34 PM
Post by: wolfbait on September 09, 2014, 05:55:28 AM
A Stevens County family moved 1,800 sheep off private grazing land over the weekend to protect their flock from wolves that have killed at least two dozen of the animals this summer.
Dave and Julie Dashiell decided to get their sheep to safety rather than wait for state wildlife officials to track down and kill up to four wolves from the Huckleberry Pack, which is at least six strong and hunts north of the Spokane Tribe reservation.
The ranchers tried everything to thwart the attacks, said Jamie Henneman, spokeswoman for the Stevens County Cattlemen’s Association, which is working on behalf of the Dashiells. They had a full-time herder, four guard dogs, range riders and extra help from state employees, but confirmed wolf kills kept mounting, Henneman said Monday.
“There’s a point where you’ve got to decide, do you leave and hopefully stay in business, or do you stick around until there’s just nothing left,” she said.
The Dashiells know of 24 sheep they lost to wolf attacks the past few weeks and fear the actual toll could be twice that number.
On Sunday they pulled their remaining sheep off rangeland they leased from Hancock Timber Co. northeast of Hunters in southern Stevens County. The animals were moved, with assistance from state employees, to a temporary pasture and soon will be trucked to their winter range, about six weeks earlier than planned, Henneman said.
The Washington Fish and Wildlife Department shot one of the wolves, an adult female, from a helicopter on Aug. 23 and set out traps in hopes of removing up to three others from the pack. But the agency pulled its traps before the Labor Day weekend to avoid conflicts with recreationists and grouse hunters.
The state responded quickly to assist the Dashiells once it was clear wolves were attacking the flock, said Donny Martorello, carnivore section manager for Fish and Wildlife.
When wolves start preying on domestic sheep, losses can add up quickly, Martorello said Monday. “The alarm bells went off for us,” he said, and the agency worked with the rancher daily on preventing more attacks.
Now that the Dashiells have removed the sheep, the state will re-evaluate what to do next, Martorello said.
“We’re certainly concerned about the behavior, the repeated depredations,” he said. “We did remove one wolf; we don’t know if we’ve broken that pattern of depredation, that prey-switching from natural prey to sheep.”
Henneman said the cattlemen’s association sees this as a case of the state falling short of protecting livestock producers.
“If this is the precedent – that Fish and Wildlife refuses to control their animals, that the rancher has to leave – we have a private property rights crisis here,” she said. “That means anyone that owns land out here … it means you’re going to get kicked out, the predator has precedence.”
Henneman also noted that other land and livestock owners in that area may be at risk from the Huckleberry Pack.
“As soon as that pack figures out that their 1,800 sheep are gone, they’re going to move on to the next site,” she said. “This is not the end to these troubles.”
Until recently the pack had spent most of its time on the Spokane reservation but now is more active north of the reservation. The Dashiells did not know the pack was that close until the attacks began, Henneman said.
Fish and Wildlife plans to reach out to neighboring livestock owners to discuss the pack and offer help to try to prevent more attacks. The agency also is evaluating compensation for the Dashiells for the sheep injured and killed by wolves.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/sep/02/stevens-county-ranchers-move-sheep-after-wolves/ (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/sep/02/stevens-county-ranchers-move-sheep-after-wolves/)
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml)