Post by: wapiti hunter2 on September 15, 2014, 06:36:06 PM
Not surprised.
http://mynorthwest.com/174/2608289/Wash-reports-new-wolf-pack-found (http://mynorthwest.com/174/2608289/Wash-reports-new-wolf-pack-found)
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on September 15, 2014, 06:45:01 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on September 15, 2014, 06:57:47 PM
I was told by a horsemwomen I know, about these wolves 2 months ago. She saw a black one and knew there was a den too. Her horse wouldn't go any further after smelling the black wolf. I've seen wolf scat up there last year. It's not very far from my house...
Post by: boneaddict on September 15, 2014, 07:00:48 PM
Post by: snowpack on September 15, 2014, 07:05:10 PM
Post by: boneaddict on September 15, 2014, 07:07:44 PM
Post by: bearpaw on September 15, 2014, 07:11:47 PM
Quote
The Diamond M livestock operation, grazing on U.S. Forest Service land, reported finding wolf-killed cattle in the vicinity of the pack last Friday.
Fish and Wildlife staff have confirmed that a cow and calf had been killed by wolves.
Probably old news on these wolves other than now they have pups. I think this is some of the wolves that a local trapper gave me photos of two years ago taken not far from Profanity and I posted in the wolf count topic.
More wolves in cattle... :chuckle: This is playing out just as expected!
Post by: bearpaw on September 15, 2014, 07:14:06 PM
If you have stumbled around on it in the dark, youd know why it was named that.
Been there and done that too! :tup:
Post by: wolfbait on September 15, 2014, 08:20:12 PM
QuoteThe Diamond M livestock operation, grazing on U.S. Forest Service land, reported finding wolf-killed cattle in the vicinity of the pack last Friday.
Fish and Wildlife staff have confirmed that a cow and calf had been killed by wolves.
Probably old news on these wolves other than now they have pups. I think this is some of the wolves that a local trapper gave me photos of two years ago taken not far from Profanity and I posted in the wolf count topic.
More wolves in cattle... :chuckle: This is playing out just as expected!
It takes livestock predation to get a wolf pack confirmed, surprised there was no mention of cougars.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on September 15, 2014, 08:26:03 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on September 15, 2014, 08:38:39 PM
I was told 15 minutes ago, the rancher was up there removing all of his cattle with 3 game wardens and a couple cops watching.Why are 3 game wardens and a couple cops watching a guy round up his cattle?
Post by: Mudman on September 15, 2014, 08:42:06 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on September 15, 2014, 09:05:12 PM
I was told 15 minutes ago, the rancher was up there removing all of his cattle with 3 game wardens and a couple cops watching.Why are 3 game wardens and a couple cops watching a guy round up his cattle?
Because the WDFW are idiots and I know the rancher would probably shoot the first wolf he saw.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on September 15, 2014, 09:09:56 PM
The spotted owl greeners may have an even bigger disaster brewing! Campmeat what is the "Name" of wolves that roam Trout to Sheridan Hardscrabble area? I assume its Bodie pack? Or do they not exist yet? :chuckle:
No name for those, YET. The WDFW doesn't believe anything thing that we tell them, or show them. I've seen them in those areas, have pictures of scat and tracks, WDFW doesn't care. I hear about them in Wauconda now and in you area over here too. I was told of 2 in a field over the hill from your place about a month ago.
One of our HW members is hunting up Hardscrabble with his wife and I told him about the wolves in that area for safety reasons. He's camping up Trout Creek past your place.
Post by: wolfbait on September 15, 2014, 09:15:59 PM
The spotted owl greeners may have an even bigger disaster brewing! Campmeat what is the "Name" of wolves that roam Trout to Sheridan Hardscrabble area? I assume its Bodie pack? Or do they not exist yet? :chuckle:
No name for those, YET. The WDFW doesn't believe anything thing that we tell them, or show them. I've seen them in those areas, have pictures of scat and tracks, WDFW doesn't care. I hear about them in Wauconda now and in you area over here too. I was told of 2 in a field over the hill from your place about a month ago.
One of our HW members is hunting up Hardscrabble with his wife and I told him about the wolves in that area for safety reasons. He's camping up Trout Creek past your place.
It isn't that they don't believe you Campmeat, WDFW know where their wolves are they just don't confirm unless they are forced to do so.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on September 15, 2014, 09:18:29 PM
The spotted owl greeners may have an even bigger disaster brewing! Campmeat what is the "Name" of wolves that roam Trout to Sheridan Hardscrabble area? I assume its Bodie pack? Or do they not exist yet? :chuckle:
No name for those, YET. The WDFW doesn't believe anything thing that we tell them, or show them. I've seen them in those areas, have pictures of scat and tracks, WDFW doesn't care. I hear about them in Wauconda now and in you area over here too. I was told of 2 in a field over the hill from your place about a month ago.
One of our HW members is hunting up Hardscrabble with his wife and I told him about the wolves in that area for safety reasons. He's camping up Trout Creek past your place.
It isn't that they don't believe you Campmeat, WDFW know where their wolves are they just don't confirm unless they are forced to do so.
I forgot, CNW money goes a long ways....
Post by: Mudman on September 15, 2014, 09:19:06 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on September 15, 2014, 09:21:00 PM
I see. Well I guess next week I will be listening to ghost wolves howling again. :bash: Heck the top of a mountain has wolf scat all over it. I had to investigate after they howled from it the night before. Very close to camp. Wolfbait your right and thats the problem, corrupt political agenda.
Maybe I'll swing by earlier before you pack up and leave...
Post by: Mudman on September 15, 2014, 09:28:47 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on September 16, 2014, 07:58:09 AM
Sure, sat. to sat. so sun.-fri. Usually around early afternoon till 3ish.
Got it. Maybe take pictures of your local grizzly bear while you're over here. Start a new WDFWW scare...... :dunno:
Post by: wolfbait on September 16, 2014, 08:20:06 AM
Another Washington wolf pack targets livestock
ENDANGERED SPECIES — A northeastern Washington wolf pack so new it hasn't been formally recognized has been confirmed in a livestock attack in Ferry County, state wildlife officials announced today.
The Profanity Pack, which apparently was documented sometime this year by a biologist working with the Colville Confederated Tribes, has been related to a wolf attack on cattle reported Sept. 12 on a Colville National Forest grazing allotment.
The pack, which doesn't yet show on state wolf recovery maps, was named for its proximity to Profanity Peak, elevation 6,428 feet, along the crest of the Kettle River Range east of Curlew, and north of Sherman Pass.
“Remote cameras show the pack includes at least three adults and three pups,” said Nate Pamplin, Washington Fish and Wildlife Department wildlife program director.
“WDFW is coordinating with the Colville Confederated Tribe on camera monitoring and future trapping efforts to place a radio collar on members of the pack.”
The Diamond M livestock operation, grazing on a U.S. Forest Service (USFS) allotment, reported finding a wolf-killed cow and calf in the vicinity of the Profanity Peak pack, Pamplin said.
Diamond M Ranch also had problems with wolf attacks mostly on private land in northern Stevens County in 2012. Those attacks affecting 17 cattle, led the state to put helicopter gunners in the air and kill eight members of the Wedge Pack.
“WDFW staff and deputies from the Stevens County and Ferry County sheriff’s offices responded and went to the site on Friday,” Pamplin said. “The area was remote, about four miles by trail from the nearest road. WDFW staff confirmed that the cattle had been killed by wolves approximately a week before the necropsy.”
The Forest Service grazing allotment has 210 cow-calf pairs, Pamplin said:
The operators indicated that they believe that they have had more depredations than what has been located. Operators also indicated that they are moving the cattle down (to a lower elevation) on the allotment to get to better forage and to initiate the move of cattle toward the area from which they will moved off the range in about a month (these actions were discussed independent of this depredation event).
WDFW staff are completing the depredation investigation report and also reviewing/completing a current checklist of preventive measures that have been used to this point.
WDFW will coordinate with the USFS and the operator to continue discussions on options for avoiding/minimizing further depredations.
The cattle attacks were reported a month after another pack, the Huckleberry Pack, was confirmed in attacks on sheep a rancher was running on a private timber company grazing lease in Stevens County. At least 24 sheep were killed as state officers went in and killed one of the pack's wolves, the alpha female. The 1,800 sheep have been moved to other pasture.
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2014/sep/15/another-washington-wolf-pack-targets-livestock/ (http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2014/sep/15/another-washington-wolf-pack-targets-livestock/)
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: wolfbait on September 16, 2014, 08:23:35 AM
No doubt, but proving it will probably be impossible.
Post by: denali on September 16, 2014, 01:29:07 PM
Photo courtesy of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife trail cameras captured footage of an adult wolf in this file photo. Officials have designated a new wolf pack in northeastern Washington state.
A Washington rancher says wolves in the new Profanity Peak pack have been preying on their livestock.
Northeastern Washington has a new wolf pack, and a rancher there says it’s already been killing his cattle.
The Profanity Peak pack has been in the area at least a year, said David Ware, game division manager for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Photos indicate the pack has at least three adults and three pups. To be recognized as a pack, at least two wolves must have traveled together through a winter.
The state is working to trap the wolves to put a radio collar on one.
The pack is so named because it is near Profanity Peak in Ferry County, Ware said.
The state has already confirmed that a wolf killed an adult cow and a calf in the same territory as the pack. The livestock is owned by the Diamond M Ranch.
“We’ve been finding kills all summer,” said Bill McIrvin, partner in the Diamond M Ranch with his father, Len, and nephew Justin Hedrick.
Some 17 animals belonging to the ranch were killed or injured by wolves from the Wedge pack in 2012. The state subsequently killed seven wolves from that pack.
“We’re just trying to figure out why the first two packs that are into cattle hard in the state are into our cattle,” McIrvin said. “We think they’re killing steady.”
The ranch runs roughly 400 cow-calf pairs on two grazing allotments on the Colville National Forest near the U.S.-Canada border.
In addition to the confirmed kill, McIrvin said three other calves were killed and three calves and one cow were bitten. He also said there were three dry cows that haven’t had a calf and a couple of cows that were still producing milk, meaning their calves were likely recently killed.
“We know it’s been significant, those cows are all showing the signs of being harassed, that (the wolves are) feeding on them,” he said.
McIrvin said the ranchers maintained a human presence as they moved the livestock around, but it didn’t appear to slow the wolves.
“You know the other side will try to say it was our fault because we were sloppy ranching,” he said. “I’m sure they’ll try to make us look like the bad guy because we didn’t do enough, but we’ve done everything we could do.”
Ware said field staffers are trying to determine the best course of action to keep any more livestock from being attacked.
“It’s a fairly remote area, so it’s not going to be an easy task to determine something to do that will help keep wolves and livestock apart,” he said.
McIrvin said they also found eight cows that had been shot.
“I would guess that it’s probably wolf advocates that are shooting the cattle. We had threats and things that they would shoot cattle,” he said. The sheriff’s office has been notified.
The ranchers are moving the livestock from the grazing allotment onto privately owned fall pasture earlier than normal, McIrvin said.
McIrvin hopes to reach out to local officials.
“We don’t feel that our elected officials ought to allow the state’s wolves to prey on our livestock,” he said. “(We’re hoping to) stop the cycle of wolves eating our livestock.”
Ware advised ranchers to be diligent. Wolf depredations on livestock often occur in late summer, when the packs and wolf young are more mobile and their food needs are greater as the pups mature.
“August and September are probably the two toughest months in terms of wolf depredations,” he said.
Post by: snowpack on September 16, 2014, 01:33:53 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on September 16, 2014, 01:45:33 PM
Sounds like something wolf/eco whackos would do.:dunno: That kind of surprises me...I guess maybe those ELF groups that firebomb gas guzzlers or something...but I usually don't think of greenies as being all that proficient with firearms.
“It’s a fairly remote area, so it’s not going to be an easy task to determine something to do that will help keep wolves and livestock apart,” he said.
The surest way to reduce livestock losses from wolves is to not put livestock in wolf habitat. Not saying thats the only option, but at some point don't livestock producers have to factor in predation losses to their business if they continue to operate where wolves occur and are a protected species?
Post by: snowpack on September 16, 2014, 01:50:18 PM
I don't know that they have to be very proficient when it comes to cows.
Post by: jasnt on September 16, 2014, 02:14:39 PM
Sounds like something wolf/eco whackos would do.:dunno: That kind of surprises me...I guess maybe those ELF groups that firebomb gas guzzlers or something...but I usually don't think of greenies as being all that proficient with firearms.
“It’s a fairly remote area, so it’s not going to be an easy task to determine something to do that will help keep wolves and livestock apart,” he said.
The surest way to reduce livestock losses from wolves is to not put livestock in wolf habitat. Not saying thats the only option, but at some point don't livestock producers have to factor in predation losses to their business if they continue to operate where wolves occur and are a protected species?
at the current rate wolves are spreading it would push livestock ranchers out of the pnw. Before long. Or on poor land which defeats the whole purpose of grazing. Keeping wolves away from livestock is going to be a growing business in the future. The wolves are here to stay and I'm sure many ranchers are going to hold their ground.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on September 16, 2014, 02:35:26 PM
The trail is an old wagon trail that the old timers brought supplies from Marblemount out of Darrington to the Kettle Falls area in the old days.
Post by: wolfbait on September 16, 2014, 03:18:27 PM
Sounds like something wolf/eco whackos would do.:dunno: That kind of surprises me...I guess maybe those ELF groups that firebomb gas guzzlers or something...but I usually don't think of greenies as being all that proficient with firearms.
“It’s a fairly remote area, so it’s not going to be an easy task to determine something to do that will help keep wolves and livestock apart,” he said.
The surest way to reduce livestock losses from wolves is to not put livestock in wolf habitat. Not saying thats the only option, but at some point don't livestock producers have to factor in predation losses to their business if they continue to operate where wolves occur and are a protected species?[/color]
Magic meatballs would keep the wolves and cattle apart. :tup:
Maybe it's time to change the wolf habitat. I have a few ideas, quite sure you can guess what they are.
Post by: gaddy on September 16, 2014, 03:22:54 PM
Post by: buddy01 on September 16, 2014, 03:27:18 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on September 16, 2014, 03:29:02 PM
I hunt up lone creek ,Is this close? :dunno:
Where is Lone Creek ?
Post by: buddy01 on September 16, 2014, 03:38:01 PM
Post by: wolfbait on September 16, 2014, 05:39:15 PM
does anyone have the tally's of confirmed packs to date and locations ?
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/packs/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/packs/)
Huckleberry pack might not be included anymore as a BP, according to WDFW as they said they shot the "alpha" female.
Biologists confirmed 13 wolf packs, five successful breeding pairs and at least 52 individual wolves based on surveys through the end of 2013.
The actual number of wolves is likely higher, said Donny Martorello, WDFW carnivore specialist.
Nine of the packs are in northeastern Washington with four along the east slopes of the North Cascades. Also, Oregon reports a new pack along the Washington border, bringing the number of Blue Mountains packs to at least two.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/mar/09/state-confirms-4-new-wolf-packs/ (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/mar/09/state-confirms-4-new-wolf-packs/)
With only five breeding pairs so far, WA has along ways to go at the rate WDFW confirm.
When wolves are delisted and state management fully replaces federal management, FWS has determined that the recovery goal is being maintained when each state (Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming) maintains at least 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves.
http://democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/sites/democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/files/Gray%20Wolf%20DPS.pdf (http://democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/sites/democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/files/Gray%20Wolf%20DPS.pdf)
Post by: bearpaw on September 16, 2014, 06:21:41 PM
I hunt up lone creek ,Is this close? :dunno:
I assume you mean Lone Ranch, it's not far from Profanity.
FYI - 3 or 4 years ago we saw wolf tracks in Lone Ranch.
Post by: buddy01 on September 16, 2014, 06:36:50 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on September 16, 2014, 07:13:45 PM
Wolves are fully under state management in Eastern Washington right now.
With only five breeding pairs so far, WA has along ways to go at the rate WDFW confirm.
When wolves are delisted and state management fully replaces federal management, FWS has determined that the recovery goal is being maintained when each state (Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming) maintains at least 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves.
No, I don't have any clue what your ideas are...nor do I want to know. :chuckle:Sounds like something wolf/eco whackos would do.:dunno: That kind of surprises me...I guess maybe those ELF groups that firebomb gas guzzlers or something...but I usually don't think of greenies as being all that proficient with firearms.
“It’s a fairly remote area, so it’s not going to be an easy task to determine something to do that will help keep wolves and livestock apart,” he said.
The surest way to reduce livestock losses from wolves is to not put livestock in wolf habitat. Not saying thats the only option, but at some point don't livestock producers have to factor in predation losses to their business if they continue to operate where wolves occur and are a protected species?[/color]
Magic meatballs would keep the wolves and cattle apart. :tup:
Maybe it's time to change the wolf habitat. I have a few ideas, quite sure you can guess what they are.
You must admit though...those bio's have a good sense of humor..."Profanity Pack" I assume they named those wolves in honor of you...maybe called you up and told you about a new pack and you just started cussing...so they settled on Profanity Pack :yike: :chuckle: :sry:
Post by: CAMPMEAT on September 16, 2014, 07:26:11 PM
About 8 miles south of Canada.
Got it. They're up there too. Lone Ranch is only a mile a from the border or less. They visit from the Wedge.......
Post by: Mudman on September 16, 2014, 08:07:16 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on September 16, 2014, 09:13:46 PM
Post by: jasnt on September 16, 2014, 09:16:33 PM
Just assume they are everywhere. Man price of beef is going up, wonder why? These ranchers going to be run into the dirt at this rate. I am sure the local economy will prosper then! Keeps reminding me of the spotted owl crap. idahodude you propose removing open grazing? That would have huge ramifications across the country. Other states without wolves would be closed as well due to some stupid beetle or endangered rodent. Then the large corps. would get involved due to lack of supply and loosing $. Then it would revert back likely. No win and only the people would suffer. Camp I am setting a camera in the grizz territory to see if I get lucky. He wasnt around last year.
hit the nail dead on there tho it will be the small time ranchr on private land that's hurt the most
Post by: CAMPMEAT on September 16, 2014, 09:17:49 PM
Just assume they are everywhere. Man price of beef is going up, wonder why? These ranchers going to be run into the dirt at this rate. I am sure the local economy will prosper then! Keeps reminding me of the spotted owl crap. idahodude you propose removing open grazing? That would have huge ramifications across the country. Other states without wolves would be closed as well due to some stupid beetle or endangered rodent. Then the large corps. would get involved due to lack of supply and loosing $. Then it would revert back likely. No win and only the people would suffer. Camp I am setting a camera in the grizz territory to see if I get lucky. He wasnt around last year.
Hopefully, sorta. That would be another WDFW cluster F...........
Post by: Dan-o on September 16, 2014, 09:19:08 PM
no problem with grazing, just saying that at some point livestock producers need to factor in wolf losses as the cost of doing business in wolf country...I doubt it will have any effect on beef prices in the US.
I don't always disagree with you Idahohunter, but these folks were running cattle when there were no wolves. Kind of tough to make them factor it in after-the-fact just because people who don't have to live there (but like the thought of wolves in the wild) think it's a good idea to bring wolves back.
Post by: jasnt on September 16, 2014, 09:28:33 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on September 16, 2014, 09:32:01 PM
Yea, I get that part of it...but then you could also say wolves were here for a LONG time before any cattle. Most other private industries have to deal with changed conditions that are not favorable to their pocketbooks and which they did not ask for or necessarily even have a say in. Not sure I see a valid reason livestock production should be shielded from these realities. :dunno:no problem with grazing, just saying that at some point livestock producers need to factor in wolf losses as the cost of doing business in wolf country...I doubt it will have any effect on beef prices in the US.
I don't always disagree with you Idahohunter, but these folks were running cattle when there were no wolves. Kind of tough to make them factor it in after-the-fact just because people who don't have to live there (but like the thought of wolves in the wild) think it's a good idea to bring wolves back.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 16, 2014, 09:38:33 PM
Idahohunter can down play it all he wants but I know with our little herd we would be screwed if we lost only a few in a year it would bankrupt in maybe 2 years if lucky. Only loosing a few each year. You can charge what ever you want but in the end people are looking for a deal. Nobody will pay extra cause you lost a few cows last year. Then you sit on(feed) those that didn't sell,then a steer or 2 get sacked by the pack and your out again. Oh I almost forgot. The state will compensate ya for each confirmed kill.( 1:8 kills are confirmed) by the end of it were broke and out of biz. Only the big ranchers can eat those losess and survive long enough to raise a priceNot downplaying anything...no doubt wolves can and will kill livestock where they overlap...its a new reality for ranching in the west.
Post by: timberfaller on September 16, 2014, 09:48:27 PM
Yep, you could say, but at the same time you could say they WEREN'T here before the cattlemen showed on the scene.
You don't last in the business world if you don't PASS on to the consumer the COST and its increases of doing business, to the consumer. Economics 101
I am assuming idaho, you've never raised cattle for consumption. :dunno:
Post by: jasnt on September 16, 2014, 10:01:15 PM
Idahohunter can down play it all he wants but I know with our little herd we would be screwed if we lost only a few in a year it would bankrupt in maybe 2 years if lucky. Only loosing a few each year. You can charge what ever you want but in the end people are looking for a deal. Nobody will pay extra cause you lost a few cows last year. Then you sit on(feed) those that didn't sell,then a steer or 2 get sacked by the pack and your out again. Oh I almost forgot. The state will compensate ya for each confirmed kill.( 1:8 kills are confirmed) by the end of it were broke and out of biz. Only the big ranchers can eat those losess and survive long enough to raise a priceNot downplaying anything...no doubt wolves can and will kill livestock where they overlap...its a new reality for ranching in the west.
yup easy to say when ya don't have a small farm. No big deal with it. Yup just raise your price or let the state cover it. Then to top it all off we have to have permission to protect our livestock. Not down playing anything????? Not how it comes across idahohunter. Many off these things maybe not a huge deal for a big ranch. These little guys its huge. In the 30 years my family has been farming this little chunk we've had 2 depradations. Both were caught in the act luckily and got lead poisoning. Now we have multiple packs confirmed north and west and east of us. With plenty of sightings just next door its only a matter of time before its on our door step or our neighbors. I understand it hasn't effected you but it may very well affect us in the near future. Yet unlike Idaho we don't get to hunt them giving them fear of man, we can't porte t ours till we've already lost some,then the dam left coastys want us to spend more money or tax payers money to try these nonlethal means first so we could loose some before we can protect our stock. I don't see much light at the end myself.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 16, 2014, 10:13:51 PM
I understand how it could effect a small operation more than larger operations, again, that seems to be similar to many other industries. Its the little guy that suffers the most. I don't agree with wolves being listed in Wa state...you should be able to protect your livestock...wolves are not at risk of extinction/endangered status anywhere in the West...they should be de-listed by state and feds everywhere in the northwest...but that is not the reality. If I had a wolf come at one of my mules while out hunting in washington...I know what I would do...and its not going to be watching a predator attack or kill them. I will just hope wolfbaits on my jury :chuckle:Idahohunter can down play it all he wants but I know with our little herd we would be screwed if we lost only a few in a year it would bankrupt in maybe 2 years if lucky. Only loosing a few each year. You can charge what ever you want but in the end people are looking for a deal. Nobody will pay extra cause you lost a few cows last year. Then you sit on(feed) those that didn't sell,then a steer or 2 get sacked by the pack and your out again. Oh I almost forgot. The state will compensate ya for each confirmed kill.( 1:8 kills are confirmed) by the end of it were broke and out of biz. Only the big ranchers can eat those losess and survive long enough to raise a priceNot downplaying anything...no doubt wolves can and will kill livestock where they overlap...its a new reality for ranching in the west.
yup easy to say when ya don't have a small farm. No big deal with it. Yup just raise your price or let the state cover it. Then to top it all off we have to have permission to protect our livestock. Not down playing anything????? Not how it comes across idahohunter. Many off these things maybe not a huge deal for a big ranch. These little guys its huge. In the 30 years my family has been farming this little chunk we've had 2 depradations. Both were caught in the act luckily and got lead poisoning. Now we have multiple packs confirmed north and west and east of us. With plenty of sightings just next door its only a matter of time before its on our door step or our neighbors. I understand it hasn't effected you but it may very well affect us in the near future. Yet unlike Idaho we don't get to hunt them giving them fear of man, we can't porte t ours till we've already lost some,then the dam left coastys want us to spend more money or tax payers money to try these nonlethal means first so we could loose some before we can protect our stock. I don't see much light at the end myself.
Post by: jasnt on September 16, 2014, 10:29:56 PM
Post by: jasnt on September 16, 2014, 10:34:01 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on September 17, 2014, 06:40:03 AM
Fyi I don't think a jury in eastern WA would prosecute in that situation. I know they've had trouble even getting leads on the so called poaching of wolves here :chuckle: wolf bait is not a minority around here!
I bet only the FEDS would go after you relentlessly and ruin your life. Ferry County wouldn't do squat I bet... :tup:
Post by: wolfbait on September 17, 2014, 07:26:00 AM
Fyi I don't think a jury in eastern WA would prosecute in that situation. I know they've had trouble even getting leads on the so called poaching of wolves here :chuckle: wolf bait is not a minority around here!
I bet only the FEDS would go after you relentlessly and ruin your life. Ferry County wouldn't do squat I bet... :tup:
WDFW would be hot after you to Campmeat, they love their wolves as much as they do their grizzly bears, and you need to remember, both agencies are run by environmentalists and yes people.
I think more people are starting to seeing the true wolf, not the imaginary wolf that Environmentalists, WDFW, and the USFWS promote. There is less push back from what used to be the pro-wolf crowd. We need to remember the environmentalists and the USFWS started brain-washing the public back in the 1960's, that's a whole generation of people that believe the lies that have been told by those agencies. WDFW had a big wolf push in the 1980's and 90's until the environmentalists and USFWS decided to to release wolves in ID, MT, and Wyoming and took their wolf and grizzly bear money away.
If you read back on the history so far in WY, ID, and Montana you will see that most wolf predation on livestock occurred on private land, yet the environmentalists claim the reason for the wolf introduction was to run 30,000 ranchers off public lands. The USFS is on the same page as the USFWS, we just don't hear anything from them, they are just another environmental silent partner working for the same agenda, the wildlands project.
Wolves are an effective weapon against the American people using the ESA.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on September 17, 2014, 07:38:28 AM
Post by: Elkslayer on September 17, 2014, 07:52:39 AM
"The Profanity Peak pack has been in the area at least a year, said David Ware, game division manager for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Photos indicate the pack has at least three adults and three pups. To be recognized as a pack, at least two wolves must have traveled together through a winter."
So by there own admission they have known about this pack for at least a year. Why are they just now confirming that it is a pack? Because it made the news and they were forced to confirm it that's why. How many other packs are in the state that they wont confirm? Probably twice as many!
Post by: PolarBear on September 17, 2014, 07:55:14 AM
Probably a splinter off of the very large Sanpoil pack. Its been spreading for some time north east west and south:yeah:
Post by: Northway on September 17, 2014, 01:58:47 PM
"but then you could also say wolves were here for a LONG time before any cattle."
Yep, you could say, but at the same time you could say they WEREN'T here before the cattlemen showed on the scene.
You don't last in the business world if you don't PASS on to the consumer the COST and its increases of doing business, to the consumer. Economics 101
I am assuming idaho, you've never raised cattle for consumption. :dunno:
The only place economics has in the wolf argument is at the local level for the specific ranchers who are affected. It's a rural economic issue. There is no "wolf cost" in beef prices. There just aren't enough ranchers affected nationally to have a material effect on prices. It takes something to the effect of the massive drought/wildfires that hit most of Texas a while back, a state that has many times more cattle than the entire NRM.
I believe that would hold true even if there were a way to factor in the cost of the reduction in weight for cattle that are harried by wolves.
A significant issue for the rancher in Idaho grazing cattle in the Sawtooth, but not for the person buying the delicious six pack of strip steaks from Costco in Boise.
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 17, 2014, 02:09:02 PM
"but then you could also say wolves were here for a LONG time before any cattle."
Yep, you could say, but at the same time you could say they WEREN'T here before the cattlemen showed on the scene.
You don't last in the business world if you don't PASS on to the consumer the COST and its increases of doing business, to the consumer. Economics 101
I am assuming idaho, you've never raised cattle for consumption. :dunno:
The only place economics has in the wolf argument is at the local level for the specific ranchers who are affected. It's a rural economic issue. There is no "wolf cost" in beef prices. There just aren't enough ranchers affected nationally to have a material effect on prices. It takes something to the effect of the massive drought/wildfires that hit most of Texas a while back, a state that has many times more cattle than the entire NRM.
I believe that would hold true even if there were a way to factor in the cost of the reduction in weight for cattle that are harried by wolves.
A significant issue for the rancher in Idaho grazing cattle in the Sawtooth, but not for the person buying the delicious six pack of strip steaks from Costco in Boise.
These particular wolves weren't here long before cattle, sheep, or other businesses being negatively affected by the relatively recently introduced Canadian Gray wolf (1996). The tourism and transportation businesses which surround hunting in places like Gardiner, MT and ID have also been devastated by the loss of ungulates to wolves. In defense of the ranchers, the new wolves are an invasive species compared to the cattle and sheep, which have been here for 100 years now. The wolves that were here before, and were probably made completely extinct by the new wolves, were smaller.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 17, 2014, 02:32:02 PM
FAQ on Wolves
Aren’t the wolves that were reintroduced into Yellowstone non-native or different from earlier wolves?
No. There is no factual basis to the belief that the wolves reintroduced in the mid-1990s to Idaho and Yellowstone National Park from west-central Alberta and east-central British Columbia differed (being larger and more aggressive) from the wolves that originally occurred in the northern Rocky Mountain states.
Wolves are well known for their ability to disperse long distances from their birth sites. Radio-tracking data demonstrates that the wolves from southeastern British Columbia and southwestern Alberta mixed with wolves from Idaho and Montana, along with those from farther north near the source locations of the animals used in the Idaho and Yellowstone reintroductions. When combined with recent research that reveals considerable genetic mixing among wolf populations in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, this information illustrates that wolves form a single population across the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains and southern Canada.
Recent genetic research involving hundreds of wolves sampled from Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming in the 1990s and 2000s found no evidence that the remnant native population of wolves differed from the reintroduced wolves. Thus, the wolves present in these states before wolf recovery began were genetically similar to those used in reintroductions into Yellowstone.[/i]
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 17, 2014, 03:11:08 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on September 17, 2014, 03:14:39 PM
Post by: KFhunter on September 17, 2014, 03:48:05 PM
No reason not to have excellent Elk hunting in WA and specifically the NE, we've got the habitat for it in many locations throughout the state and the wintering areas for it. We should have *a lot* more Elk in the NE corner. Predators and humans keep herds small and struggling. Deer -although way down from previous years- is still capable of quick rebounds if given the opportunity.
With proper and aggressive management there isn't any reason to not increase the ungulates and afford good public grazing opportunity.
I'm long past playing the blame game with wolves, none of that matters now. How they got here, what species they are...all irrelevant now.
Post by: KFhunter on September 17, 2014, 03:54:32 PM
WDFW needs to scrap the cougar plan, what a slap in the face that farce is...kill it! cougar 24/7 365 no limit on tags. The fact that they're so difficult to hunt will ensure there's plenty to go around. Hardly anyone targets them anyways.
Remove the special draw on spring bear and make the E/WA 2 tags.
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 17, 2014, 03:58:52 PM
As far as the specific species and whatever, it's only important when someone knows the facts that the real indigenous wolves, wolves which are listed on the ESA, have been sacrificed to the larger Canadian wolves. We've actually allowed an endangered species to become extinct by introducing another variety which doesn't naturally belong here. This is important, especially in light of comments from people who love the wolves and their presence in every corner of our state, when these people start talking about who was here first, the cattle or the wolf. The fact is, and it's important, that the wolves that were actually here first have been sacrificed by these people in their fervor to hear the howls in the night, regardless of the costs to the cattle, sheep, and tourism industries. The REAL WA wolves have been, in effect, thrown to the wolves.
Post by: KFhunter on September 17, 2014, 04:09:23 PM
I agree, I'd love to see a massive class action and a "superfund" style wolf clean up. I'd like to see everyone with a hand in this be held accountable! Prison time baby!!
but for now I want to apply pressure to WDFW and local legislatures. All that stuff will have to follow later, when we elect a proper governor :chuckle: (ya right)
I'm pretty tickled at some of the things Stevens county is doing; if more and more counties get on board then that'll apply even more pressure to the state to rethink all this nonsense.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 17, 2014, 04:20:05 PM
On the cougar plan...does it really make a difference? With no hounds...changing it to your liberal seasons I don't really see it changing cougar numbers at all :dunno: I also don't see the impacts to deer you describe...in 24/7 trail cam monitoring on a bait station, I've got 1 cougar picture in a year and I literally have 20-50 deer a day coming in at times...I'm pretty sure my deer are eating the cougars :chuckle: :chuckle:
There is no factual basis to claims that wolves from canada used for reintroduction are different in any substantive way. It remains illogical to want aggressive wolf management yet support talking points of the Defenders of Wildlife on why wolves should remain ESA protected. Oh, and there is no doubt wolves were here before cattle :tup:
As far as the specific species and whatever, it's only important when someone knows the facts that the real indigenous wolves, wolves which are listed on the ESA, have been sacrificed to the larger Canadian wolves. We've actually allowed an endangered species to become extinct by introducing another variety which doesn't naturally belong here. This is important, especially in light of comments from people who love the wolves and their presence in every corner of our state, when these people start talking about who was here first, the cattle or the wolf. The fact is, and it's important, that the wolves that were actually here first have been sacrificed by these people in their fervor to hear the howls in the night, regardless of the costs to the cattle, sheep, and tourism industries. The REAL WA wolves have been, in effect, thrown to the wolves.
I agree, I'd love to see a massive class action and a "superfund" style wolf clean up. I'd like to see everyone with a hand in this be held accountable! Prison time baby!!
:tinfoil: Prison? For complying with federal law? Doesn't work that way...sorry.
Post by: bearpaw on September 17, 2014, 04:42:20 PM
FACT: North American wolves were classified as many different subspecies prior to the introduction in ID/YNP
FACT: Wolves in the NRM (ID/MT/WY) were classified as canis lupus irremotus
FACT: Wolves from Alberta to the McKenzie valley were classified as canis lupus occidentalis
FACT: The northern wolves which were planted in ID/YNP were originally considered a different subspecie canis lupus occidentalis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus)
http://www.wolfhowl.org/subspecies.php (http://www.wolfhowl.org/subspecies.php) (map showing areas of subspecies)
Note: If the subspecies of wolves were recognized as different, it's unlikely canis lupus occidentalis could have planted in ID/YNP if canis lupus irremotus was the resident wolf, it was very convenient for the USFWS the way things worked out for these subspecies to be reclassified as one wolf "canis lupus" just before they planted them.
Now that the northern wolf canis lupus occidentalis was planted and has multiplied greatly and likely polluted the blood of the native wolves, most likely killing or breeding them out of existence, it probably doesn't matter, it's an old argument that is too late to be corrected, the impacts are irreversible.
Now that western North American wolves are classified as one wolf "canis lupus" they were delisted in much of the west and there is a proposal to delist in most states in the US. Essentially, wolf groups are now trying to regain other classifications of certain sub-species so that they can prevent delisting in certain areas. This is a game the wolf groups are playing to further their cause of promoting wolves.
My position is that the USFWS already messed up, the wolves were planted, genetics have been messed up, now we have only one specie of wolf "canis lupus" in most of the western US and Canada, with the exception of the Mexican wolf and perhaps the arctic wolf. These wolves should all be delisted since there are 60,000+ cross bred "canis lupus" wolves.
The fact that we now have essentially one wolf should not vindicate USFWS and other agencies for their involvement in essentially destroying the subspecies of wolf known as canis lupus irremotus which has likely been killed or bred out of existence by canis lupus occidentalis which was introduced by these agencies and has very successfully multiplied and spread across the western US.
After wolves were planted and multiplied now the wolf groups want to have the cake and eat it too. They now want to claim there are other subspecies. I think it's too late for the wolf groups to successfully argue that all these subspecies still exist. It's public record that canis lupus occidentalis was planted, multiplied rapidly, has traveled, and is breeding all over the western US. :twocents:
USFWS tells the story of reclassifying wolves to fit their needs:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/fws_wolf-5yr-review_feb2012.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/fws_wolf-5yr-review_feb2012.pdf)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Washington Office
Arlington, VA
5-YEAR REVIEW
Species reviewed: Lower 48-State and Mexico gray wolf (Canis lupus) listing, as revised
1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION
1.1 Reviewers
Lead Office: Endangered Species Program, Headquarters Office, Arlington, VA
Cooperating Regional Offices: Endangered Species Program, Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8.
1.2 Methodology used to complete the review: This 5-year status review was initiated on
May 5, 2011, in conjunction with the Service’s proposed rule to revise the list of endangered
and threatened wildlife for the gray wolf in the Eastern United States (76 FR 26086). This
review was a national effort (see cooperating offices above) lead by the Headquarters Office in
Arlington, VA. None of this review was contracted out.
1.3 Background:
1.3.1 FR Notice citation announcing initiation of this review: Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule to Revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife for
the Gray Wolf in the Eastern United States, Initiation of Status Reviews for the Gray Wolf and
for the Eastern Wolf (76 FR 26086, May 5, 2011)
1.3.2 Wolf biology: For information on the biology of gray wolves refer to the preambles of
our previous actions (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003; 74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009; 75 FR 46894,
August 4, 2010; 76 FR 81666, December 28, 2011).
1.3.3 Listing history: Gray wolves were originally listed as subspecies or as regional
populations of subspecies in the conterminous United States and Mexico. In 1967, we listed
the eastern timber wolf (Canis lupus lycaon) in the Great Lakes region (32 FR 4001, March 11,
1967), and in 1973 we listed C. l. irremotus in the northern Rocky Mountains (38 FR 14678, June
4, 1973). Both listings were promulgated under the Endangered Species Conservation Act of
1969; subsequently, on January 4, 1974, these subspecies were listed under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (39 FR 1171). We listed a third gray wolf subspecies, the Mexican
wolf (C. l. baileyi) as endangered on April 28, 1976 (41 FR 17740), in the southwestern United
States and Mexico. On June 14, 1976 (41 FR 24064), we listed the Texas gray wolf subspecies
(C. l. monstrabilis) as endangered in Texas and Mexico.
In 1978, we published a rule (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978) reclassifying the gray wolf as an
endangered population at the species level (C. lupus) throughout the conterminous 48 States
and Mexico, except for the Minnesota gray wolf population, which was classified as threatened.
At that time, we considered the gray wolf group in Minnesota to be a listable entity under the
ESA, and we considered the gray wolf group in Mexico and the 48 conterminous States other
than Minnesota to be another listable entity (43 FR 9607 and 9610, respectively, March 9,
1978). The separate subspecies listings thus were subsumed into the listings for the gray wolf
in Minnesota and the gray wolf in the rest of the conterminous United States and Mexico. In
that 1978 rule, we also identified critical habitat in Michigan and Minnesota and promulgated
special regulations under section 4(d) of the ESA for operating a wolf management program in
Minnesota. The special regulation was later modified (50 FR 50793, December 12, 1985).
The 1978 reclassification was undertaken to “most conveniently” handle a listing that needed
to be revised because of changes in our understanding of wolf taxonomy, and in recognition of
the fact that individual wolves sometimes cross subspecific boundaries. In addition, we sought
to clarify that the gray wolf was only listed south of the Canadian border. However, the 1978
rule also stipulated that “biological subspecies would continue to be maintained and dealt with
as separate entities” (43 FR 9609), and offered “the firmest assurance that [the Service] will
continue to recognize valid biological subspecies for purposes of its research and conservation
programs” (43 FR 9610, March 9, 1978). Accordingly, recovery plans were developed for the
wolf populations in the following regions of the United States: the northern Rocky Mountains
in 1980, revised in 1987; the Great Lakes in 1978, revised in 1992; and the Southwest in 1982,
the revision of which is now underway.
Between 2003 and 2009 we published several rules revising the 1978 conterminous listing for C.
lupus (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003; 72 FR 6052, February 8, 2007; 73 FR 10514, February 27,
2008; 74 FR 15070 and 74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009). However, each of these revisions was
challenged in court. As a result of court orders (Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v. Norton, et al., 354
F.Supp.2d 1156 (D. Or. 2005); National Wildlife Federation, et al. v. Norton, et al., 386 F.Supp.2d
553 (D. Vt. 2005); Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v. Hall, et al., 565 F.Supp.2d 1160 (D. Mont.
2008); Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v. Salazar, et al., 729 F.Supp.2d 1207 (D. Mont. 2010);
Humane Society of the United States v. Kempthorne, 579 F. Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. 2008)) and, in
one case, a settlement agreement (Humane Society of the United States v. Salazar, 1:09-CV-
1092-PLF (D.D.C.)), by the spring of 2010 the listing for C. lupus in 50 CFR 17.11 remained
unchanged from the reclassification that occurred in 1978 (except for the addition of the three
experimental populations (Yellowstone Experimental Population Area (59 FR 60252, November
22, 1994), Central Idaho Experimental Population Area (59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994), and
the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population (63 FR 1752, January 12, 1998)). For additional
information on these Federal Actions and their associated litigation history refer to the relevant
associated rules (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003; 72 FR 6052, February 8, 2007; 73 FR 10514,
February 27, 2008; 74 FR 15070 and 74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009) or Previous Federal Actions
sections of our most recent wolf actions (76 FR 61782, October 5, 2011; 76 FR 81666,
December 28, 2011).
On May 5, 2011, we published a final rule that implemented Section 1713 of Public Law 112–10,
reinstating our April 2, 2009, delisting rule which identified the Northern Rocky Mountain
(NRM) population of gray wolf as a distinct population segment (DPS) and, with the exception
of Wyoming, removed gray wolves in the DPS from the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife (76 FR 25590). Although gray wolves in Wyoming were not included in the May 5th final
delisting, we have since proposed to remove gray wolves in Wyoming from the List (76 FR
61782, October 5, 2011).
On December 28, 2011, we revised the 1978 listing of the Minnesota population of gray wolves
to conform to current statutory and policy requirements. We revised what was previously
listed as the Minnesota population of the gray wolf and identified it as the Western Great Lakes
(WGL) Distinct Population Segment (DPS) (the DPS includes all of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Michigan and portions of the adjacent states) and removed that WGL DPS from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (76 FR 81666). This action became effective on January
27, 2012.
As a result of the recent actions described above, the 1978 reclassification for C. lupus now
encompasses all or portions of 42 States (AL, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD,
ME, MO, MS, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NV, NY, OK, PA, RI, SC, TN, VA, VT and WV, AZ, NM, TX, and
portions of IA, IN, IL, ND, OH, OR, SD, UT, and WA) and Mexico (Figure 1). Therefore, this
review, a review of the listed entity, is limited to this remainder of the 1978 reclassification,
except where historical context and a wider discussion would benefit the reader’s
understanding of the current listed entity. Although gray wolves in Wyoming remain protected
under the ESA, they are part of the Northern Rocky Mountain DPS and are proposed for
delisting (76 FR 61782, October 5, 2011). Therefore, gray wolves in Wyoming are not part of
this status review.
Post by: bearpaw on September 17, 2014, 04:52:05 PM
Quote
On the cougar plan...does it really make a difference? With no hounds...changing it to your liberal seasons I don't really see it changing cougar numbers at all :dunno: I also don't see the impacts to deer you describe...in 24/7 trail cam monitoring on a bait station, I've got 1 cougar picture in a year and I literally have 20-50 deer a day coming in at times...I'm pretty sure my deer are eating the cougars :chuckle: :chuckle:
I'm not going to question your abilities as a hunter, but we have seen 8 cougars with our own eyes this year while turkey and bear hunting with no trail cameras involved and we managed to get photos or video of 6 of them. I didn't see 8 cougars without using hounds in my first 20 years of hunting and guiding. Cougar numbers are seriously skewed!
I remember a methow rancher who's kids all shot cougars out of their yard last winter. :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on September 17, 2014, 05:12:33 PM
:yeah:
I agree, I'd love to see a massive class action and a "superfund" style wolf clean up. I'd like to see everyone with a hand in this be held accountable! Prison time baby!!
but for now I want to apply pressure to WDFW and local legislatures. All that stuff will have to follow later, when we elect a proper governor :chuckle: (ya right)
I'm pretty tickled at some of the things Stevens county is doing; if more and more counties get on board then that'll apply even more pressure to the state to rethink all this nonsense.
:yeah: County commissioners essentially told the county: You have constitutional rights, if you feel you or your property is threatened, shoot the wolves, we will not prosecute you. (not an exact quote)
Post by: idahohuntr on September 17, 2014, 05:15:56 PM
Yea, I suspect cougars are far less susceptible to show up on a camera at an artificial bait station...and I know there are plenty around. Washington is the only state I've seen cougars that weren't sitting in a tree with dogs barking below them! But I really am shocked at how little evidence/indication of cougar predation I see...I can watch all the same bucks grow throughout the year...the fawn numbers stay pretty similar for as long as I can reliably id them...I see the same numbers of does...I would think I'd have cougars sitting right next to my blind all night waiting for easy meals... :dunno: Any ideas on why I'm overrun with deer and just not seeing evidence of much cougar predation...knowing there are cougars all around?QuoteOn the cougar plan...does it really make a difference? With no hounds...changing it to your liberal seasons I don't really see it changing cougar numbers at all :dunno: I also don't see the impacts to deer you describe...in 24/7 trail cam monitoring on a bait station, I've got 1 cougar picture in a year and I literally have 20-50 deer a day coming in at times...I'm pretty sure my deer are eating the cougars :chuckle: :chuckle:
I'm not going to question your abilities as a hunter, but we have seen 8 cougars with our own eyes this year while turkey and bear hunting with no trail cameras involved and we managed to get photos or video of 6 of them. I didn't see 8 cougars without using hounds in my first 20 years of hunting and guiding. Cougar numbers are seriously skewed!
I remember a methow rancher who's kids all shot cougars out of their yard last winter. :chuckle:
Post by: jasnt on September 17, 2014, 05:19:36 PM
QuoteOn the cougar plan...does it really make a difference? With no hounds...changing it to your liberal seasons I don't really see it changing cougar numbers at all :dunno: I also don't see the impacts to deer you describe...in 24/7 trail cam monitoring on a bait station, I've got 1 cougar picture in a year and I literally have 20-50 deer a day coming in at times...I'm pretty sure my deer are eating the cougars :chuckle: :chuckle:
I'm not going to question your abilities as a hunter, but we have seen 8 cougars with our own eyes this year while turkey and bear hunting with no trail cameras involved and we managed to get photos or video of 6 of them. I didn't see 8 cougars without using hounds in my first 20 years of hunting and guiding. Cougar numbers are seriously skewed!
I remember a methow rancher who's kids all shot cougars out of their yard last winter. :chuckle:
yup if the season was open like coyote then I'd have gotten a chance at 4 cougar in the last 12 months. Maybe even more cause I would be targeting them more than just September threw Dec. Seems its always closed for late season in my areas
Post by: Mudman on September 17, 2014, 05:32:22 PM
Post by: KFhunter on September 17, 2014, 05:42:28 PM
QuoteOn the cougar plan...does it really make a difference? With no hounds...changing it to your liberal seasons I don't really see it changing cougar numbers at all :dunno: I also don't see the impacts to deer you describe...in 24/7 trail cam monitoring on a bait station, I've got 1 cougar picture in a year and I literally have 20-50 deer a day coming in at times...I'm pretty sure my deer are eating the cougars :chuckle: :chuckle:
I'm not going to question your abilities as a hunter, but we have seen 8 cougars with our own eyes this year while turkey and bear hunting with no trail cameras involved and we managed to get photos or video of 6 of them. I didn't see 8 cougars without using hounds in my first 20 years of hunting and guiding. Cougar numbers are seriously skewed!
I remember a methow rancher who's kids all shot cougars out of their yard last winter. :chuckle:
I called in 3 of them last winter, but since I'm a very poor hunter I didn't get to fill a tag. I'm new to calling cougar though but I think I got a good handle on them now.
Post by: KFhunter on September 17, 2014, 05:44:56 PM
:yeah:
I agree, I'd love to see a massive class action and a "superfund" style wolf clean up. I'd like to see everyone with a hand in this be held accountable! Prison time baby!!
but for now I want to apply pressure to WDFW and local legislatures. All that stuff will have to follow later, when we elect a proper governor :chuckle: (ya right)
I'm pretty tickled at some of the things Stevens county is doing; if more and more counties get on board then that'll apply even more pressure to the state to rethink all this nonsense.
:yeah: County commissioners essentially told the county: You have constitutional rights, if you feel you or your property is threatened, shoot the wolves, we will not prosecute you. (not an exact quote)
This is dangerous because the state can poach the case and prosecute someone over on the wetside, with wetside jurists :o
Post by: bearpaw on September 17, 2014, 05:49:51 PM
Yea, I suspect cougars are far less susceptible to show up on a camera at an artificial bait station...and I know there are plenty around. Washington is the only state I've seen cougars that weren't sitting in a tree with dogs barking below them! But I really am shocked at how little evidence/indication of cougar predation I see...I can watch all the same bucks grow throughout the year...the fawn numbers stay pretty similar for as long as I can reliably id them...I see the same numbers of does...I would think I'd have cougars sitting right next to my blind all night waiting for easy meals... :dunno: Any ideas on why I'm overrun with deer and just not seeing evidence of much cougar predation...knowing there are cougars all around?QuoteOn the cougar plan...does it really make a difference? With no hounds...changing it to your liberal seasons I don't really see it changing cougar numbers at all :dunno: I also don't see the impacts to deer you describe...in 24/7 trail cam monitoring on a bait station, I've got 1 cougar picture in a year and I literally have 20-50 deer a day coming in at times...I'm pretty sure my deer are eating the cougars :chuckle: :chuckle:
I'm not going to question your abilities as a hunter, but we have seen 8 cougars with our own eyes this year while turkey and bear hunting with no trail cameras involved and we managed to get photos or video of 6 of them. I didn't see 8 cougars without using hounds in my first 20 years of hunting and guiding. Cougar numbers are seriously skewed!
I remember a methow rancher who's kids all shot cougars out of their yard last winter. :chuckle:
Cougar are very secretive and rarely seen. You need to understand their habits and know where they live to find them consistently. 35 years ago it took us a week to find an adult cougar track of either sex without kittens to chase for a hunter. Seasons were reduced and cougar tags put on a draw after a few years and about 20 years ago just before the voters outlawed hounds I could find an average of about 5 adult cougar tracks per day.
Now you need to come up and ride with me this winter, I will show you at least 10 adult cougar tracks in a day. WDFW has a quota of only 2 cougar in one unit and the other units really aren't much better considering they are much larger in size. The quotas need to be doubled or tripled to try and reduce the cat numbers. I'm not even sure that would reduce the population much.
Kf, I can't remember exactly how they said it, you probably heard about it, wasn't that pretty much the meat and potatoes of it?
Post by: KFhunter on September 17, 2014, 05:53:56 PM
yup - I just want folks to know though that just because the county neglects to prosecute doesn't mean a person is off the hook.
I would imagine though unless it's egregious or there is significant media input...it'll stay as is.
If KOMO or national media picks it up, and there's an outcry from the wolf huggers then all bets are off..WDFW would most likely pick up the case and move it to Olympia.
Post by: bearpaw on September 17, 2014, 06:05:16 PM
:yeah:
yup - I just want folks to know though that just because the county neglects to prosecute doesn't mean a person is off the hook.
I would imagine though unless it's egregious or there is significant media input...it'll stay as is.
If KOMO or national media picks it up, and there's an outcry from the wolf huggers then all bets are off..WDFW would most likely pick up the case and move it to Olympia.
Can they force Stevens County to give up the case? Can the county say no?
Post by: KFhunter on September 17, 2014, 06:08:14 PM
A higher authority can poach a case from a lower authority, it's very rare.
Post by: Northway on September 17, 2014, 06:26:12 PM
Don't forget KF, with the WA wolf plan, management doesn't start for three years after we reach population AND disbursement goals. So, proper and aggressive management isn't going to take place for at least three years after 2 packs are established in the So. Cascades. They can't even admit to the first one that's there now.
As far as the specific species and whatever, it's only important when someone knows the facts that the real indigenous wolves, wolves which are listed on the ESA, have been sacrificed to the larger Canadian wolves. We've actually allowed an endangered species to become extinct by introducing another variety which doesn't naturally belong here. This is important, especially in light of comments from people who love the wolves and their presence in every corner of our state, when these people start talking about who was here first, the cattle or the wolf. The fact is, and it's important, that the wolves that were actually here first have been sacrificed by these people in their fervor to hear the howls in the night, regardless of the costs to the cattle, sheep, and tourism industries. The REAL WA wolves have been, in effect, thrown to the wolves.
How much are you claiming the "new" breed of wolves outweigh the prior indigenous wolves that supposedly were all pushed out? I've never seen anyone venture a guess as to how much the original, smaller wolves weighed.
If I recall correctly, based on harvest statistics for recent wolf hunts in the NRM, they're currently averaging in the 70's.
Post by: bearpaw on September 17, 2014, 07:00:07 PM
Northwestern wolf
Canis lupus occidentalis
The northwestern wolf (Canis lupus occidentalis), also known as the Mackenzie Valley wolf[3] or northern timber wolf[1] is a subspecies of gray wolf which ranges from the upper Mackenzie River Valley, southward into central Alberta.[3] Along with C. l. nubilus, C. l. occidentalis is the most widespread member of the five gray wolf subspecies in North America, with at least six different synonyms.[1]
The subspecies was first written of by Scottish naturalist Sir John Richardson in 1829. He chose to give it the name occidentalis in reference to its geographic location rather than label it by its color, as it was too variable to warrant such.[4] Phylogenetic analyses of North American gray wolves show that there are three clades corresponding to C. l. occidentalis, C. l. nubilus and C. l. baileyi, each one representing a separate invasion into North America from distinct Eurasian ancestors. C. l. occidentalis, the most northwestern subspecies, is descended from the last gray wolves to colonize North America. It likely crossed into North America through the Bering land bridge after the last ice age, displacing C. l. nubilus populations as it advanced, a process which has continued till present times.[1]
Northwestern wolves are one of the largest subspecies of wolves with grown males weighing between 100 and 135 pounds (45–61 kg).[5] The heaviest recorded specimen was killed on 70 Mile River in east-central Alaska on July 12, 1939 and weighed 79.4 kilograms (175 lb).[6] Sir John Richardson described the northwestern wolf as having a more robust build than the European wolf, with a larger, rounder head and a thicker, more obtuse muzzle. Its ears are also shorter, and its fur bushier.[4]
In Yellowstone National Park, artificially relocated northwestern wolves have been well-documented feeding on elk. They usually stampede the herd using pack teamwork to separate the younger elk from the adults. They also will charge young calves separated from their parents. Winter-weakened or sick elk also play an important part of Yellowstone wolf diets and it is estimated that over 50 percent of winter-weakened or sick elk in Yellowstone are killed by wolves. Of these, about 12 percent of carcasses were scavenged by other predators such as ravens or coyotes.[7] In the same national park, wolves also prey on bison, though such attacks usually involve sick animals or calves, as bison can easily kill wolves with their hooves.[8] The northwestern wolf has been responsible for a few, but notable attacks on humans, with at least two fatal attacks in the 21st century in which both victims were partially eaten: in 2005, a man was killed in Saskatchewan, Canada,[9] while in 2010, a woman was killed whilst jogging near Chignik Lake in Alaska.[10]
Northern Rocky Mountains wolf
Canis lupus irremotus
Northern Rocky Mountains wolf.jpg
Goldman 1937[40][45]
This subspecies generally weighs 70–135 pounds (32–61 kg), making it one of the largest subspecies of the gray wolf in existence.[46] It is a lighter colored animal than its southern brethren, the Southern Rocky Mountains Wolf, with a coat that includes far more white and less black. In general, the subspecies favors lighter colors, with black mixing in among them.
Southern Rocky Mountains wolf
Canis lupus youngi
Goldman 1937[40]
A medium-size wolf that weighed around 90 lbs on average.[58][59] It is considered to have been the "second largest wolf in the United States".[60] The coloring of the subspecies tended toward black, with lighter areas on the edges of its fur and white in various small patches.[40]
Post by: Houndhunter on September 17, 2014, 07:01:25 PM
Yea, I suspect cougars are far less susceptible to show up on a camera at an artificial bait station...and I know there are plenty around. Washington is the only state I've seen cougars that weren't sitting in a tree with dogs barking below them! But I really am shocked at how little evidence/indication of cougar predation I see...I can watch all the same bucks grow throughout the year...the fawn numbers stay pretty similar for as long as I can reliably id them...I see the same numbers of does...I would think I'd have cougars sitting right next to my blind all night waiting for easy meals... :dunno: Any ideas on why I'm overrun with deer and just not seeing evidence of much cougar predation...knowing there are cougars all around?QuoteOn the cougar plan...does it really make a difference? With no hounds...changing it to your liberal seasons I don't really see it changing cougar numbers at all :dunno: I also don't see the impacts to deer you describe...in 24/7 trail cam monitoring on a bait station, I've got 1 cougar picture in a year and I literally have 20-50 deer a day coming in at times...I'm pretty sure my deer are eating the cougars :chuckle: :chuckle:
I'm not going to question your abilities as a hunter, but we have seen 8 cougars with our own eyes this year while turkey and bear hunting with no trail cameras involved and we managed to get photos or video of 6 of them. I didn't see 8 cougars without using hounds in my first 20 years of hunting and guiding. Cougar numbers are seriously skewed!
I remember a methow rancher who's kids all shot cougars out of their yard last winter. :chuckle:
Cougar are very secretive and rarely seen. You need to understand their habits and know where they live to find them consistently. 35 years ago it took us a week to find an adult cougar track of either sex without kittens to chase for a hunter. Seasons were reduced and cougar tags put on a draw after a few years and about 20 years ago just before the voters outlawed hounds I could find an average of about 5 adult cougar tracks per day.
Now you need to come up and ride with me this winter, I will show you at least 10 adult cougar tracks in a day. WDFW has a quota of only 2 cougar in one unit and the other units really aren't much better considering they are much larger in size. The quotas need to be doubled or tripled to try and reduce the cat numbers. I'm not even sure that would reduce the population much.
Kf, I can't remember exactly how they said it, you probably heard about it, wasn't that pretty much the meat and potatoes of it?
Seeing the quotas in MT compared to WA for lion is unreal and we get to use dogs which almost guarantees they get met. While I think a couple of our units have high quotas, our seasons/quotas really show how out of touch WA is with controlling the lion population.
Post by: bearpaw on September 17, 2014, 07:03:58 PM
Don't forget KF, with the WA wolf plan, management doesn't start for three years after we reach population AND disbursement goals. So, proper and aggressive management isn't going to take place for at least three years after 2 packs are established in the So. Cascades. They can't even admit to the first one that's there now.
As far as the specific species and whatever, it's only important when someone knows the facts that the real indigenous wolves, wolves which are listed on the ESA, have been sacrificed to the larger Canadian wolves. We've actually allowed an endangered species to become extinct by introducing another variety which doesn't naturally belong here. This is important, especially in light of comments from people who love the wolves and their presence in every corner of our state, when these people start talking about who was here first, the cattle or the wolf. The fact is, and it's important, that the wolves that were actually here first have been sacrificed by these people in their fervor to hear the howls in the night, regardless of the costs to the cattle, sheep, and tourism industries. The REAL WA wolves have been, in effect, thrown to the wolves.
How much are you claiming the "new" breed of wolves outweigh the prior indigenous wolves that supposedly were all pushed out? I've never seen anyone venture a guess as to how much the original, smaller wolves weighed.
If I recall correctly, based on harvest statistics for recent wolf hunts in the NRM, they're currently averaging in the 70's.
You need to remember that many of the wolves hunters are getting are sub adults, thus the average weight of harvested animals may be less than the average weight of adult animals. :twocents:
Post by: wolfbait on September 17, 2014, 07:24:47 PM
Readers who actively opposed the FWS option to import Canadian wolves may recall the following events:
In 1994 the Farm Bureau, Audubon Society and other plaintiffs asked the Wyoming Federal District Court to halt wolf introduction because it could not legally occur where naturally occurring wolves already existed per the 10J Rule. But instead of issuing an injunction to halt the process while the arguments were presented, Judge Downes allowed FWS to go ahead and transplant Canadian wolves into Central Idaho and Yellowstone Park for three years until he issued his ruling in December of 1997.
Then after setting aside the final wolf introduction rules as unlawful, Judge Downes ordered FWS to remove all Canadian wolves and their progeny from both experimental population areas. This ruling was met with loud criticism by the wolf activists, including the state and federal wildlife agencies who apparently believed they could get by with ignoring both state and federal laws when it suited their agenda.
Judge “Passes the Buck” to Appeals Court
They quickly pointed out that it would not be possible to even locate most of the wolves – much less capture them. But even if that were possible, both Canadian Provinces refused to allow the wolves to return and there were not enough zoos willing to accept several hundred wild wolves so killing most was the only option.
Judge Downes could have prevented this disaster from occurring by simply putting wolf introduction on hold three years earlier until his decision was reached. But the second time he did essentially the same thing by later staying execution of his removal order pending an appeals decision by the 10th Circuit Court.
On January 13, 2000, five years after the first large Canadian wolves were introduced, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the December 1998 Wyoming District Court ruling that the reintroduction program was unlawful and should be revoked. The appeals court admitted that the evidence showed native irremotus wolves already existed when the larger Canadian wolves were introduced, but said FWS had the authority to determine what constituted a population.
The fact that the resident wolves coexisted with abundant big game populations and with negligible impact on livestock and human activity was already a matter of record in 1994. But on August 12, 1994, FWS Wolf Leader Ed Bangs sent a letter to Charles Lobdell telling him to stop issuing statements to the public advising that the number of reported resident wolves was increasing.
Bangs’ letter advised that FWS planned to introduce wolves from Canada and said: “From this day forward…confirmed wolf activity (will only include) individual wolves or members of packs that have been examined, radio-collared and monitored in the wild.” He also said he had transferred $9,000 to the FWS Boise Field Office to search for wolves and organize flights to locate any radio-collared wolves that might be in Idaho or the Yellowstone area during the summer and fall.
Bangs also included key issues to be presented to the public consistently by FWS:
“1. (I)t is likely that wolf populations would ultimately recover without reintroduction and breeding pairs of wolves would likely occur in Idaho before they would occur (in) Yellowstone.
4. Experimental populations will not knowingly contain a significant portion of the territory of any naturally occurring breeding pair that has successfully raised young. However once wolves are released all wolves in the area will be treated as experimental animals.”
Despite reported wolf sightings by more then 120 outfitters, trappers and others in less than two months, most in the same location where Kemery mapped three wolf pack areas from 1988-1991, and despite the USFS road closure to protect existing wolves (see Bulletin 35), Bangs dumped Canadian wolves halfway between the two known native wolf locations guaranteeing their extermination.
In February of 2012, I forwarded the Weckworth DNA study, without comment, to Dr. Valerius Geist. The following was his reply:
“Thank you, George, I have seen this study. To me it suggests that there was indeed a remnant of native wolves in Idaho that were finally done away with by introduced wolves from Canada. The native wolves would have been of the same clad as the coastal wolves. Anyway, that’s testable since some museum specimens of native Idaho wolves are still available for genetic analysis. However, somebody competent and trustworthy needs to do it. Cheers, Val Geist.”
http://tomremington.com/2012/07/20/dna-studies-smaller-native-wolves-existed-in-northern-rockies-before-canadian-wolf-transplant/ (http://tomremington.com/2012/07/20/dna-studies-smaller-native-wolves-existed-in-northern-rockies-before-canadian-wolf-transplant/)
Post by: KFhunter on September 17, 2014, 07:31:11 PM
Post by: bearpaw on September 17, 2014, 07:38:07 PM
Post by: wolfbait on September 17, 2014, 08:16:54 PM
wolfbait thanks for your post, pretty well sums it up :tup:
No wonder the pro-wolf crowd doesn't like wolf history, makes it hard for them to keep the environmentalists, USFWS and state game agencies lies a float.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 17, 2014, 09:23:09 PM
The final 2 sentences of the abstract for the paper cited in your linked article:wolfbait thanks for your post, pretty well sums it up :tup:
No wonder the pro-wolf crowd doesn't like wolf history, makes it hard for them to keep the environmentalists, USFWS and state game agencies lies a float.
"The independent phylogeographic history of these Coastal wolves has yet to be characterized. Their distinctiveness among North American wolf populations may warrant a reevaluation of their conservation status and management."
I'm not one to ignore data or science in peer reviewed publications in order to push my desire to de-list wolves...but I have some familiarity with mtDNA analyses, taxonomy, and evolution. I do not believe the data presented, given numerous other facts, supports the position that wolves captured in 1995 in central canada represent some different subspecies. From a conservation standpoint I just don't think it matters either. I do not have a strong enough genetics background to provide a more rigorous review...but I do suspect folks are taking a lot of things out of context or not considering the numerous uncertainties inherent with evaluations like this...I doubt this Tom Remington or George Dovel are qualified to weigh in on the taxonomy of wolves. Consider your source. :twocents:
More importantly, I want to go back to the quoted sentences I provided above. This is hook, line, and sinker DoW material. Do you think the author of this paper, in suggesting a re-evaluation of conservation and management of these "coastal" wolves is suggesting we ought maybe to shoot some more of them? :chuckle:
Keep pushing this stuff with all the enviro groups and you may just get your wish...we will have the inland wolf management plan, which will require 15 documented bp's in E. Wa before we can even discuss de-listing...and then we will need a separate coastal wolves management plan which will be another 15bp's in W. Wa. Maybe with enough data mining and creativity we can come up with even more subspecies in Wa and really get serious about building wolf populations. :bash:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on September 17, 2014, 09:24:23 PM
The USFWS has introduced wolves into the Southwest and some have reportedly spread into Texas. Plus Colorado has the Northern Rocky Grays coming in from the north and the Mexican wolves from the south. Wolf programs on the east coast too, as well as Louisiana. In due time. Then a national impact can be ascertained, and someone can extrapolate how much increase in beef prices is probably wolf related."but then you could also say wolves were here for a LONG time before any cattle."
Yep, you could say, but at the same time you could say they WEREN'T here before the cattlemen showed on the scene.
You don't last in the business world if you don't PASS on to the consumer the COST and its increases of doing business, to the consumer. Economics 101
I am assuming idaho, you've never raised cattle for consumption. :dunno:
The only place economics has in the wolf argument is at the local level for the specific ranchers who are affected. It's a rural economic issue. There is no "wolf cost" in beef prices. There just aren't enough ranchers affected nationally to have a material effect on prices. It takes something to the effect of the massive drought/wildfires that hit most of Texas a while back, a state that has many times more cattle than the entire NRM.
I believe that would hold true even if there were a way to factor in the cost of the reduction in weight for cattle that are harried by wolves.
A significant issue for the rancher in Idaho grazing cattle in the Sawtooth, but not for the person buying the delicious six pack of strip steaks from Costco in Boise.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 17, 2014, 09:28:00 PM
Oh I'm not doubting you that cougar numbers are high...I just can't figure out why I don't see more indication of cougar predation on the deer...but I have little experience with cougars...maybe they are harder on the nearby elk...or do they spend much time with smaller game? :dunno:Yea, I suspect cougars are far less susceptible to show up on a camera at an artificial bait station...and I know there are plenty around. Washington is the only state I've seen cougars that weren't sitting in a tree with dogs barking below them! But I really am shocked at how little evidence/indication of cougar predation I see...I can watch all the same bucks grow throughout the year...the fawn numbers stay pretty similar for as long as I can reliably id them...I see the same numbers of does...I would think I'd have cougars sitting right next to my blind all night waiting for easy meals... :dunno: Any ideas on why I'm overrun with deer and just not seeing evidence of much cougar predation...knowing there are cougars all around?QuoteOn the cougar plan...does it really make a difference? With no hounds...changing it to your liberal seasons I don't really see it changing cougar numbers at all :dunno: I also don't see the impacts to deer you describe...in 24/7 trail cam monitoring on a bait station, I've got 1 cougar picture in a year and I literally have 20-50 deer a day coming in at times...I'm pretty sure my deer are eating the cougars :chuckle: :chuckle:
I'm not going to question your abilities as a hunter, but we have seen 8 cougars with our own eyes this year while turkey and bear hunting with no trail cameras involved and we managed to get photos or video of 6 of them. I didn't see 8 cougars without using hounds in my first 20 years of hunting and guiding. Cougar numbers are seriously skewed!
I remember a methow rancher who's kids all shot cougars out of their yard last winter. :chuckle:
Cougar are very secretive and rarely seen. You need to understand their habits and know where they live to find them consistently. 35 years ago it took us a week to find an adult cougar track of either sex without kittens to chase for a hunter. Seasons were reduced and cougar tags put on a draw after a few years and about 20 years ago just before the voters outlawed hounds I could find an average of about 5 adult cougar tracks per day.
Now you need to come up and ride with me this winter, I will show you at least 10 adult cougar tracks in a day. WDFW has a quota of only 2 cougar in one unit and the other units really aren't much better considering they are much larger in size. The quotas need to be doubled or tripled to try and reduce the cat numbers. I'm not even sure that would reduce the population much.
Post by: jasnt on September 17, 2014, 09:53:01 PM
I just want to see aggressive predator management.:yeah: the wolves are here and we will never be rid of them in any of our life times. But the need to manage them properly or the herd is going to take a dive in numbers quick. All it will take is a bad winter combined with un regulated predator numbers and our herds will suffer big losses.
No reason not to have excellent Elk hunting in WA and specifically the NE, we've got the habitat for it in many locations throughout the state and the wintering areas for it. We should have *a lot* more Elk in the NE corner. Predators and humans keep herds small and struggling. Deer -although way down from previous years- is still capable of quick rebounds if given the opportunity.
With proper and aggressive management there isn't any reason to not increase the ungulates and afford good public grazing opportunity.
I'm long past playing the blame game with wolves, none of that matters now. How they got here, what species they are...all irrelevant now.
Post by: KFhunter on September 17, 2014, 10:10:29 PM
get the right snow conditions.....
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsnowbrains.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F12%2Ffirst_skiers_mm8149_1213_003_custom-7ba650d4c76103bfd4a73e85195e9ff2060f3a55-s40-c85-620x412.jpg&hash=b98631d16c8c3f47a931684b26b768765545cfb9)
Post by: wolfbait on September 18, 2014, 12:33:17 AM
The final 2 sentences of the abstract for the paper cited in your linked article:wolfbait thanks for your post, pretty well sums it up :tup:
No wonder the pro-wolf crowd doesn't like wolf history, makes it hard for them to keep the environmentalists, USFWS and state game agencies lies a float.
"The independent phylogeographic history of these Coastal wolves has yet to be characterized. Their distinctiveness among North American wolf populations may warrant a reevaluation of their conservation status and management."
I'm not one to ignore data or science in peer reviewed publications in order to push my desire to de-list wolves...but I have some familiarity with mtDNA analyses, taxonomy, and evolution. I do not believe the data presented, given numerous other facts, supports the position that wolves captured in 1995 in central canada represent some different subspecies. From a conservation standpoint I just don't think it matters either. I do not have a strong enough genetics background to provide a more rigorous review...but I do suspect folks are taking a lot of things out of context or not considering the numerous uncertainties inherent with evaluations like this...I doubt this Tom Remington or George Dovel are qualified to weigh in on the taxonomy of wolves. Consider your source. :twocents:
More importantly, I want to go back to the quoted sentences I provided above. This is hook, line, and sinker DoW material. Do you think the author of this paper, in suggesting a re-evaluation of conservation and management of these "coastal" wolves is suggesting we ought maybe to shoot some more of them? :chuckle:
Keep pushing this stuff with all the enviro groups and you may just get your wish...we will have the inland wolf management plan, which will require 15 documented bp's in E. Wa before we can even discuss de-listing...and then we will need a separate coastal wolves management plan which will be another 15bp's in W. Wa. Maybe with enough data mining and creativity we can come up with even more subspecies in Wa and really get serious about building wolf populations. :bash:
You bring that little threat up every time there is a mention of the wolves that were in the lower 48 before the wolf introduction. How long will it be before WDFW are pulled over the carpet for their miss management of the game herds/predators? WA is at the point now that people are going to start to see a major drop in the game herds. In the Methow I expect Fitkin and crew to blame the drop on the fire, but in other parts of WA they will have to come up with a new lie.
I suppose Carter Niemeyer has been moving problem wolves around WA for WDFW instead of killing them, or are they releasing them in states that don't have wolves like he did for ID, MT, and Wyoming?
Post by: wolfbait on September 18, 2014, 12:39:02 AM
:yeah:
get the right snow conditions.....
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsnowbrains.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F12%2Ffirst_skiers_mm8149_1213_003_custom-7ba650d4c76103bfd4a73e85195e9ff2060f3a55-s40-c85-620x412.jpg&hash=b98631d16c8c3f47a931684b26b768765545cfb9)
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C03E3D7163EE033A25755C2A9639C946697D6CF (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C03E3D7163EE033A25755C2A9639C946697D6CF)
Post by: boneaddict on September 18, 2014, 07:41:32 AM
This isn't in response to any particular post, but a combination of whiney sniveling that has perforated my mailbox.
Post by: bearpaw on September 18, 2014, 08:02:29 AM
Oh I'm not doubting you that cougar numbers are high...I just can't figure out why I don't see more indication of cougar predation on the deer...but I have little experience with cougars...maybe they are harder on the nearby elk...or do they spend much time with smaller game? :dunno:Yea, I suspect cougars are far less susceptible to show up on a camera at an artificial bait station...and I know there are plenty around. Washington is the only state I've seen cougars that weren't sitting in a tree with dogs barking below them! But I really am shocked at how little evidence/indication of cougar predation I see...I can watch all the same bucks grow throughout the year...the fawn numbers stay pretty similar for as long as I can reliably id them...I see the same numbers of does...I would think I'd have cougars sitting right next to my blind all night waiting for easy meals... :dunno: Any ideas on why I'm overrun with deer and just not seeing evidence of much cougar predation...knowing there are cougars all around?QuoteOn the cougar plan...does it really make a difference? With no hounds...changing it to your liberal seasons I don't really see it changing cougar numbers at all :dunno: I also don't see the impacts to deer you describe...in 24/7 trail cam monitoring on a bait station, I've got 1 cougar picture in a year and I literally have 20-50 deer a day coming in at times...I'm pretty sure my deer are eating the cougars :chuckle: :chuckle:
I'm not going to question your abilities as a hunter, but we have seen 8 cougars with our own eyes this year while turkey and bear hunting with no trail cameras involved and we managed to get photos or video of 6 of them. I didn't see 8 cougars without using hounds in my first 20 years of hunting and guiding. Cougar numbers are seriously skewed!
I remember a methow rancher who's kids all shot cougars out of their yard last winter. :chuckle:
Cougar are very secretive and rarely seen. You need to understand their habits and know where they live to find them consistently. 35 years ago it took us a week to find an adult cougar track of either sex without kittens to chase for a hunter. Seasons were reduced and cougar tags put on a draw after a few years and about 20 years ago just before the voters outlawed hounds I could find an average of about 5 adult cougar tracks per day.
Now you need to come up and ride with me this winter, I will show you at least 10 adult cougar tracks in a day. WDFW has a quota of only 2 cougar in one unit and the other units really aren't much better considering they are much larger in size. The quotas need to be doubled or tripled to try and reduce the cat numbers. I'm not even sure that would reduce the population much.
Cougar drag their kill to hidden locations where the cougar feels safe to return and eat. We find cougar killed deer often because we actively hunt cougar. Government studies (including WDFW) support the fact that 25 to 50 deer are taken annually by each cougar. If WA has 3000 or 4000 cougar the math is easy to do. I've posted links to these studies many times before so it would be redundant to post them again. Instead I'll post photos of some cougar kills we found last winter. I will be the first to complain if too many cougar are harvested, I like seeing the big cats around, but our herds and hunting opportunities pay the price when there are too many cougar. Current cougar seasons in WA are not adequate to control the cougar population, more aggressive cougar hunting seasons are badly needed. Every state around us is harvesting many more cats than WA, that might be an indication that WA cougar management is lacking.
Post by: buglebrush on September 18, 2014, 08:16:16 AM
Oh I'm not doubting you that cougar numbers are high...I just can't figure out why I don't see more indication of cougar predation on the deer...but I have little experience with cougars...maybe they are harder on the nearby elk...or do they spend much time with smaller game? :dunno:Yea, I suspect cougars are far less susceptible to show up on a camera at an artificial bait station...and I know there are plenty around. Washington is the only state I've seen cougars that weren't sitting in a tree with dogs barking below them! But I really am shocked at how little evidence/indication of cougar predation I see...I can watch all the same bucks grow throughout the year...the fawn numbers stay pretty similar for as long as I can reliably id them...I see the same numbers of does...I would think I'd have cougars sitting right next to my blind all night waiting for easy meals... :dunno: Any ideas on why I'm overrun with deer and just not seeing evidence of much cougar predation...knowing there are cougars all around?QuoteOn the cougar plan...does it really make a difference? With no hounds...changing it to your liberal seasons I don't really see it changing cougar numbers at all :dunno: I also don't see the impacts to deer you describe...in 24/7 trail cam monitoring on a bait station, I've got 1 cougar picture in a year and I literally have 20-50 deer a day coming in at times...I'm pretty sure my deer are eating the cougars :chuckle: :chuckle:
I'm not going to question your abilities as a hunter, but we have seen 8 cougars with our own eyes this year while turkey and bear hunting with no trail cameras involved and we managed to get photos or video of 6 of them. I didn't see 8 cougars without using hounds in my first 20 years of hunting and guiding. Cougar numbers are seriously skewed!
I remember a methow rancher who's kids all shot cougars out of their yard last winter. :chuckle:
Cougar are very secretive and rarely seen. You need to understand their habits and know where they live to find them consistently. 35 years ago it took us a week to find an adult cougar track of either sex without kittens to chase for a hunter. Seasons were reduced and cougar tags put on a draw after a few years and about 20 years ago just before the voters outlawed hounds I could find an average of about 5 adult cougar tracks per day.
Now you need to come up and ride with me this winter, I will show you at least 10 adult cougar tracks in a day. WDFW has a quota of only 2 cougar in one unit and the other units really aren't much better considering they are much larger in size. The quotas need to be doubled or tripled to try and reduce the cat numbers. I'm not even sure that would reduce the population much.
Cougar drag their kill to hidden locations where the cougar feels safe to return and eat. We find cougar killed deer often because we actively hunt cougar. Government studies (including WDFW) support the fact that 25 to 50 deer are taken annually by each cougar. If WA has 3000 or 4000 cougar the math is easy to do. I've posted links to these studies many times before so it would be redundant to post them again. Instead I'll post photos of some cougar kills we found last winter. I will be the first to complain if too many cougar are harvested, I like seeing the big cats around, but our herds and hunting opportunities pay the price when there are too many cougar. Current cougar seasons in WA are not adequate to control the cougar population, more aggressive cougar hunting seasons are badly needed. Every state around us is harvesting many more cats than WA, that might be an indication that WA cougar management is lacking.
I am with bearpaw on this. This state's management of predators is absolutely ridiculous!!!! Bring back hound hunting & General season spring bear for starters!
Post by: wolfbait on September 18, 2014, 08:19:20 AM
Post by: boneaddict on September 18, 2014, 08:21:03 AM
:yeah:
Post by: idahohuntr on September 18, 2014, 09:15:00 AM
Cougar drag their kill to hidden locations where the cougar feels safe to return and eat. We find cougar killed deer often because we actively hunt cougar. Government studies (including WDFW) support the fact that 25 to 50 deer are taken annually by each cougar. If WA has 3000 or 4000 cougar the math is easy to do.Yes, I've found several fairly certain cougar kills over the years (mostly in Idaho)...but my point is I would bet if I had collars on a bunch of deer on my place 1) survival would be very high and 2)cougar caused mortality would be almost undetectable...which is not what I would expect. Cars and fences kill far more deer around my place than cougars, which I know are present. And I'm not arguing that cougars don't impact deer or game or anything like that...I just can't figure out why I can watch the same 30-40 deer over a year long period and usually only 2-4 "go missing" and when they do, 95% of the time I find them laying in a ditch or next to a barbed wire fence. :dunno: I guess I just can't reconcile why more cougar predation is not occurring? Particularly when I bait these deer and unlike bucks the does are just easy pickings for any predator...which gives me an idea...if you legally bait deer, but you're using the deer to attract predators, are you also technically baiting predators? :chuckle:
Post by: bobcat on September 18, 2014, 09:35:35 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on September 18, 2014, 09:50:35 AM
You bring that little threat up every time there is a mention of the wolves that were in the lower 48 before the wolf introduction. How long will it be before WDFW are pulled over the carpet for their miss management of the game herds/predators? WA is at the point now that people are going to start to see a major drop in the game herds. In the Methow I expect Fitkin and crew to blame the drop on the fire, but in other parts of WA they will have to come up with a new lie.Its not a threat...I am optimistic that the courts will reject these scientifically unsupported claims when the enviro groups bring them up...but at the same time I lived through the de-listing saga in Idaho where any blind judge should have had no problem keeping wolves de-listed. My perception is you and many others have a set of values regarding predator management you would like to see pursued, and given wildlife are owned by the people (all the people) you have every right to pursue your predator management desires...so I am confused why you would support DoW talking points that would result in unbelievable setbacks to any kind of wolf "management".
I suppose Carter Niemeyer has been moving problem wolves around WA for WDFW instead of killing them, or are they releasing them in states that don't have wolves like he did for ID, MT, and Wyoming?
Your last 2 sentences I quoted above is the precise thing I find most frustrating with most of the wolf talk that goes on. We have one of the largest wildfires in WA history, which destroys/damages a huge amount of critical winter habitat...so I expect you are going to see a downturn in deer numbers in that area for the next few years. But in 2017, folks I'm sure will be complaining about a lack of deer up there (even more than they are now!). The fire will be a distant memory, but predators will be the sole factor blamed by many. Hard winters are the same way...a year or two after they occur hunters seem to have amnesia and when they don't see the same number of bucks...well, it must be predators. This is definitely the biggest disagreement I have with folks...its not that I think wolves and cougars don't kill game...but their impact to game abundance is usually less relative to large habitat related factors like a major wildfire on winter range or a very hard winter. And things like fire and winters are large, immediate, identifiable events to humans...start thinking about slow losses of land to housing developments, forest succession that replaces productive/forage producing areas with stands of mature timber and little food...you know things that occur incrementally over long periods of time...those things don't make headlines like a picture of a wolf eating a big bull elk...but the relative magnitude of the impacts of predators vs. these landscape wide habitat changes in most instances is very skewed by many hunters.
I am guilty of the same skewing...in an area I hunt, starting in 2010 I just was not seeing the deer I used to. My dad thought he may have caught a glimpse of a wolf one evening in that area and so I thought that must be it...predators are reducing what was once an area with abundant deer. And so for the last few years its been kind of the same...but this year I have just been amazed at the sheer number of quality bucks I was finding. Thinking back...we had 2 hard winters 07/08 and 08/09 in a row...followed by 5 fairly mild (or very mild!) winters in a row. Could it have been some predation...sure. But the timing of decrease and rebound really supports the notion that poor winter survival occurred in 07-09, and I am now starting to see some of those nice 4.5 year old bucks that were born in 2010 and had good living for these last several years.
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 18, 2014, 10:05:57 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on September 18, 2014, 10:10:24 AM
Alright gentleman folk. I have been awoke from my slumber. Keep it nice and keep it clean. Subtle insults will get you into just as much trouble as a bold slap in your face one will . This is a warning to all listening or partaking specifically in the wolf board at the moment. I don't like babysitting or playing little games of "he hit me first". There really wont be any debate. Your priviledges will be revoked. Thanks.:yike: Wow. I read through the last page or two and not one person has posted one thing I wouldn't say to my own mother...in a church...in front of the congregation... :chuckle: :dunno:
This isn't in response to any particular post, but a combination of whiney sniveling that has perforated my mailbox.
Post by: bearpaw on September 18, 2014, 10:56:55 AM
You bring that little threat up every time there is a mention of the wolves that were in the lower 48 before the wolf introduction. How long will it be before WDFW are pulled over the carpet for their miss management of the game herds/predators? WA is at the point now that people are going to start to see a major drop in the game herds. In the Methow I expect Fitkin and crew to blame the drop on the fire, but in other parts of WA they will have to come up with a new lie.Its not a threat...I am optimistic that the courts will reject these scientifically unsupported claims when the enviro groups bring them up...but at the same time I lived through the de-listing saga in Idaho where any blind judge should have had no problem keeping wolves de-listed. My perception is you and many others have a set of values regarding predator management you would like to see pursued, and given wildlife are owned by the people (all the people) you have every right to pursue your predator management desires...so I am confused why you would support DoW talking points that would result in unbelievable setbacks to any kind of wolf "management".
I suppose Carter Niemeyer has been moving problem wolves around WA for WDFW instead of killing them, or are they releasing them in states that don't have wolves like he did for ID, MT, and Wyoming?
Your last 2 sentences I quoted above is the precise thing I find most frustrating with most of the wolf talk that goes on. We have one of the largest wildfires in WA history, which destroys/damages a huge amount of critical winter habitat...so I expect you are going to see a downturn in deer numbers in that area for the next few years. But in 2017, folks I'm sure will be complaining about a lack of deer up there (even more than they are now!). The fire will be a distant memory, but predators will be the sole factor blamed by many. Hard winters are the same way...a year or two after they occur hunters seem to have amnesia and when they don't see the same number of bucks...well, it must be predators. This is definitely the biggest disagreement I have with folks...its not that I think wolves and cougars don't kill game...but their impact to game abundance is usually less relative to large habitat related factors like a major wildfire on winter range or a very hard winter. And things like fire and winters are large, immediate, identifiable events to humans...start thinking about slow losses of land to housing developments, forest succession that replaces productive/forage producing areas with stands of mature timber and little food...you know things that occur incrementally over long periods of time...those things don't make headlines like a picture of a wolf eating a big bull elk...but the relative magnitude of the impacts of predators vs. these landscape wide habitat changes in most instances is very skewed by many hunters.
I am guilty of the same skewing...in an area I hunt, starting in 2010 I just was not seeing the deer I used to. My dad thought he may have caught a glimpse of a wolf one evening in that area and so I thought that must be it...predators are reducing what was once an area with abundant deer. And so for the last few years its been kind of the same...but this year I have just been amazed at the sheer number of quality bucks I was finding. Thinking back...we had 2 hard winters 07/08 and 08/09 in a row...followed by 5 fairly mild (or very mild!) winters in a row. Could it have been some predation...sure. But the timing of decrease and rebound really supports the notion that poor winter survival occurred in 07-09, and I am now starting to see some of those nice 4.5 year old bucks that were born in 2010 and had good living for these last several years.
Idaho I agree that winters/nature has the biggest impact on herd numbers. I also agree that habitat is very important, but what you seem to overlook or avoid is that a large predator population dramatically slows a herd from rebounding and can even result in a predator pit in which herds do not recover or take far longer to recover due to too much predation. This has been documented and proven.
Post by: wolfbait on September 18, 2014, 11:25:02 AM
You bring that little threat up every time there is a mention of the wolves that were in the lower 48 before the wolf introduction. How long will it be before WDFW are pulled over the carpet for their miss management of the game herds/predators? WA is at the point now that people are going to start to see a major drop in the game herds. In the Methow I expect Fitkin and crew to blame the drop on the fire, but in other parts of WA they will have to come up with a new lie.Its not a threat...I am optimistic that the courts will reject these scientifically unsupported claims when the enviro groups bring them up...but at the same time I lived through the de-listing saga in Idaho where any blind judge should have had no problem keeping wolves de-listed. My perception is you and many others have a set of values regarding predator management you would like to see pursued, and given wildlife are owned by the people (all the people) you have every right to pursue your predator management desires...so I am confused why you would support DoW talking points that would result in unbelievable setbacks to any kind of wolf "management".
I suppose Carter Niemeyer has been moving problem wolves around WA for WDFW instead of killing them, or are they releasing them in states that don't have wolves like he did for ID, MT, and Wyoming?
Your last 2 sentences I quoted above is the precise thing I find most frustrating with most of the wolf talk that goes on. We have one of the largest wildfires in WA history, which destroys/damages a huge amount of critical winter habitat...so I expect you are going to see a downturn in deer numbers in that area for the next few years. But in 2017, folks I'm sure will be complaining about a lack of deer up there (even more than they are now!). The fire will be a distant memory, but predators will be the sole factor blamed by many. Hard winters are the same way...a year or two after they occur hunters seem to have amnesia and when they don't see the same number of bucks...well, it must be predators. This is definitely the biggest disagreement I have with folks...its not that I think wolves and cougars don't kill game...but their impact to game abundance is usually less relative to large habitat related factors like a major wildfire on winter range or a very hard winter. And things like fire and winters are large, immediate, identifiable events to humans...start thinking about slow losses of land to housing developments, forest succession that replaces productive/forage producing areas with stands of mature timber and little food...you know things that occur incrementally over long periods of time...those things don't make headlines like a picture of a wolf eating a big bull elk...but the relative magnitude of the impacts of predators vs. these landscape wide habitat changes in most instances is very skewed by many hunters.
I am guilty of the same skewing...in an area I hunt, starting in 2010 I just was not seeing the deer I used to. My dad thought he may have caught a glimpse of a wolf one evening in that area and so I thought that must be it...predators are reducing what was once an area with abundant deer. And so for the last few years its been kind of the same...but this year I have just been amazed at the sheer number of quality bucks I was finding. Thinking back...we had 2 hard winters 07/08 and 08/09 in a row...followed by 5 fairly mild (or very mild!) winters in a row. Could it have been some predation...sure. But the timing of decrease and rebound really supports the notion that poor winter survival occurred in 07-09, and I am now starting to see some of those nice 4.5 year old bucks that were born in 2010 and had good living for these last several years.
Idaho I agree that winters/nature has the biggest impact on herd numbers. I also agree that habitat is very important, but what you seem to overlook or avoid is that a large predator population dramatically slows a herd from rebounding and can even result in a predator pit in which herds do not recover or take far longer to recover due to too much predation. This has been documented and proven.
:yeah:
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 18, 2014, 11:47:09 AM
Post by: boneaddict on September 18, 2014, 12:04:11 PM
May not be in this thread, but I am sure the players that are involved are here and have now read my warning. Feel free to test the waters with me. You'll note I don't play games.Alright gentleman folk. I have been awoke from my slumber. Keep it nice and keep it clean. Subtle insults will get you into just as much trouble as a bold slap in your face one will . This is a warning to all listening or partaking specifically in the wolf board at the moment. I don't like babysitting or playing little games of "he hit me first". There really wont be any debate. Your priviledges will be revoked. Thanks.:yike: Wow. I read through the last page or two and not one person has posted one thing I wouldn't say to my own mother...in a church...in front of the congregation... :chuckle: :dunno:
This isn't in response to any particular post, but a combination of whiney sniveling that has perforated my mailbox.
Post by: bhawley76 on September 18, 2014, 12:37:56 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on September 18, 2014, 12:57:35 PM
You guys are spitting into the wind. Those people who so dearly love their wolves won't admit there's a problem even when the ungulates are gone and they have lost their outdoors opportunities. We lost this battle to environmental extremists three years ago with the help of a stacked wildlife commission with a watchable wildlife mentality. The WDFW will self-destruct as the people who support it (the hunters and fishers) go away and find their opportunities elsewhere. We have a very sad state of affairs in WA and it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better, if it ever does.The people who love wolves do not have a need for ungulates to enjoy their outdoor opportunities...they are non-consumptive users.
I disagree that we have a sad state of affairs in WA with regards to hunting opportunity. For some, the grass is always greener. Many folks in Wa envy the wolf management over in Idaho...but there are plenty of folks in Idaho who think the IDFG is the biggest bunch of scheming wolf lovers known to man! While there are dozens of things I would like to see change and improve in wdfw, to suggest all is lost seems extremely pessimistic and not based in reality. There are a ton of quality hunting opportunities in this state, which is pretty amazing given the population size, land area, public lands availability etc.
Post by: KFhunter on September 18, 2014, 01:02:41 PM
Post by: denali on September 18, 2014, 01:06:36 PM
They should care a great deal about ungulates, the wolves need something to eat, but you are right to many of them its wolves and wolves only.
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 18, 2014, 01:14:17 PM
You guys are spitting into the wind. Those people who so dearly love their wolves won't admit there's a problem even when the ungulates are gone and they have lost their outdoors opportunities. We lost this battle to environmental extremists three years ago with the help of a stacked wildlife commission with a watchable wildlife mentality. The WDFW will self-destruct as the people who support it (the hunters and fishers) go away and find their opportunities elsewhere. We have a very sad state of affairs in WA and it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better, if it ever does.The people who love wolves do not have a need for ungulates to enjoy their outdoor opportunities...they are non-consumptive users.
I disagree that we have a sad state of affairs in WA with regards to hunting opportunity. For some, the grass is always greener. Many folks in Wa envy the wolf management over in Idaho...but there are plenty of folks in Idaho who think the IDFG is the biggest bunch of scheming wolf lovers known to man! While there are dozens of things I would like to see change and improve in wdfw, to suggest all is lost seems extremely pessimistic and not based in reality. There are a ton of quality hunting opportunities in this state, which is pretty amazing given the population size, land area, public lands availability etc.
No kidding, really? Another shocker. :rolleyes:
Post by: idahohuntr on September 18, 2014, 01:27:45 PM
Yep. Perhaps you could elaborate on what is such sad state? KF has already mentioned Cougar and Bear are world class. I would add that deer, turkey, pheasant, and waterfowl are pretty darn good. I enjoy the offseason coyote fun in this state as well. Trophy species are top notch, if only we could address the draw odds issues :chuckle: Elk hunting is probably where we fall down...but the silver lining is we have tremendous trophy opportunity in the abscense of any really great OTC units. Again, always room for improvement...but I think it is wrong to suggest the hunting opportunity in this state is a "sad state of affairs". Some people have unrealistic expectations that 200" mule deer and 360" bull elk should be found behind every tree in OTC general season hunts...those folks will never be happy. :dunno:We have a very sad state of affairs in WA and it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better, if it ever does.The people who love wolves do not have a need for ungulates to enjoy their outdoor opportunities...they are non-consumptive users.
I disagree that we have a sad state of affairs in WA with regards to hunting opportunity.
No kidding, really? Another shocker. :rolleyes:
Post by: Stein on September 18, 2014, 01:39:57 PM
Post by: KFhunter on September 18, 2014, 01:44:57 PM
I hunted some of my old haunts recently and the change from this last 5 years to now was drastic, even a fairly poor hunter could see that wolves have taken a large number of Elk off the hunting grounds and removed almost all traces of deer. Not trying to rationalize my continued failure, but it would be nice to have a decent population of Elk to fling an arrow at.
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 18, 2014, 01:48:19 PM
I'm not a wolf fan, but I appreciate the fact that some citizens like to have them around. I would hope they would appreciate the fact that I like to hunt even if they dislike it. Thus, I'm willing to live with wolves to some extent as I don't expect everyone to agree with me 100%. From my perspective, it sucks, but I'm not the only person in the state.
It's not the fact that they're here, although I think our ecosystem has done well without them for 70 years and hunters can be relied upon to kill the proper number of elk and deer when needed. It's that the plan is far too aggressive for our state. We have half the land mass and 16 times the population density of MT, a state who's having severe problems with wolves and their ungulate populations. Our wolf plan calls for 50% more wolf packs than MT. Not only that, but once these ridiculous goals are met, it's three years before steady management can take place. That's ridiculous and it's going to hurt not only hunters, but the economy surrounding hunting, ranchers, and the communities, especially in the NE, who've already been hit so hard by the loss of timber over the last 20 years. Our forests are unhealthy. We have hoof disease in the W. part of our state (no longer just the SW). And we have a wolf program that has goals which appear to have been pulled out of a hat. This isn't about not wanting wolves. This is about common sense and the lack of it due to having a wildlife commission hell-bent on shoving wolves down everyone's throats in as big a way as possible. We could have wolves in WA in a much more reasonable way. The freaks did the deciding and the plan is outrageous.
Post by: boneaddict on September 18, 2014, 02:01:20 PM
Post by: KFhunter on September 18, 2014, 02:09:46 PM
As Idaho is finding out it takes a ton of resources and money to manage them. WA won't do that.
We'll loose open grazing, even on private lands as is already happening.
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 18, 2014, 02:14:00 PM
5 BP managed and kept in wilderness areas would be a plenty
As Idaho is finding out it takes a ton of resources and money to manage them. WA won't do that.
We'll loose open grazing, even on private lands as is already happening.
Yes, that would have been at least plenty. 3 times that is bizarre to conceive of.
Post by: gaddy on September 18, 2014, 02:19:26 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 18, 2014, 02:24:02 PM
Post by: Bob33 on September 18, 2014, 02:30:30 PM
Even a fairly poor hunter could see that wolves have taken a large number of Elk off the hunting grounds and removed almost all traces of deer.Serious question: how do you know it is wolves that removed almost all traces of deer, versus some other factor?
Post by: idahohuntr on September 18, 2014, 02:33:31 PM
To be fair, I was complaining about Elk prior to wolves. WDFW is consistent in their mismanagement of Elk, so when wolves did come I went in full freak out mode.Consider moving areas if harvest is that important to you. I know folks who hunt less productive areas because thats just where they hunt and the thought of going elsewhere is blasphemy. But if harvest is really important to you, mobility is your friend.
I hunted some of my old haunts recently and the change from this last 5 years to now was drastic, even a fairly poor hunter could see that wolves have taken a large number of Elk off the hunting grounds and removed almost all traces of deer. Not trying to rationalize my continued failure, but it would be nice to have a decent population of Elk to fling an arrow at.
We have half the land mass and 16 times the population density of MT, a state who's having severe problems with wolves and their ungulate populations.
Severe? A good chunk of the state doesn't even have wolves. Again, your logic does not appear to be grounded in facts. Some hunts right around yellowstone have taken a hit, but to suggest Montana is suffering from "severe" effects of wolves (and this again places all blame on wolves for any declines!) does not seem to match reality.
They are quite an interesting critter and I have been somewhat fascinated by them for a long time. That being said, I don't like them being rammed down my throat. Mismanagement of them or any other major predator is just plain (Bleep)I think Stein put it most eloquently..."I'm not the only person in the state"...compromise is something we need to learn to live with when it comes to wolf management in WA state. While some feel 15 bps for delisting is "ramming wolves down their throat", others may feel 15 bp's is woefully inadequate. Given we are the minority I think it behooves hunters to seek compromise...surely we do not want to go down the ballot box management path!
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 18, 2014, 02:38:52 PM
Post by: KFhunter on September 18, 2014, 02:47:21 PM
Even a fairly poor hunter could see that wolves have taken a large number of Elk off the hunting grounds and removed almost all traces of deer.Serious question: how do you know it is wolves that removed almost all traces of deer, versus some other factor?
It's an assumption based upon the biggest factor to change in that area, the influx of wolves; an educated guess; but since there's no proof other than my personal observations it's easily discredited in of itself. It's when many voices all echo the same thing that one must take notice. It's so easy for a wolf advocate to pick apart different hunter's observations, and that's why they're here....to discredit us and keep us bickering.
rule #1
Don't allow hunters to share a common voice calling for increased wolf management. Pick apart their observations and personal experiences, call them a poor hunter and belittle them when they're unsuccessful..
don't allow them to blame wolves.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 18, 2014, 02:50:15 PM
Another shocking and surprising reply. :rolleyes: My numbers are all accurate. You're the one not grounded in reality. I know you refuse to see anything but the beauty of just as many wolves as we can fit in the state. That doesn't make it right or responsible.Again, please provide the supporting information that Montana is experiencing severe effects to ungulates because of wolves. I suspect Montana is similar to Idaho and Wyoming...overall, hunting is pretty good. A few areas have been impacted, but lots of really great opportunity. Perhaps you are aware of some facts I am not, but you have not provided them.
I have no "desires" for wolves in Wa state. I just have not seen the evidence that they cause the kind of destruction you and others suggest.
Post by: Bob33 on September 18, 2014, 02:51:14 PM
OK. Thank you. There are many factors at play. Certainly predators are significant. Here's an interesting article on the decline of mule deer in most western states:Even a fairly poor hunter could see that wolves have taken a large number of Elk off the hunting grounds and removed almost all traces of deer.Serious question: how do you know it is wolves that removed almost all traces of deer, versus some other factor?
It's an assumption based upon the biggest factor to change in that area, the influx of wolves; an educated guess; but since there's no proof other than my personal observations it's easily discredited in of itself. It's when many voices all echo the same thing that one must take notice. It's so easy for a wolf advocate to pick apart different hunter's observations, and that's why they're here....to discredit us and keep us bickering.
rule #1
Don't allow hunters to share a common voice calling for increased wolf management. Pick apart their observations and personal experiences, call them a poor hunter and belittle them when they're unsuccessful..
don't allow them to blame wolves.
http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/studies-states-seek-to-halt-mule-deer-population-decline/article_e7b84102-3737-11e3-9830-0019bb2963f4.html (http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/studies-states-seek-to-halt-mule-deer-population-decline/article_e7b84102-3737-11e3-9830-0019bb2963f4.html)
Wildlife management agencies, hunters and wildlife organizations have done a lot of research, habitat work and plain old head scratching in recent years over what is causing a decline in the number of mule deer across parts of the West.
A recent report by Western wildlife agencies found mule deer declining in four states, including Wyoming, and one Canadian province. Montana’s population was reported as stable, although certain regional populations have seen some dramatic declines.
“Certainly numbers are still down,” said Quentin Kujala, Fish, Wildlife and Parks wildlife management section chief, but whether that constitutes a downward trend or simply a temporary pause he could not say.
“It’s varied across the state, for sure,” he added.
A FWP report to the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies in July noted “significant declines in recruitment and observed numbers of mule deer during 2007-11.”
The report goes on to note the regional differences in mule deer populations.
“Surveys during 2012-13 revealed improved recruitment and stable numbers in central and eastern Montana. Western Montana mule deer populations continue to perform poorly. Recent, significant declines in eastern Montana mule deer populations were associated with inclement winter/spring weather and drought.”
Down in Wyoming
Wyoming, on the other hand, is reporting a steadily decreasing population of mule deer.
In its report to WAFWA, Wyoming noted that the decline was evident as early as the late 1980s, when fawn production began to decline, blamed on “decreasing habitat availability and/or quality.”
The report goes on to note that, “Over the past 30 years, fawn productivity, on average, has decreased statewide by about 20 percent and has been below 65 (fawns per 100 does) 12 times.”
That number is significant since any time the numbers hit 65 or lower there will be a decline in populations, said Darryl Lutz, Lander Region wildlife coordinator for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. That’s been the case in the Cowboy State.
“Throughout Wyoming, mule deer populations have declined by an estimated 168,000 (31 percent) since 2000. After the 2011 hunting seasons, it was estimated there were 376,000 mule deer in the state. This is 24 percent below the statewide objective of 564,650 mule deer,” Wyoming’s WAFWA report stated.
Lutz said that in 1989 Wyoming saw fawn production start to drop off significantly. That corresponded with the beginning of an extended drought.
Other states that reported declines include North Dakota, Colorado, New Mexico and the province of Saskatchewan. In Colorado the decline of mule deer was great enough that the deer hunting opportunities dropped by 94 percent over five years for the state’s largest mule deer herd.
Mule deer habitat
One theory behind the animals’ decline is a loss of habitat, or changes to existing habitat.
Mule deer are ruminants, animals with multi-chambered stomachs that help them break down the often fibrous plants they eat, which includes the tips of shrubs like bitterbrush and sagebrush.
The mule deer’s range across the West, as in Montana, varies from high in the Rocky Mountains to rugged prairies like the Missouri River Breaks. One thing all of the various mule deer habitats have in common is their reliance on timely moisture to produce nutritious forage. So drought – which commonly and sometimes seriously strikes the West – can deplete mule deer populations.
Demonstrating the importance of quality nutrition, one study found that “well-nourished does lost only about 5 percent of their fawns; does fed deficient diets during the winter lost about 33 percent; and does underfed throughout their pregnancy lost 90 percent of their fawns.”
Lutz, from Wyoming Game and Fish, said his agency once believed that winter habitat was the most important factor in ensuring the deer’s survival. In recent years, that switched to a greater focus on the habitat deer use in the late summer and fall. “This is a common theme across areas of the West,” Lutz said.
If deer aren’t going into the winter well fed, it doesn’t matter if the winter range is in good shape or not. Deer in poor condition won’t survive, or a pregnant doe’s fawn has less chance of surviving.
Altering habitat on a large enough scale to affect mule deer populations isn’t easy or cheap, though, Lutz pointed out.
“It takes a lot of money to do it on a scale large enough to make a difference,” he said.
Still, the department is partnering on a project near Saratoga, Wyo., called the Platte Valley Habitat Partnership, to see if large-scale landscape improvements can have a positive effect on mule deer population trends.
“We’re refocusing our attention,” Lutz said. “I don’t think we yet understand how much effect drought has on habitat.”
Other factors
Although drought may be a major player in the decline of mule deer, there is a laundry list of other occurrences affecting mule deer habitats, including weed infestations by nonnatives, especially species like cheatgrass that can spread rapidly following fires. Fire, too, has the ability to reshape habitats – sometimes for the good, by removing old overstory and promoting new growth, and sometimes for the bad, by ridding the landscape of cover vital to fawn survival.
Some studies suggest that the increase in logging during America’s building boom, settlement of the West and the mining boom, may have opened up the forest floor to species more palatable to mule deer in the early 1900s, promoting what some have termed the golden era of mule deer.
Longtime Wyoming hunter Mike Eastman, who has written two books on mule deer, said the lack of hunting during World War II also helped mule deer populations blossom in that era. He puts part of the blame for the population decline on liberal hunting seasons following World War II.
“They treated them like buffalo and killed them all off,” Eastman said. “By the 1970s, they were all gone and they went, ‘Oops.’ They’ll never be like that again.”
Eastman blames the lack of predator control, suppression of fire and the encroachment of development on deer habitat as the top three reasons for the declining mule deer populations.
One curiosity is that mule deer have thrived in some urban environments, such as in the Montana towns of Colstrip, Glendive and Helena, prompting special hunts or outright trapping and removal. Are mule deer numbers in towns swelling because of the well-watered forage provided by homeowners, or maybe because of a lack of traditional predators like coyotes, or both?
Competitors
Other possible suspects in the decline of mule deer are competitors for the same resources — animals like elk, whose numbers have climbed in many regions of Montana, as well as cattle.
There is often a big decline from the number of fawns born to those living at a year old, and predators such as coyotes, bears and lions are often blamed for limiting mule deer population rebounds. Utah has even gone so far as to pay a $50 bounty for coyote pelts as a way to reduce their numbers.
But studies have shown that reducing the numbers of predators isn’t always effective. One study suggested that if mule deer numbers are strong, then predators will simply fill the void if a resident predator is shot, since the food source is so bountiful, creating a constant in-migration.
A Montana study showed that coyotes, if they have other food sources such as small mammals, may not be a problem even when abundant. And research in Nevada showed that even when predator control was at a high in the 1960s, game harvest was better in 1996 and 2000 when many of the old means of killing coyotes, such as with poisons, were no longer used.
Despite many studies, it seems there is still a lot of uncertainty about how to reverse the decline of a species that many consider a Western icon. The only thing that is certain is that there are no easy answers.
“It’s complex,” said Lutz, of Wyoming Game and Fish. “The things that are impacting mule deer are numerous.”
Post by: bobcat on September 18, 2014, 02:54:15 PM
Quote
It's so easy for a wolf advocate to pick apart different hunter's observations, and that's why they're here....to discredit us and keep us bickering.
That's why they're "here?" As in on this forum? Really? I haven't noticed any wolf advocates posting. Maybe they're only lurking? :dunno:
Where did you get that "rule #1"?
Post by: idahohuntr on September 18, 2014, 03:01:51 PM
Is your observation that there is not a trace of a deer in NE Wa...or just some very specific tree stand location/ridge top etc.? One I would believe...and is easily explained by any number of factors ranging from hunter pressure to weather to a cougar strolling by that morning...the other would be very difficult to swallow.Even a fairly poor hunter could see that wolves have taken a large number of Elk off the hunting grounds and removed almost all traces of deer.Serious question: how do you know it is wolves that removed almost all traces of deer, versus some other factor?
It's an assumption based upon the biggest factor to change in that area, the influx of wolves; an educated guess; but since there's no proof other than my personal observations it's easily discredited in of itself. It's when many voices all echo the same thing that one must take notice. It's so easy for a wolf advocate to pick apart different hunter's observations, and that's why they're here....to discredit us and keep us bickering.
rule #1
Don't allow hunters to share a common voice calling for increased wolf management. Pick apart their observations and personal experiences, call them a poor hunter and belittle them when they're unsuccessful..
don't allow them to blame wolves.
Who are the wolf advocates and where are they discrediting hunters? Is Bob Ferris back on the forum somewhere?
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 18, 2014, 03:02:36 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on September 18, 2014, 03:19:50 PM
"Not surprisingly (to me anyway) the effect of wolves on elk populations varies by area and presence of other predators such as grizzly bears. In addition hunters affect elk more than wolves. When considering wolves and ungulates alone, I take this report to be generally quite positive for the effects of wolves on ungulates."
“One-size-fits-all explanations of wolf-elk interactions across large landscapes do not seem to exist,” said Justin Gude, FWP’s chief of wildlife research in Helena.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 18, 2014, 03:27:39 PM
In most of northwestern Montana, it’s probable that white-tailed deer are the major prey of wolves, yet the recent decline in deer numbers there is most likely due to poor fawn survival and recruitment during the recent spate of severe winters-in combination with high antlerless harvests by hunters and wolf-predation rates.
Post by: KFhunter on September 18, 2014, 04:11:56 PM
Every time I go out I see wolf sign in my old hunting areas and effects of wolves on the landscape, I see carcasses all the time.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/v/t1.0-9/p417x417/1174755_620243428027811_2002335229_n.jpg?oh=7d7a6e3415f897c2540cf1968f9a5bd2&oe=54865A7B&__gda__=1419214482_c2440d363e3623d05e2a57ce6b8bc710)
this is not new for me.
I went Elk hunting last week in an area I knew had wolves, normally I'd avoid those areas but now I figure I can't get away from them, they're everywhere...but even I was shocked at the almost total desertion of large game. Dale has been saying it all along, but until you witness devastation with your own eyes you won't get it.
Yes there was still some Elk there, but the herds were tiny and constantly moving. I wasn't able to find a herd that was holed up for even a day or two. I should have seen or heard of some success from other Elk hunters but no..I seen no dead heads, no horns in the back of trucks, no gut piles or ravens, no coyotes singing at 3am....and in 4 days I never crossed a single yote track.
I tried to get on here and share my experience, but I was instead mocked.
I'm not a piss poor hunter, I'm not a moron, nor a politician. I'm not sad or pathetic, I'm not a lousy hunter nor don't know chit about Elk.
Post by: bearpaw on September 18, 2014, 04:29:16 PM
Obviously the proven fact that wolves have impacted certain herds does not mean that myself or others think all predation on ungulates is caused by wolves or cougars, or that all declines in herds is caused solely by wolves or cougars. There are certainly many other predators and factors that can impact ungulate herds more or less depending on which area is being discussed. But, there are proven instances where wolves and cougars in particular are the primary factor impacting herds or keeping herds from rebounding, why not just admit that fact rather than try to twist the facts as if wolves and cougars never have an impact?
I find it disheartening that fellow hunters would argue that that these impacts do not occur when they know full well and have seen the evidence that wolves and cougars can be a major impact on herds. Who is really feeding the other side what they need to try and stop hunting of predators? :twocents:
Post by: AspenBud on September 18, 2014, 04:31:11 PM
no coyotes singing at 3am....and in 4 days I never crossed a single yote track.
A lot of people on here tried to say that doesn't happen when wolves move in. Now you see it does. They literally kill and displace the buggers.
Post by: bearpaw on September 18, 2014, 04:37:12 PM
no coyotes singing at 3am....and in 4 days I never crossed a single yote track.
A lot of people on here tried to say that doesn't happen when wolves move in. Now you see it does. They literally kill and displace the buggers.
The same is true of pet dogs, hunting dogs, and herd dogs, the wolves literally try to kill them! :twocents:
Post by: AspenBud on September 18, 2014, 04:48:47 PM
Myself and many others have posted the data numerous times proving certain ungulate declines in several specific ungulate herds were caused by wolves, cougars, bear, and/or coyotes in studies documented by state wildlife biologists. It's also true and I don't think anyone disagrees that habitat and hunters play a role in herd numbers, but those are not the only factors, predators have been proven to have varying degrees of impact on herds.
Obviously the proven fact that wolves have impacted certain herds does not mean that myself or others think all predation on ungulates is caused by wolves or cougars, or that all declines in herds is caused solely by wolves or cougars. There are certainly many other predators and factors that can impact ungulate herds more or less depending on which area is being discussed. But, there are proven instances where wolves and cougars in particular are the primary factor impacting herds or keeping herds from rebounding, why not just admit that fact rather than try to twist the facts as if wolves and cougars never have an impact?
I find it disheartening that fellow hunters would argue that that these impacts do not occur when they know full well and have seen the evidence that wolves and cougars can be a major impact on herds. Who is really feeding the other side what they need to try and stop hunting of predators? :twocents:
I'm not denying they have an impact. I'm just saying if ungulates are having a hard time rebounding in some areas because of predators and not others the next logical question is why are they able to coexist in some areas and not in others? And if that can't be fixed, is it really worth spending the time to eradicate predators that will likely starve to death anyhow if the prey population is dying off? You can have too much of a "good thing" and wolves can be that, no denying that, but I don't buy that everywhere they go it's the end of all game.
I think a lot of wildlife is in trouble in this state these days. Predators play a role but so does habitat loss and degradation and there are likely other factors in play too. I know a guy who has had two Roosevelt elk literally walk onto his property in the off season this year, fall over, and die, and they had hoof rot. I know another who got into a herd of them a last week and he tells me not a single one was walking around without at least one foot showing signs of hoof rot including the one they got and hauled off the mountain. Yet the state has done relatively little, that I'm aware of, to find out why they are coming down with it and by all accounts they almost acted surprised when someone suggested timber companies spraying herbicides and pesticides might have a role when they rolled into Longview. It was like they had never thought of it before.
From upland birds to other small and big game the state's wildlife, by my eye, isn't fairing well anywhere. Some of it is obvious, some of it less so.
And with that I'm bowing out again.
Post by: AspenBud on September 18, 2014, 04:49:16 PM
no coyotes singing at 3am....and in 4 days I never crossed a single yote track.
A lot of people on here tried to say that doesn't happen when wolves move in. Now you see it does. They literally kill and displace the buggers.
The same is true of pet dogs, hunting dogs, and herd dogs, the wolves literally try to kill them! :twocents:
VERY true.
Post by: jasnt on September 18, 2014, 05:11:25 PM
I live in the middle of wolf country, the wedge, where it all started for WA - ground zero if you will.
Every time I go out I see wolf sign in my old hunting areas and effects of wolves on the landscape, I see carcasses all the time.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/v/t1.0-9/p417x417/1174755_620243428027811_2002335229_n.jpg?oh=7d7a6e3415f897c2540cf1968f9a5bd2&oe=54865A7B&__gda__=1419214482_c2440d363e3623d05e2a57ce6b8bc710)
this is not new for me.
I went Elk hunting last week in an area I knew had wolves, normally I'd avoid those areas but now I figure I can't get away from them, they're everywhere...but even I was shocked at the almost total desertion of large game. Dale has been saying it all along, but until you witness devastation with your own eyes you won't get it.
Yes there was still some Elk there, but the herds were tiny and constantly moving. I wasn't able to find a herd that was holed up for even a day or two. I should have seen or heard of some success from other Elk hunters but no..I seen no dead heads, no horns in the back of trucks, no gut piles or ravens, no coyotes singing at 3am....and in 4 days I never crossed a single yote track.
I tried to get on here and share my experience, but I was instead mocked.
I'm not a piss poor hunter, I'm not a moron, nor a politician. I'm not sad or pathetic, I'm not a lousy hunter nor don't know chit about Elk.
this is what I'm seeing too. I don't live as far north as kf but 90% of my hunting is north of me. Many of the carcasses' have busted off or crushed nose. Some are not hardly eaten but mostly buried and rotten. My fav hunting spot is few miles away its few square miles that I normally grid work several days a week(seasonal worker) from Dec 15th to end of march I found 11 such kills on this property alone
Post by: bearpaw on September 18, 2014, 05:40:54 PM
I live in the middle of wolf country, the wedge, where it all started for WA - ground zero if you will.
Every time I go out I see wolf sign in my old hunting areas and effects of wolves on the landscape, I see carcasses all the time.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/v/t1.0-9/p417x417/1174755_620243428027811_2002335229_n.jpg?oh=7d7a6e3415f897c2540cf1968f9a5bd2&oe=54865A7B&__gda__=1419214482_c2440d363e3623d05e2a57ce6b8bc710)
this is not new for me.
I went Elk hunting last week in an area I knew had wolves, normally I'd avoid those areas but now I figure I can't get away from them, they're everywhere...but even I was shocked at the almost total desertion of large game. Dale has been saying it all along, but until you witness devastation with your own eyes you won't get it.
Yes there was still some Elk there, but the herds were tiny and constantly moving. I wasn't able to find a herd that was holed up for even a day or two. I should have seen or heard of some success from other Elk hunters but no..I seen no dead heads, no horns in the back of trucks, no gut piles or ravens, no coyotes singing at 3am....and in 4 days I never crossed a single yote track.
I tried to get on here and share my experience, but I was instead mocked.
I'm not a piss poor hunter, I'm not a moron, nor a politician. I'm not sad or pathetic, I'm not a lousy hunter nor don't know chit about Elk.
this is what I'm seeing too. I don't live as far north as kf but 90% of my hunting is north of me. Many of the carcasses' have busted off or crushed nose. Some are not hardly eaten but mostly buried and rotten. My fav hunting spot is few miles away its few square miles that I normally grid work several days a week(seasonal worker) from Dec 15th to end of march I found 11 such kills on this property alone
Those areas up by KF used to be excellent for deer, elk, and moose. We had to change some of our hunting areas due to impacts from wolves, sad to see how they can impact an area. Just like what happened in certain areas of Idaho and Montana.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 18, 2014, 05:44:44 PM
My perspective is there is actually a whole lot more common ground than disagreement than comes across in these threads. Naturally it is the microscopic focus on disagreements that results in more posts/debate and so it skews just how much of the big picture we all can probably agree on. :brew:
Post by: bearpaw on September 18, 2014, 05:48:56 PM
I think we can all take away from this thread that broad generalizations about the factors that influence deer/elk abundance are very difficult to defend. Predators- cougars, wolves, etc. definitely can have an impact on the abundance of deer and elk...and those impacts can range from negligible to severe. Add in other mortality factors and even the moderate predation can be devastating. As I mentioned earlier, I believe more often predation gets the attention while habitat issues are the silent killer. But that should not be taken to mean that predators don't or will not have potentially severe impacts.
My perspective is there is actually a whole lot more common ground than disagreement than comes across in these threads. Naturally it is the microscopic focus on disagreements that results in more posts/debate and so it skews just how much of the big picture we all can probably agree on. :brew:
I hope so! :brew:
Post by: CAMPMEAT on September 18, 2014, 05:53:04 PM
Post by: nwwanderer on September 18, 2014, 05:53:36 PM
Post by: Stein on September 18, 2014, 06:00:46 PM
Washington will be the same way I bet, wolves reproduce, get unlisted and then hardly anyone hunts them. It's always easier to complain than it is to do something productive.
Post by: wolfbait on September 18, 2014, 06:47:25 PM
If half the MT hunters unhappy about wolves went out and bought and filled a tag, there wouldn't be any "problem" in Montana - or any other state that has legal wolf hunting. Heck, if 10% of the hunters went after wolves one or two days a year the picture would be much different. Even as a non-resident, I can pick up a MT tag for $50 OTC (5/year) and hunt pretty much anywhere - not to mention ranchers who would probably welcome the help. I know a bunch of MT hunters and have yet to meet one that ever even bought a tag.
Washington will be the same way I bet, wolves reproduce, get unlisted and then hardly anyone hunts them. It's always easier to complain than it is to do something productive.
Wolves smarten up pretty darn quick, they are not as easy to hunt as some might think. It has been said that wolves are 10% smarter then dogs.
Post by: wolfbait on September 18, 2014, 07:02:02 PM
Post by: wolfbait on September 18, 2014, 07:13:06 PM
You guys are spitting into the wind. Those people who so dearly love their wolves won't admit there's a problem even when the ungulates are gone and they have lost their outdoors opportunities. We lost this battle to environmental extremists three years ago with the help of a stacked wildlife commission with a watchable wildlife mentality. The WDFW will self-destruct as the people who support it (the hunters and fishers) go away and find their opportunities elsewhere. We have a very sad state of affairs in WA and it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better, if it ever does.
Actually we lost to the environmentalists longer then three years ago, but the end results will be the same, the times are changing and for those of us who enjoy hunting etc..
Post by: idahohuntr on September 18, 2014, 07:25:54 PM
We can go back and forth all day long about the predation on the game herds, the one thing that points at the wolves is history. Before wolves the game herds could keep up if tags etc. were limited in areas for a year or two, that had a bad winter. The introduction of the Canadian wolves tip the scale on predation of ungulates and livestock. Anyone who tries to argue otherwise, either doesn't have a clue or they like playing head games.:rolleyes: see below.
I think we can all take away from this thread that broad generalizations about the factors that influence deer/elk abundance are very difficult to defend.
Post by: jasnt on September 18, 2014, 08:03:02 PM
If half the MT hunters unhappy about wolves went out and bought and filled a tag, there wouldn't be any "problem" in Montana - or any other state that has legal wolf hunting. Heck, if 10% of the hunters went after wolves one or two days a year the picture would be much different. Even as a non-resident, I can pick up a MT tag for $50 OTC (5/year) and hunt pretty much anywhere - not to mention ranchers who would probably welcome the help. I know a bunch of MT hunters and have yet to meet one that ever even bought a tag.
Washington will be the same way I bet, wolves reproduce, get unlisted and then hardly anyone hunts them. It's always easier to complain than it is to do something productive.
you must not know too many predator hunters from Montana, spend a little time browsing predator.asters and you will see there are plenty of wolf hunters there. Here's one account to get ya started
http://www.predatormastersforums.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2718741&nt=1&page=2 (http://www.predatormastersforums.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2718741&nt=1&page=2)
I look forward to my first wolf hunt and "I know a bunch of" predator hunters that feel the same as I.
Post by: KFhunter on September 18, 2014, 08:09:02 PM
Was on there before I found HW
Post by: denali on September 18, 2014, 09:36:04 PM
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2014/sep/18/stevens-county-commission-condemns-state-wolf-management/ (http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2014/sep/18/stevens-county-commission-condemns-state-wolf-management/)
Meanwhile the Stevens County Commission contends the WDFW “failed to honor its obligation and an imminent threat to life and property still exists.”
The resolution says the commission “will consider all available option to protect the residents” and declared that “the wolves of the Huckleberry Pack are subject to whatever Constitutional means necessary to secure our public in their lives, liberty and property.”
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 19, 2014, 05:45:21 AM
If half the MT hunters unhappy about wolves went out and bought and filled a tag, there wouldn't be any "problem" in Montana - or any other state that has legal wolf hunting. Heck, if 10% of the hunters went after wolves one or two days a year the picture would be much different. Even as a non-resident, I can pick up a MT tag for $50 OTC (5/year) and hunt pretty much anywhere - not to mention ranchers who would probably welcome the help. I know a bunch of MT hunters and have yet to meet one that ever even bought a tag.
Washington will be the same way I bet, wolves reproduce, get unlisted and then hardly anyone hunts them. It's always easier to complain than it is to do something productive.
This is a statement made in total ignorance to the realities of wolf hunting/management. A little less than a month ago, the WDFW announced they would take out 4 members of the Huckleberry pack using a helicopter and other methods. They have tracking collars on some of the wolves, know where their dens are, used a helicopter, and shot one wolf. With all of the technology available to them, they fell short of their goal by 75%. They don't sit out there and wait for you to come shoot them. They're extremely resourceful and intelligent, adaptive creatures. They change their tactics. They change their activity. If it were as easy as buying a tag, ID and MT would be filling their quotas every Fall. It isn't.
Post by: boneaddict on September 19, 2014, 06:25:08 AM
We hunt coyotes 24/7/365 and you can see how well we keep them in check.
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 19, 2014, 06:44:45 AM
If I had the legal ability to shoot on site, I can guarantee you there would be a lot less wolves.
We hunt coyotes 24/7/365 and you can see how well we keep them in check.
I think there would be more wolves taken, but by the time we reach steady management (read wolf season), there will be so many wolves in this state that just keeping up with the population will require killing 300-500 /year. The wolves will adapt. And, they're smarter than coyotes.
Post by: AspenBud on September 19, 2014, 07:23:51 AM
If half the MT hunters unhappy about wolves went out and bought and filled a tag, there wouldn't be any "problem" in Montana - or any other state that has legal wolf hunting. Heck, if 10% of the hunters went after wolves one or two days a year the picture would be much different. Even as a non-resident, I can pick up a MT tag for $50 OTC (5/year) and hunt pretty much anywhere - not to mention ranchers who would probably welcome the help. I know a bunch of MT hunters and have yet to meet one that ever even bought a tag.
Washington will be the same way I bet, wolves reproduce, get unlisted and then hardly anyone hunts them. It's always easier to complain than it is to do something productive.
This is a statement made in total ignorance to the realities of wolf hunting/management. A little less than a month ago, the WDFW announced they would take out 4 members of the Huckleberry pack using a helicopter and other methods. They have tracking collars on some of the wolves, know where their dens are, used a helicopter, and shot one wolf. With all of the technology available to them, they fell short of their goal by 75%. They don't sit out there and wait for you to come shoot them. They're extremely resourceful and intelligent, adaptive creatures. They change their tactics. They change their activity. If it were as easy as buying a tag, ID and MT would be filling their quotas every Fall. It isn't.
There were a lot of very experienced trappers and predator hunters in Michigan last year who walked into their wolf hunt thinking it would be no more difficult than hunting coyotes. They learned a hard lesson and the quota was not reached. People got the first unsuspecting wolves and then the animals smartened up fast.
Post by: bearpaw on September 19, 2014, 07:35:43 AM
looks like Stevens County has grown tired of WDFW puppy show.
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2014/sep/18/stevens-county-commission-condemns-state-wolf-management/ (http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2014/sep/18/stevens-county-commission-condemns-state-wolf-management/)QuoteMeanwhile the Stevens County Commission contends the WDFW “failed to honor its obligation and an imminent threat to life and property still exists.”
The resolution says the commission “will consider all available option to protect the residents” and declared that “the wolves of the Huckleberry Pack are subject to whatever Constitutional means necessary to secure our public in their lives, liberty and property.”
The resolution says more than 200 of the sheep are still missing and attacks that might be attributed to wolves have been reported by other livestock owners in the area. The commissioners are particularly upset that a livestock grower was forced off private land by wolf attacks.
•As wildlife managers were trying to deal with the wolf attacks, killing the pack's alpha female in a helicopter gunning flight, pro-wolf groups petitioned Gov. Jay Inslee to block the use of lethal control.
Meanwhile the Stevens County Commission contends the WDFW “failed to honor its obligation and an imminent threat to life and property still exists.”
The resolution says the commission “will consider all available option to protect the residents” and declared that “the wolves of the Huckleberry Pack are subject to whatever Constitutional means necessary to secure our public in their lives, liberty and property.”
Post by: jasnt on September 19, 2014, 07:50:53 AM
The resolution says more than 200 of the sheep are still missing and attacks that might be attributed to wolves have been reported by other livestock owners in the area. That's a lot of $$$$.
Post by: bearpaw on September 19, 2014, 08:10:42 AM
The resolution says more than 200 of the sheep are still missing and attacks that might be attributed to wolves have been reported by other livestock owners in the area. That's a lot of $$$$.
A friend of ours just sold 6 sheep and 6 goats the other day for $1500!
Post by: PolarBear on September 19, 2014, 08:29:06 AM
If I had the legal ability to shoot on site, I can guarantee you there would be a lot less wolves.:yeah:
We hunt coyotes 24/7/365 and you can see how well we keep them in check.
I would forego deer season to spend a couple of weeks just hunting wolves!
Post by: KFhunter on September 19, 2014, 08:32:12 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 19, 2014, 08:55:38 AM
Post by: jasnt on September 19, 2014, 08:58:38 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on September 19, 2014, 09:09:20 AM
Post by: wolfbait on September 19, 2014, 09:26:09 AM
It is, and always has been, legal to protect ones self from a wolf or any other animal that may injure/harm a human. Also, no state action forced anyone off of any private property. :rolleyes:
I think the sheep rancher figured out after watching WDFW in action, it would be better to move his sheep while he still had some, I would say that's being forced out do to WDFW's incompetents. Remember the wedge slop and $70 some thousand dollars?
Post by: Yelper Guy on September 19, 2014, 09:51:57 AM
Are the enviros taking this too far?
Post by: jasnt on September 19, 2014, 10:05:58 AM
that's cheap! Ewes normally go around $200 each. Milk goats about the same. Withers are a little cheaper
The resolution says more than 200 of the sheep are still missing and attacks that might be attributed to wolves have been reported by other livestock owners in the area. That's a lot of $$$$.
A friend of ours just sold 6 sheep and 6 goats the other day for $1500!
Post by: wolfbait on September 19, 2014, 12:20:19 PM
Post by: timberfaller on September 19, 2014, 12:30:57 PM
What came about from WDFW was a cut back of season and tags on Cats! :yike:
Wonder what the WDFW will do this time!??
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 19, 2014, 12:34:45 PM
Lets see, some time back Stevens Co. complained to the WDFW about their "Cougar" problem.
What came about from WDFW was a cut back of season and tags on Cats! :yike:
Wonder what the WDFW will do this time!??
I don't think the people of Stevens Co. much give a crap anymore. They're getting tired of losing their livelihoods to the whiners of King Co.
Post by: Special T on September 19, 2014, 12:41:04 PM
It is, and always has been, legal to protect ones self from a wolf or any other animal that may injure/harm a human. Also, no state action forced anyone off of any private property. :rolleyes:
It is NOW legal to your live stock from Wolves but it was not always that way.
Post by: bearpaw on September 19, 2014, 12:46:34 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 19, 2014, 12:51:18 PM
Post by: Billdos Uncle on September 19, 2014, 01:03:10 PM
Post by: AspenBud on September 19, 2014, 01:48:08 PM
Lets see, some time back Stevens Co. complained to the WDFW about their "Cougar" problem.
What came about from WDFW was a cut back of season and tags on Cats! :yike:
Wonder what the WDFW will do this time!??
Insert "wolf" everywhere it says cougar/mountain lion. The state of Washington has heard this story before, not to mention seen the hysteria. That's half the problem.
"Complaints were especially high in Okanogan County, where Washington's only recorded fatal cougar attack on a human occurred in 1924. Okanogan County commissioners threatened to declare open season on cougars, arguing that the increased number of complaints meant that there were too many cats. Rancher Joel Kretz, now a state senator, blames the hound-hunting ban..."
http://www.hcn.org/issues/368/17639 (http://www.hcn.org/issues/368/17639)
""One of the things we'll never get a handle on is the folks who move to the end of a box canyon in the middle of nowhere, and maybe they come from the city, and they see a cougar and say, 'Hey, I saw a cougar, you've got to remove him,' " Beausoleil says. "Well, no, that's not what we do. You're living in cougar country now." He hopes that one day developers, whose brochures tout the wildflowers, deer and elk in Washington's wild places, will tell people about all the bears and cougars, too."
Post by: wolfbait on September 19, 2014, 03:02:04 PM
Lets see, some time back Stevens Co. complained to the WDFW about their "Cougar" problem.
What came about from WDFW was a cut back of season and tags on Cats! :yike:
Wonder what the WDFW will do this time!??
Insert "wolf" everywhere it says cougar/mountain lion. The state of Washington has heard this story before, not to mention seen the hysteria. That's half the problem.
"Complaints were especially high in Okanogan County, where Washington's only recorded fatal cougar attack on a human occurred in 1924. Okanogan County commissioners threatened to declare open season on cougars, arguing that the increased number of complaints meant that there were too many cats. Rancher Joel Kretz, now a state senator, blames the hound-hunting ban..."
http://www.hcn.org/issues/368/17639 (http://www.hcn.org/issues/368/17639)
""One of the things we'll never get a handle on is the folks who move to the end of a box canyon in the middle of nowhere, and maybe they come from the city, and they see a cougar and say, 'Hey, I saw a cougar, you've got to remove him,' " Beausoleil says. "Well, no, that's not what we do. You're living in cougar country now." He hopes that one day developers, whose brochures tout the wildflowers, deer and elk in Washington's wild places, will tell people about all the bears and cougars, too."
Sure-and then you have WDFW protecting cougars and bears, and then if that isn't bad enough they open their arms for the the Canadian wolves that were introduced illegally. We have cougars coming into towns killing deer, so it can't be blamed on the folks living out of town. It's lack of predator control plain and simple.
Post by: jasnt on September 19, 2014, 03:06:21 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on September 19, 2014, 03:09:44 PM
Cougar could be open year round in Washington, with out hounds I don't think we could hurt the population. The cats would get wiser and probably more secluded.You'd also get to hunt cougar when the fawns are dropping and most vulnerable. Seems it would be a benefit to the deer to have cougar season during that time frame.
Post by: AspenBud on September 19, 2014, 03:32:48 PM
Lets see, some time back Stevens Co. complained to the WDFW about their "Cougar" problem.
What came about from WDFW was a cut back of season and tags on Cats! :yike:
Wonder what the WDFW will do this time!??
Insert "wolf" everywhere it says cougar/mountain lion. The state of Washington has heard this story before, not to mention seen the hysteria. That's half the problem.
"Complaints were especially high in Okanogan County, where Washington's only recorded fatal cougar attack on a human occurred in 1924. Okanogan County commissioners threatened to declare open season on cougars, arguing that the increased number of complaints meant that there were too many cats. Rancher Joel Kretz, now a state senator, blames the hound-hunting ban..."
http://www.hcn.org/issues/368/17639 (http://www.hcn.org/issues/368/17639)
""One of the things we'll never get a handle on is the folks who move to the end of a box canyon in the middle of nowhere, and maybe they come from the city, and they see a cougar and say, 'Hey, I saw a cougar, you've got to remove him,' " Beausoleil says. "Well, no, that's not what we do. You're living in cougar country now." He hopes that one day developers, whose brochures tout the wildflowers, deer and elk in Washington's wild places, will tell people about all the bears and cougars, too."
Sure-and then you have WDFW protecting cougars and bears, and then if that isn't bad enough they open their arms for the the Canadian wolves that were introduced illegally. We have cougars coming into towns killing deer, so it can't be blamed on the folks living out of town. It's lack of predator control plain and simple.
Hunters take out just as many cougars as was done pre hound ban. I think the problem is not the quantity, but rather the where. Bearpaw and I had a rather heated debate about that if you recall but he's right in regards to where the hunting is allowed these days and how much is allowed.
Post by: jasnt on September 19, 2014, 03:43:14 PM
Post by: AspenBud on September 19, 2014, 04:14:15 PM
That maybe true aspenbud, its also possible that many cougar were not reported, depredation kills and such. My gramps told me they used to kill every cat they saw. It was just part of the farm life, all predators were shoot on sight basis. No one was called and nobody cared. It may have been illegal but it did happen.
Something tells me people didn't get religion the day after the ban passed. I think the limits in areas that used to have higher quota's and their proximity to people who would be affected or concerned has more to do with it. I hate to say it but I think what you're seeing is the indirect affect of development and population growth. As more and more land gets developed for houses and strip malls you get less space for wildlife which means the state is going to cram more and more into areas that aren't developed. That means all sorts of bad for more rural communities.
Post by: bearpaw on September 19, 2014, 04:59:22 PM
Lets see, some time back Stevens Co. complained to the WDFW about their "Cougar" problem.
What came about from WDFW was a cut back of season and tags on Cats! :yike:
Wonder what the WDFW will do this time!??
Insert "wolf" everywhere it says cougar/mountain lion. The state of Washington has heard this story before, not to mention seen the hysteria. That's half the problem.
"Complaints were especially high in Okanogan County, where Washington's only recorded fatal cougar attack on a human occurred in 1924. Okanogan County commissioners threatened to declare open season on cougars, arguing that the increased number of complaints meant that there were too many cats. Rancher Joel Kretz, now a state senator, blames the hound-hunting ban..."
http://www.hcn.org/issues/368/17639 (http://www.hcn.org/issues/368/17639)
""One of the things we'll never get a handle on is the folks who move to the end of a box canyon in the middle of nowhere, and maybe they come from the city, and they see a cougar and say, 'Hey, I saw a cougar, you've got to remove him,' " Beausoleil says. "Well, no, that's not what we do. You're living in cougar country now." He hopes that one day developers, whose brochures tout the wildflowers, deer and elk in Washington's wild places, will tell people about all the bears and cougars, too."
Sure-and then you have WDFW protecting cougars and bears, and then if that isn't bad enough they open their arms for the the Canadian wolves that were introduced illegally. We have cougars coming into towns killing deer, so it can't be blamed on the folks living out of town. It's lack of predator control plain and simple.
Hunters take out just as many cougars as was done pre hound ban. I think the problem is not the quantity, but rather the where. Bearpaw and I had a rather heated debate about that if you recall but he's right in regards to where the hunting is allowed these days and how much is allowed.
The difference is that cougars inhabit a much greater portion of the state now than when hound hunting was allowed. There are units producing couhgar that never used to produce many cougar. The statewide harvest may be similar, but WDFW has cut back the number of cats being taken in traditional cougar strongholds, so the data is misleading. More cougar need to be taken in areas that used to provide larger harvests.
Post by: wolfbait on September 19, 2014, 05:33:50 PM
That maybe true aspenbud, its also possible that many cougar were not reported, depredation kills and such. My gramps told me they used to kill every cat they saw. It was just part of the farm life, all predators were shoot on sight basis. No one was called and nobody cared. It may have been illegal but it did happen.
Something tells me people didn't get religion the day after the ban passed. I think the limits in areas that used to have higher quota's and their proximity to people who would be affected or concerned has more to do with it. I hate to say it but I think what you're seeing is the indirect affect of development and population growth. As more and more land gets developed for houses and strip malls you get less space for wildlife which means the state is going to cram more and more into areas that aren't developed. That means all sorts of bad for more rural communities.
Pushing for more habitat again eh? With WDFW deer management in the Methow and too many predators there soon won't be enough deer to feed anything, and WDFW will be mostly killing cougars or transplanting them to areas that still have game herds.
Post by: AspenBud on September 19, 2014, 08:10:17 PM
That maybe true aspenbud, its also possible that many cougar were not reported, depredation kills and such. My gramps told me they used to kill every cat they saw. It was just part of the farm life, all predators were shoot on sight basis. No one was called and nobody cared. It may have been illegal but it did happen.
Something tells me people didn't get religion the day after the ban passed. I think the limits in areas that used to have higher quota's and their proximity to people who would be affected or concerned has more to do with it. I hate to say it but I think what you're seeing is the indirect affect of development and population growth. As more and more land gets developed for houses and strip malls you get less space for wildlife which means the state is going to cram more and more into areas that aren't developed. That means all sorts of bad for more rural communities.
Pushing for more habitat again eh? With WDFW deer management in the Methow and too many predators there soon won't be enough deer to feed anything, and WDFW will be mostly killing cougars or transplanting them to areas that still have game herds.
I'll be honest wolfbait, in 40 years I've never ever set foot in Okanogan or Stevens county and don't really care if I ever do. But I do want more habitat west of the mountains but instead I see a continuing stream of houses, malls, parking lots, and office buildings popping up and private timber getting locked up. That trend is not lost on the state and as much as you don't like it what I see is them trying to maintain higher predator numbers in areas with fewer people. Fair? No. Sustainable? No. But when you're presented with a choice between millions of people who live on postage stamp lots in suburbs or thousands people who deal with wildlife all of the time, who hunt, and who live on the land it's not a big leap to conclude they want the more dangerous animals near the people who can handle them, that's what I see. That could be a wrong assessment but when I see the state limiting hunting of cougars near your area and telling people to have a free for all on them elsewhere I think it's a reasonable conclusion.
Post by: wolfbait on September 20, 2014, 10:50:37 AM
That maybe true aspenbud, its also possible that many cougar were not reported, depredation kills and such. My gramps told me they used to kill every cat they saw. It was just part of the farm life, all predators were shoot on sight basis. No one was called and nobody cared. It may have been illegal but it did happen.
Something tells me people didn't get religion the day after the ban passed. I think the limits in areas that used to have higher quota's and their proximity to people who would be affected or concerned has more to do with it. I hate to say it but I think what you're seeing is the indirect affect of development and population growth. As more and more land gets developed for houses and strip malls you get less space for wildlife which means the state is going to cram more and more into areas that aren't developed. That means all sorts of bad for more rural communities.
Pushing for more habitat again eh? With WDFW deer management in the Methow and too many predators there soon won't be enough deer to feed anything, and WDFW will be mostly killing cougars or transplanting them to areas that still have game herds.
I'll be honest wolfbait, in 40 years I've never ever set foot in Okanogan or Stevens county and don't really care if I ever do. But I do want more habitat west of the mountains but instead I see a continuing stream of houses, malls, parking lots, and office buildings popping up and private timber getting locked up. That trend is not lost on the state and as much as you don't like it what I see is them trying to maintain higher predator numbers in areas with fewer people. Fair? No. Sustainable? No. But when you're presented with a choice between millions of people who live on postage stamp lots in suburbs or thousands people who deal with wildlife all of the time, who hunt, and who live on the land it's not a big leap to conclude they want the more dangerous animals near the people who can handle them, that's what I see. That could be a wrong assessment but when I see the state limiting hunting of cougars near your area and telling people to have a free for all on them elsewhere I think it's a reasonable conclusion.
So your point is, it's alright to sacrifice the game herds in order to create more habitat?
Post by: jasnt on September 20, 2014, 11:24:29 AM
. If you don't like what you see around you. Maybe you need to move. You can fight all you want but they will never tear out those strip malls to plant a forest. You want more habitat? Move to where there is habitat.That maybe true aspenbud, its also possible that many cougar were not reported, depredation kills and such. My gramps told me they used to kill every cat they saw. It was just part of the farm life, all predators were shoot on sight basis. No one was called and nobody cared. It may have been illegal but it did happen.
Something tells me people didn't get religion the day after the ban passed. I think the limits in areas that used to have higher quota's and their proximity to people who would be affected or concerned has more to do with it. I hate to say it but I think what you're seeing is the indirect affect of development and population growth. As more and more land gets developed for houses and strip malls you get less space for wildlife which means the state is going to cram more and more into areas that aren't developed. That means all sorts of bad for more rural communities.
Pushing for more habitat again eh? With WDFW deer management in the Methow and too many predators there soon won't be enough deer to feed anything, and WDFW will be mostly killing cougars or transplanting them to areas that still have game herds.
I'll be honest wolfbait, in 40 years I've never ever set foot in Okanogan or Stevens county and don't really care if I ever do. But I do want more habitat west of the mountains but instead I see a continuing stream of houses, malls, parking lots, and office buildings popping up and private timber getting locked up. That trend is not lost on the state and as much as you don't like it what I see is them trying to maintain higher predator numbers in areas with fewer people. Fair? No. Sustainable? No. But when you're presented with a choice between millions of people who live on postage stamp lots in suburbs or thousands people who deal with wildlife all of the time, who hunt, and who live on the land it's not a big leap to conclude they want the more dangerous animals near the people who can handle them, that's what I see. That could be a wrong assessment but when I see the state limiting hunting of cougars near your area and telling people to have a free for all on them elsewhere I think it's a reasonable conclusion.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on September 20, 2014, 12:55:14 PM
That maybe true aspenbud, its also possible that many cougar were not reported, depredation kills and such. My gramps told me they used to kill every cat they saw. It was just part of the farm life, all predators were shoot on sight basis. No one was called and nobody cared. It may have been illegal but it did happen.
Something tells me people didn't get religion the day after the ban passed. I think the limits in areas that used to have higher quota's and their proximity to people who would be affected or concerned has more to do with it. I hate to say it but I think what you're seeing is the indirect affect of development and population growth. As more and more land gets developed for houses and strip malls you get less space for wildlife which means the state is going to cram more and more into areas that aren't developed. That means all sorts of bad for more rural communities.
Pushing for more habitat again eh? With WDFW deer management in the Methow and too many predators there soon won't be enough deer to feed anything, and WDFW will be mostly killing cougars or transplanting them to areas that still have game herds.
I'll be honest wolfbait, in 40 years I've never ever set foot in Okanogan or Stevens county and don't really care if I ever do.
Sounds like something a wolf advocate, or anti Hound and bear bating voter might say on the west side. :twocents: :dunno:
Post by: timberfaller on September 22, 2014, 10:40:09 AM
Didn't call the WDFW, the cats did a great job taking care of the cats and dogs running around at nite ;)
They'd leave during the day and come back at nite, yep they are NOT as dumb as some think!!
Post by: Billdos Uncle on September 22, 2014, 11:41:23 AM
. If you don't like what you see around you. Maybe you need to move. You can fight all you want but they will never tear out those strip malls to plant a forest. You want more habitat? Move to where there is habitat.That maybe true aspenbud, its also possible that many cougar were not reported, depredation kills and such. My gramps told me they used to kill every cat they saw. It was just part of the farm life, all predators were shoot on sight basis. No one was called and nobody cared. It may have been illegal but it did happen.
Something tells me people didn't get religion the day after the ban passed. I think the limits in areas that used to have higher quota's and their proximity to people who would be affected or concerned has more to do with it. I hate to say it but I think what you're seeing is the indirect affect of development and population growth. As more and more land gets developed for houses and strip malls you get less space for wildlife which means the state is going to cram more and more into areas that aren't developed. That means all sorts of bad for more rural communities.
Pushing for more habitat again eh? With WDFW deer management in the Methow and too many predators there soon won't be enough deer to feed anything, and WDFW will be mostly killing cougars or transplanting them to areas that still have game herds.
I'll be honest wolfbait, in 40 years I've never ever set foot in Okanogan or Stevens county and don't really care if I ever do. But I do want more habitat west of the mountains but instead I see a continuing stream of houses, malls, parking lots, and office buildings popping up and private timber getting locked up. That trend is not lost on the state and as much as you don't like it what I see is them trying to maintain higher predator numbers in areas with fewer people. Fair? No. Sustainable? No. But when you're presented with a choice between millions of people who live on postage stamp lots in suburbs or thousands people who deal with wildlife all of the time, who hunt, and who live on the land it's not a big leap to conclude they want the more dangerous animals near the people who can handle them, that's what I see. That could be a wrong assessment but when I see the state limiting hunting of cougars near your area and telling people to have a free for all on them elsewhere I think it's a reasonable conclusion.
Seems like someone works for WDFW.. Where u stationed at and what branch? My guess is it has do with game management because ur doing a great job right now! :chuckle:
Post by: jasnt on September 22, 2014, 12:25:59 PM
. If you don't like what you see around you. Maybe you need to move. You can fight all you want but they will never tear out those strip malls to plant a forest. You want more habitat? Move to where there is habitat.That maybe true aspenbud, its also possible that many cougar were not reported, depredation kills and such. My gramps told me they used to kill every cat they saw. It was just part of the farm life, all predators were shoot on sight basis. No one was called and nobody cared. It may have been illegal but it did happen.
Something tells me people didn't get religion the day after the ban passed. I think the limits in areas that used to have higher quota's and their proximity to people who would be affected or concerned has more to do with it. I hate to say it but I think what you're seeing is the indirect affect of development and population growth. As more and more land gets developed for houses and strip malls you get less space for wildlife which means the state is going to cram more and more into areas that aren't developed. That means all sorts of bad for more rural communities.
Pushing for more habitat again eh? With WDFW deer management in the Methow and too many predators there soon won't be enough deer to feed anything, and WDFW will be mostly killing cougars or transplanting them to areas that still have game herds.
I'll be honest wolfbait, in 40 years I've never ever set foot in Okanogan or Stevens county and don't really care if I ever do. But I do want more habitat west of the mountains but instead I see a continuing stream of houses, malls, parking lots, and office buildings popping up and private timber getting locked up. That trend is not lost on the state and as much as you don't like it what I see is them trying to maintain higher predator numbers in areas with fewer people. Fair? No. Sustainable? No. But when you're presented with a choice between millions of people who live on postage stamp lots in suburbs or thousands people who deal with wildlife all of the time, who hunt, and who live on the land it's not a big leap to conclude they want the more dangerous animals near the people who can handle them, that's what I see. That could be a wrong assessment but when I see the state limiting hunting of cougars near your area and telling people to have a free for all on them elsewhere I think it's a reasonable conclusion.
Seems like someone works for WDFW.. Where u stationed at and what branch? My guess is it has do with game management because ur doing a *censored*ty job right now! :chuckle:
if that's directed at me it funniest thing I've read all year! You must not have read many of my posts! The majority of folks here know I'm not happy with wdfw or most of their decisions. If I worked for them I'd most likely quite or resign out of disgust. I wouldn't believe aspen bud does either.
Post by: Billdos Uncle on September 22, 2014, 12:30:30 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on September 22, 2014, 12:37:14 PM
don't forget about idahohunter :chuckle:Ok...you got me. I head up the wolf relocation and conspiracy development department. I also supervise the permit draw and customer service departments. Could you give me you wild ID # so I can put it on our "special" list for future tag/permit/application issues. Thank you. :chuckle:
Post by: wolfbait on September 22, 2014, 02:01:57 PM
In January 2008, FWS Wolf Project Leader Ed Bangs told the media, “Wolves are never the primary cause (of failure to achieve elk population objectives). The primary cause is always habitat."
In a February 20, 2008 article in the St. Maries Gazette-Record, IDFG Wolf Biologist Dave Spicer told Editor Ralph Bartholdt that deep snow in the Coeur d’Alene and St. Joe River drainages was preventing normal movement of deer and elk. Spicer predicted a high winter mortality for elk, especially elk calves, and said in addition to floundering in the deep snow, game herds must contend with predators that can walk on the snow’s crust
The article quoted Spicer, “Predators from cats to wolves have an easier time killing their prey when the snow piles up – it’s like a kid in a candy shop, they are out there doing their thing. The health of game herds, though, is driven by weather not predators,” he added.
Lacking fact or science to justify their failure to control excessive wolf numbers, the federal biologist used the magic word “habitat” and the state biologist blamed unhealthy game herds on “the weather.” Yet the vast majority of wolf-big game research concludes that wolves – not habitat or weather – prevent big game species from recovering once their numbers are temporarily reduced by either natural or man-caused disasters.
http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf)
Post by: idahohuntr on September 22, 2014, 11:50:51 PM
So your point is, it's alright to sacrifice the game herds in order to create more habitat?I guess I'm not following how more habitat means sacrificing game herds...I guess it falls in line with your other view about how public lands are bad for public land hunters.
Excuses For Not Controlling Wolves:rolleyes: These little tidbit quotes are deceptive AT BEST. Have you ever met Ed Bangs? He is not the green/enviro guy you frequently try and portray him as. He's an awfully genuine guy who understands wolves have impacts and must be managed.
In January 2008, FWS Wolf Project Leader Ed Bangs told the media, “Wolves are never the primary cause (of failure to achieve elk population objectives). The primary cause is always habitat."
In a February 20, 2008 article in the St. Maries Gazette-Record, IDFG Wolf Biologist Dave Spicer told Editor Ralph Bartholdt that deep snow in the Coeur d’Alene and St. Joe River drainages was preventing normal movement of deer and elk. Spicer predicted a high winter mortality for elk, especially elk calves, and said in addition to floundering in the deep snow, game herds must contend with predators that can walk on the snow’s crust
The article quoted Spicer, “Predators from cats to wolves have an easier time killing their prey when the snow piles up – it’s like a kid in a candy shop, they are out there doing their thing. The health of game herds, though, is driven by weather not predators,” he added.
Lacking fact or science to justify their failure to control excessive wolf numbers, the federal biologist used the magic word “habitat” and the state biologist blamed unhealthy game herds on “the weather.” Yet the vast majority of wolf-big game research concludes that wolves – not habitat or weather – prevent big game species from recovering once their numbers are temporarily reduced by either natural or man-caused disasters.
Post by: Billdos Uncle on September 23, 2014, 06:33:38 AM
Pro-Wolf statement right there sir... :tup: :chuckle:So your point is, it's alright to sacrifice the game herds in order to create more habitat?I guess I'm not following how more habitat means sacrificing game herds...I guess it falls in line with your other view about how public lands are bad for public land hunters.Excuses For Not Controlling Wolves:rolleyes: These little tidbit quotes are deceptive AT BEST. Have you ever met Ed Bangs? He is not the green/enviro guy you frequently try and portray him as. He's an awfully genuine guy who understands wolves have impacts and must be managed.
In January 2008, FWS Wolf Project Leader Ed Bangs told the media, “Wolves are never the primary cause (of failure to achieve elk population objectives). The primary cause is always habitat."
In a February 20, 2008 article in the St. Maries Gazette-Record, IDFG Wolf Biologist Dave Spicer told Editor Ralph Bartholdt that deep snow in the Coeur d’Alene and St. Joe River drainages was preventing normal movement of deer and elk. Spicer predicted a high winter mortality for elk, especially elk calves, and said in addition to floundering in the deep snow, game herds must contend with predators that can walk on the snow’s crust
The article quoted Spicer, “Predators from cats to wolves have an easier time killing their prey when the snow piles up – it’s like a kid in a candy shop, they are out there doing their thing. The health of game herds, though, is driven by weather not predators,” he added.
Lacking fact or science to justify their failure to control excessive wolf numbers, the federal biologist used the magic word “habitat” and the state biologist blamed unhealthy game herds on “the weather.” Yet the vast majority of wolf-big game research concludes that wolves – not habitat or weather – prevent big game species from recovering once their numbers are temporarily reduced by either natural or man-caused disasters.
Post by: Special T on September 23, 2014, 07:00:39 AM
If you compare the job of the Forrester in many European countries I think you will see a more boots on the ground approach,and ACTIVE management. Here is an interesting article about the roots of forest practices. Im afraid that the current "hands off" approach is more political than actual management.
http://www.gmbookchest.com/pdf/Forestry_Politics.pdf (http://www.gmbookchest.com/pdf/Forestry_Politics.pdf)
Post by: nwwanderer on September 23, 2014, 07:53:39 AM
Post by: AspenBud on September 23, 2014, 09:16:11 AM
Here is the problem when we here "more habitat". More does not equal productive habitat. What has the USFS or other Gov agencies doing to make their land more productive? There are a few controlled burns, very little logging, and road decommissioning. I liken this to my daughter telling me she wants a pony, and how great and wonderful it would be. This MAY be the case but she has a puppy already that she kind of takes care of, but daddy picks up the slack so it doesn't go hungry, thirsty or the crap piles up too high...
If you compare the job of the Forrester in many European countries I think you will see a more boots on the ground approach,and ACTIVE management. Here is an interesting article about the roots of forest practices. Im afraid that the current "hands off" approach is more political than actual management.
http://www.gmbookchest.com/pdf/Forestry_Politics.pdf (http://www.gmbookchest.com/pdf/Forestry_Politics.pdf)
I can't argue any of that. But that doesn't make private land ownership a panacea either.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 23, 2014, 09:20:12 AM
Here is the problem when we here "more habitat". More does not equal productive habitat. What has the USFS or other Gov agencies doing to make their land more productive? There are a few controlled burns, very little logging, and road decommissioning. I liken this to my daughter telling me she wants a pony, and how great and wonderful it would be. This MAY be the case but she has a puppy already that she kind of takes care of, but daddy picks up the slack so it doesn't go hungry, thirsty or the crap piles up too high...Tell me, how is the hunting over in those european countries with their active management? I mean since they obviously have it down maybe I should give up on Utah, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Colorado...states with tons of public land...and focus on what...UK? France? Italy? :chuckle:
If you compare the job of the Forrester in many European countries I think you will see a more boots on the ground approach,and ACTIVE management. Here is an interesting article about the roots of forest practices. Im afraid that the current "hands off" approach is more political than actual management.
http://www.gmbookchest.com/pdf/Forestry_Politics.pdf (http://www.gmbookchest.com/pdf/Forestry_Politics.pdf)
Post by: Bob33 on September 23, 2014, 09:34:43 AM
I mean since they obviously have it down maybe I should give up on Utah, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Colorado...states with tons of public land...and focus on what...UK? France? Italy? :chuckle:Well, at least the wine in France and Italy is better than in Utah.
Post by: AspenBud on September 23, 2014, 10:27:31 AM
Here is the problem when we here "more habitat". More does not equal productive habitat. What has the USFS or other Gov agencies doing to make their land more productive? There are a few controlled burns, very little logging, and road decommissioning. I liken this to my daughter telling me she wants a pony, and how great and wonderful it would be. This MAY be the case but she has a puppy already that she kind of takes care of, but daddy picks up the slack so it doesn't go hungry, thirsty or the crap piles up too high...Tell me, how is the hunting over in those european countries with their active management? I mean since they obviously have it down maybe I should give up on Utah, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Colorado...states with tons of public land...and focus on what...UK? France? Italy? :chuckle:
If you compare the job of the Forrester in many European countries I think you will see a more boots on the ground approach,and ACTIVE management. Here is an interesting article about the roots of forest practices. Im afraid that the current "hands off" approach is more political than actual management.
http://www.gmbookchest.com/pdf/Forestry_Politics.pdf (http://www.gmbookchest.com/pdf/Forestry_Politics.pdf)
In fairness, there are some very old traditions that are stuffed into law in many European countries that grant access to the public on privately owned lands that are uncultivated. But that does not give you the right to hunt on them.
I think most average people would choke if they saw what Europeans often pay for the right to hunt. Rich man's sport.
Post by: Billdos Uncle on September 23, 2014, 10:31:12 AM
Hell hunting in Washington is getting there compared to other states... That's for sure!!!Here is the problem when we here "more habitat". More does not equal productive habitat. What has the USFS or other Gov agencies doing to make their land more productive? There are a few controlled burns, very little logging, and road decommissioning. I liken this to my daughter telling me she wants a pony, and how great and wonderful it would be. This MAY be the case but she has a puppy already that she kind of takes care of, but daddy picks up the slack so it doesn't go hungry, thirsty or the crap piles up too high...Tell me, how is the hunting over in those european countries with their active management? I mean since they obviously have it down maybe I should give up on Utah, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Colorado...states with tons of public land...and focus on what...UK? France? Italy? :chuckle:
If you compare the job of the Forrester in many European countries I think you will see a more boots on the ground approach,and ACTIVE management. Here is an interesting article about the roots of forest practices. Im afraid that the current "hands off" approach is more political than actual management.
http://www.gmbookchest.com/pdf/Forestry_Politics.pdf (http://www.gmbookchest.com/pdf/Forestry_Politics.pdf)
In fairness, there are some very old traditions that are stuffed into law in many European countries that grant access to the public on privately owned lands that are uncultivated. But that does not give you the right to hunt on them.
I think most average people would choke if they saw what Europeans often pay for the right to hunt. Rich man's sport.
Post by: KFhunter on September 23, 2014, 10:32:27 AM
http://www.francesafaris.com/ (http://www.francesafaris.com/)
...and we could learn a thing or two from Italians:
http://www.tuscanenterprises.com/Blog/id:29/ (http://www.tuscanenterprises.com/Blog/id:29/)
Quote
The hunters are a huge political lobby in Italy, and while they are fairly strong on the national level, with the backing of such companies as Beretta, (with its factories producing endless streams of rifles, shotguns and handguns and employing several thousand workers), it is really at the local small town level that they decide who gets elected to the town councils.(I couldn't abide by the tresspass laws in Italy though, IDH would LOVE that)
Quote
They are allowed to enter any property, scale walls, jump over fences, and are only held back from the areas that are specifically fenced off for the breeding of rare animals, or for hunting reserves.
Not sure why France and Italy belong in a discussion about wolves in WA :dunno:
Post by: Billdos Uncle on September 23, 2014, 10:35:52 AM
I'd hunt those two countries, some different and neat critters there.Its the Pro-Wolf Advocates trying to change the subject! :chuckle:
http://www.francesafaris.com/ (http://www.francesafaris.com/)
...and we could learn a thing or two from Italians:
http://www.tuscanenterprises.com/Blog/id:29/ (http://www.tuscanenterprises.com/Blog/id:29/)QuoteThe hunters are a huge political lobby in Italy, and while they are fairly strong on the national level, with the backing of such companies as Beretta, (with its factories producing endless streams of rifles, shotguns and handguns and employing several thousand workers), it is really at the local small town level that they decide who gets elected to the town councils.(I couldn't abide by the tresspass laws in Italy though, IDH would LOVE that)QuoteThey are allowed to enter any property, scale walls, jump over fences, and are only held back from the areas that are specifically fenced off for the breeding of rare animals, or for hunting reserves.
Not sure why France and Italy belong in a discussion about wolves in WA :dunno:
Post by: idahohuntr on September 23, 2014, 10:59:12 AM
I'd hunt those two countries, some different and neat critters there.Well, you go hunt Italy and France then. I'm going to stick to the western US...even with their lack of active management.
http://www.francesafaris.com/ (http://www.francesafaris.com/)
...and we could learn a thing or two from Italians:
http://www.tuscanenterprises.com/Blog/id:29/ (http://www.tuscanenterprises.com/Blog/id:29/)QuoteThe hunters are a huge political lobby in Italy, and while they are fairly strong on the national level, with the backing of such companies as Beretta, (with its factories producing endless streams of rifles, shotguns and handguns and employing several thousand workers), it is really at the local small town level that they decide who gets elected to the town councils.(I couldn't abide by the tresspass laws in Italy though, IDH would LOVE that)QuoteThey are allowed to enter any property, scale walls, jump over fences, and are only held back from the areas that are specifically fenced off for the breeding of rare animals, or for hunting reserves.
Not sure why France and Italy belong in a discussion about wolves in WA :dunno:
Post by: AspenBud on September 23, 2014, 11:35:56 AM
Hell hunting in Washington is getting there compared to other states... That's for sure!!!Here is the problem when we here "more habitat". More does not equal productive habitat. What has the USFS or other Gov agencies doing to make their land more productive? There are a few controlled burns, very little logging, and road decommissioning. I liken this to my daughter telling me she wants a pony, and how great and wonderful it would be. This MAY be the case but she has a puppy already that she kind of takes care of, but daddy picks up the slack so it doesn't go hungry, thirsty or the crap piles up too high...Tell me, how is the hunting over in those european countries with their active management? I mean since they obviously have it down maybe I should give up on Utah, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Colorado...states with tons of public land...and focus on what...UK? France? Italy? :chuckle:
If you compare the job of the Forrester in many European countries I think you will see a more boots on the ground approach,and ACTIVE management. Here is an interesting article about the roots of forest practices. Im afraid that the current "hands off" approach is more political than actual management.
http://www.gmbookchest.com/pdf/Forestry_Politics.pdf (http://www.gmbookchest.com/pdf/Forestry_Politics.pdf)
In fairness, there are some very old traditions that are stuffed into law in many European countries that grant access to the public on privately owned lands that are uncultivated. But that does not give you the right to hunt on them.
I think most average people would choke if they saw what Europeans often pay for the right to hunt. Rich man's sport.
Yep, and the state license fees are just the start.
Post by: Special T on September 23, 2014, 08:09:23 PM
Here is the problem when we here "more habitat". More does not equal productive habitat. What has the USFS or other Gov agencies doing to make their land more productive? There are a few controlled burns, very little logging, and road decommissioning. I liken this to my daughter telling me she wants a pony, and how great and wonderful it would be. This MAY be the case but she has a puppy already that she kind of takes care of, but daddy picks up the slack so it doesn't go hungry, thirsty or the crap piles up too high...Tell me, how is the hunting over in those european countries with their active management? I mean since they obviously have it down maybe I should give up on Utah, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Colorado...states with tons of public land...and focus on what...UK? France? Italy? :chuckle:
If you compare the job of the Forrester in many European countries I think you will see a more boots on the ground approach,and ACTIVE management. Here is an interesting article about the roots of forest practices. Im afraid that the current "hands off" approach is more political than actual management.
http://www.gmbookchest.com/pdf/Forestry_Politics.pdf (http://www.gmbookchest.com/pdf/Forestry_Politics.pdf)
It USED to be the goal of the USFS to maximize the utilization of the resources by ALL vested interests, not individual ones. I think if you actually do some reading about the USFS you will find that it was founded to bring balance to the system away from the stripping of resources from the land.
When logging is severely reduced even when good forestry practices are accepted we are no longer "managing" resources. In perishable commodities like lumber and grass it is even arguable that we may not be really preserving them.
I didn't point out Germany because of their great hunting opportunities, however if you look up a few of Addicted's posts he talks a bunch about his experiences while hunting there. I mention Germany because they were one of the FIRST to actively manage forest resources that gave way to Gifford Pinchot, whom we have a Forrest named after, but you would know that since you read the article i posted. Look at how the USFS MANAGED land then and how they do now. I would imagine with our greater scientific understanding of the animals and their relations we should have bumper crops of timber, animals and fish. Unfortunately management has been reduced to legal wrangling not asset management.
You can do a bunch of other reading about the history of the once great USFS and compare it to how we have gotten to where we are today.
The Tinder Box: How Politically Correct Ideology Destroyed the U.S. Forest Service Paperback – February 28, 2012
by Christopher Burchfield (Author)
Post by: idahohuntr on September 23, 2014, 08:22:07 PM
I think if you actually do some reading about the USFS you will find that it was founded to bring balance to the system away from the stripping of resources from the land.Thank you Special T. I teach natural resource management courses, including one that focuses on the history of resource management agencies in the US. I am well versed in how they have moved from very utilitarian focused entities from their early history until the 60's and 70's when preservationist views started to take hold. I confess I did not read your article though. Gifford Pinchot was indeed a driving force of these utilitarian views and policies in the USFS at its inception as the first chief of that agency. :tup:
Post by: rim_runner on September 26, 2014, 10:18:59 AM