Post by: ctwiggs1 on September 24, 2014, 12:30:17 PM
I'm not nearly as well read on this as bearpaw or wolfbait, but I've been reading for awhile now and one thing I just don't understand yet is this: Why now? Why is it that we now have wolves and we didn't before?
Yes I understand the basics - we killed them all decades ago, blah blah blah.
But if the WDFW didn't actually re-introduce them (per WDFW website), then why is it that they are just NOW starting to come back into Washington? Meaning why not in the 70s or 80s or 90s?
Curtis
Post by: bobcat on September 24, 2014, 12:36:25 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on September 24, 2014, 12:37:50 PM
Post by: GrainfedMuley on September 25, 2014, 02:28:27 AM
Post by: boneaddict on September 25, 2014, 05:17:33 AM
The Lookout pack that they finally confirmed had been there for a long time in Libby Creek. That was 88-89ish. We were warned not to tell anyone about them when I worked for the USFS. Had a meeting about it. If you remember back they actually closed the deer season for three years in Alta, and also closed coyote season for a bit up there. They finally disappeared and things returned to normal, then all of a sudden they "were back." I wish I had kept better written records of such stuff. I "fought" one sometime in that period on the face of Booth and Davie, which is now ground zero for that pack. For some reason they settled and denned up in Alder Creek. That's when Whites were having so much trouble. The den was literally feet from their property line. The next den I found was on top of the ridge in Booth.
Post by: boneaddict on September 25, 2014, 05:24:18 AM
I would swear these wolves were different. More red, leaner. Will never forget that thing though when it ran across the meadow in front of me. At that point in my life it was a true highlite. Not so exciting anymore.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on September 25, 2014, 05:44:15 AM
Post by: boneaddict on September 25, 2014, 06:02:16 AM
Post by: bhawley76 on September 25, 2014, 06:43:51 AM
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on September 25, 2014, 06:54:36 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on September 25, 2014, 11:51:53 AM
" Wolves were reintroduced into Idaho and YNP in the mid 90's...." If they were reintroduced into Idaho and Montana, why were they not reintroduced here in Wash.??????Many reasons. Idaho and Yellowstone offered far more habitat and a higher chance for successful recovery then probably anywhere in Washington or other parts of their range. Releasing them in these large wilderness expanses minimizes human/livestock conflict as well.
Post by: Alchase on September 25, 2014, 12:16:13 PM
Using the Lookout pack as an example, they blamed this pack for all the kills from Alta to Winthrop, some times on the same day!
That has got to be the biggest baddest most traveled pack of 6-8 wolves to ever exist. They denied the existence of a NW corner pack, yet pictures appeared of wolves the had been collared by a "Wolf Support group" years before their denials.
What has everyone going "Huh!"
Is the fact that they were here for decades, why the population "pack" explosion between 2008 (the first acknowledged pack) and now?
For decades, no measurable increase, in the six years they "admit" to wolf packs being in Washington, the acknowledged packs have grown to 14 Packs and over 60 animals.
Do the math:
1 pack, 6-8 animals in 2008
14 packs over 60 2014
That is over 1000% increase in six years!
This represents only the wolves they "admit" to being here.
Previous countless decades, with more game, more territory, no measurable gains.
Post by: greenhead_killer on September 25, 2014, 12:20:50 PM
Post by: gr8whthunter on September 25, 2014, 12:24:00 PM
" Wolves were reintroduced into Idaho and YNP in the mid 90's...." If they were reintroduced into Idaho and Montana, why were they not reintroduced here in Wash.??????because us here in washington would say its just a really big coyote... TAKE EM! :chuckle:
i remember the first wolf i ever saw i was about 16 years old over in montana for my first montana hunt and it was black, about 6 feet long and i swear to it it was about 6 inchs off the ground to the top of its head, ok maybe a little taller, but that thing was haulin a$$ and it took down a doe easy, doe didnt even know what was goin on.
Post by: jstokes12 on September 25, 2014, 12:46:38 PM
Post by: bobcat on September 25, 2014, 01:08:19 PM
Now how do you think these wolves started showing up in greater numbers in the interior of the Cascades? Hmmm? :bash:
They walked? :dunno:
Post by: X-Force on September 25, 2014, 01:51:14 PM
Now how do you think these wolves started showing up in greater numbers in the interior of the Cascades? Hmmm? :bash:
They walked? :dunno:
:chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: westside bull on September 25, 2014, 02:00:39 PM
They walked right after they jumped out of the cage go head stick up for your WDFW friends!Now how do you think these wolves started showing up in greater numbers in the interior of the Cascades? Hmmm? :bash:
They walked? :dunno:
Post by: jackelope on September 25, 2014, 02:11:19 PM
They walked right after they jumped out of the cage go head stick up for your WDFW friends!Now how do you think these wolves started showing up in greater numbers in the interior of the Cascades? Hmmm? :bash:
They walked? :dunno:
Everybody knows by now there's a border between the states and the country, Bobcat. How would they cross that?
:o
Post by: bobcat on September 25, 2014, 02:17:40 PM
They walked right after they jumped out of the cage go head stick up for your WDFW friends!Now how do you think these wolves started showing up in greater numbers in the interior of the Cascades? Hmmm? :bash:
They walked? :dunno:
Hey I'm not sticking up for anybody. The question was asked, how do I think the wolves got here? I honestly think they used their four paws and walked right across the border. Probably at night so they wouldn't be seen. Yep, they're that smart!
Post by: Special T on September 25, 2014, 02:24:37 PM
Wolves have made a big comeback since the importation of wolves to ID& YNP. The direction of migration comes from that direction and has done so since the 90's so why/how have wolves made such an amazing comeback in 20 or so years from the East but NEVER made the huge comeback from Canada when they had 50+ years to migrate from populations in Canada?
I would love to hear some well reasoned logic as to how/why it has happend this way.
Post by: Bob33 on September 25, 2014, 02:25:04 PM
Wolves have a designated home area and they're not allowed to leave it. No way could they just walk across a state line without getting in trouble.They walked right after they jumped out of the cage go head stick up for your WDFW friends!Now how do you think these wolves started showing up in greater numbers in the interior of the Cascades? Hmmm? :bash:
They walked? :dunno:
Hey I'm not sticking up for anybody. The question was asked, how do I think the wolves got here? I honestly think they used their four paws and walked right across the border. Probably at night so they wouldn't be seen. Yep, they're that smart!
Post by: jackelope on September 25, 2014, 02:31:27 PM
I would love to hear some well reasoned logic as to how/why it has happend this way.
We've had people interested in coming on the forum and presenting an educated explanation for this sort of thing, play Q&A, etc. but because of the heat that folks get who don't share the popular opinion, those opportunities have unfortunately dissolved.
Post by: Special T on September 25, 2014, 02:40:51 PM
Im of the oppinion that if you have to yell you need to reinforce your argument.
Post by: PA BEN on September 26, 2014, 05:38:09 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on September 26, 2014, 06:12:16 AM
The native wolf to Washington is the Timber wolf. Smaller and not as aggressive than the bigger Canadian gray wolf. Talk to any old timer around here and they will tell you they have been around for years. Not many and they keep to themselves. If anything these new wolves will move any native wolves out of the State.
I have heard this from several people but I can't find anything to back it up. I am not saying you're wrong but everything I've seen is that Timber Wolf is used to describe a gray wolf in the forest.
Post by: boneaddict on September 26, 2014, 06:15:18 AM
May not be the right one, but will give you an idea
Post by: ctwiggs1 on September 26, 2014, 06:18:19 AM
Try Cascade mountain wolf.
:o boneaddict did you just make a Wikipedia page? :chuckle: ok so this "extinct" species matches what you saw in the 80s then?
Post by: boneaddict on September 26, 2014, 06:23:52 AM
Post by: rim_runner on September 26, 2014, 09:31:11 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on September 26, 2014, 10:17:51 AM
ctwiggs - Generally, you will find credible evidence lacking for arguments that support canadian wolves being a different species than "native washington wolves" or that wolves have been transplanted into Washington. In the absence of this factual data/evidence, one must resort to some interesting conspiracies to support either of these arguments. There is no shortage of misinformation floating around on the internet...my advice: consider the source. From there, its your decision on what you believe the evidence suggests.The native wolf to Washington is the Timber wolf. Smaller and not as aggressive than the bigger Canadian gray wolf. Talk to any old timer around here and they will tell you they have been around for years. Not many and they keep to themselves. If anything these new wolves will move any native wolves out of the State.
I have heard this from several people but I can't find anything to back it up. I am not saying you're wrong but everything I've seen is that Timber Wolf is used to describe a gray wolf in the forest.
Post by: boneaddict on September 26, 2014, 10:20:17 AM
There are a few problems with trying to determine what sub-species of wolves were historically in Washington State. First problem is that wolf populations were heavily disrupted by time scientists started to collect data on the wolf populations, especially to the level of sub-species. The second problem is that with the wide range of habitats in Washington state there could have been more than one sub-species in the state. Third problem is that with the dynamics of wolf populations was a particular wolf was part of an established pack or in transit when the data was collected? Then you have the question, was the distribution of sub-species static or was one sub-species in the process of pushing another sub-species out? Along with that is the question about which sub-species a particular wolf belonged to. When you are working at a sub-species level things become a lot more complex. There can be some large differences in sub-species like between the keys deer in Florida and northern whitetails but a lot of the differences are much more subtle. With the advances in DNC there has been a lot of shuffling around especially at the sub-species level, not just with wolves but many species.100% true and don't forget interbreeding that can often occur at this level.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on September 26, 2014, 10:33:55 AM
ctwiggs - Generally, you will find credible evidence lacking for arguments that support canadian wolves being a different species than "native washington wolves" or that wolves have been transplanted into Washington. In the absence of this factual data/evidence, one must resort to some interesting conspiracies to support either of these arguments. There is no shortage of misinformation floating around on the internet...my advice: consider the source. From there, its your decision on what you believe the evidence suggests.The native wolf to Washington is the Timber wolf. Smaller and not as aggressive than the bigger Canadian gray wolf. Talk to any old timer around here and they will tell you they have been around for years. Not many and they keep to themselves. If anything these new wolves will move any native wolves out of the State.
I have heard this from several people but I can't find anything to back it up. I am not saying you're wrong but everything I've seen is that Timber Wolf is used to describe a gray wolf in the forest.
It seems to me, based on what Boneaddict has said and what we know other states have done, that we did in fact have what sound like the Cascade Mountain Wolf (although in extremely limited numbers) present in the state prior to the last decade.
After other states re-introduced BPs of the larger sub species of gray wolf (same species, different sub species), it sounds like they spread pretty quickly throughout he NE, North-central, and now central Washington (and other "unconfirmed" areas as well).
I have a hard time subscribing to the theory that WDFW actually "brought" them here (willing to listen to arguments though). Their website says they didn't. I know that sounds ignorant/naive to some, but if we have members of SEAL Team 6 writing books about the Bin Ladin raid, Snowden talking about the NSA, etc..... I have a hard time believing all the WDFW people involved would have kept their mouths shut this whole time about wolves. In the end they're still people. Unless you guys know of somebody involved in the wolf relocation/planting that has spilled the beans?
PLEASE READ BEFORE GETTING ANGRY --> I am in no way backing the WDFW up on wolves. I am not saying it's been managed correctly. I'm just saying I don't know that I have seen any evidence (OPEN EARS THOUGH!) that they were planted. Just wanted to clarify before I'm called a pinko commie tree hugger? Or whatever we call them on this forum??? :chuckle: :chuckle:
That sound right to you guys?
Curtis
Post by: idahohuntr on September 26, 2014, 10:37:37 AM
I have a hard time subscribing to the theory that WDFW actually "brought" them here (willing to listen to arguments though). Their website says they didn't. I know that sounds ignorant/naive to some, but if we have members of SEAL Team 6 writing books about the Bin Ladin raid, Snowden talking about the NSA, etc..... I have a hard time believing all the WDFW people involved would have kept their mouths shut this whole time about wolves. In the end they're still people. Unless you guys know of somebody involved in the wolf relocation/planting that has spilled the beans?:tup: Sounds pretty logical to me.
That sound right to you guys?
Curtis
Post by: boneaddict on September 26, 2014, 11:13:37 AM
Post by: KFhunter on September 26, 2014, 12:39:57 PM
We just need to manage them now, before the public gets so peeved off they start dropping magic meatballs near every wolf track they find.
It's already happening I'm sure :bash:
Post by: boneaddict on September 26, 2014, 01:06:46 PM
Post by: Alchase on September 26, 2014, 01:07:42 PM
GENERAL INFORMATION
Were wolves re-introduced to Washington?
No. Wolves are returning naturally from dispersing populations in nearby states and provinces. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) never reintroduced or transplanted wolves into Washington, nor has any other state or federal agency.
How did wolves re-populate the West?
In the mid 1990s, the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) re-introduced 66 wolves from Canada into Montana, Wyoming and Idaho – 31 wolves into Yellowstone National Park and 35 into central Idaho. At that time, about 60 wolves were documented in the northwestern corner of Montana (see Map 1). Since then, wolf populations continue to recover throughout the Northern Rocky Mountains, where the USFWS documented more than 287 wolf packs in the 2011 (see Map 2 and Map 3). In fact, populations have recovered to the point that hunting and trapping are now legal in some states. As these wolf populations continue to recover and expand into other areas, it is likely that Washington will experience additional dispersing wolves in the near future.
A 2011 study, “Understanding People in Places,” conducted by Colorado State University for WDFW concluded that Washington residents generally found natural recolonization of the state by wolves to be acceptable (74.5%). However, residents in rural counties where wolves would most likely re-populate were less accepting than those in urban centers (see Map 4).
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.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/faq.html#1 (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/faq.html#1)
I believe the Lookout Pack has the same genetics as wolves from the BC area.
Washington Wolf Packs: Teanaway
February 2013
The Teanaway pack has six members, including a successful breeding pair.
The breeding female of the Teanaway pack was re-captured in July 2012 to replace the radio collar that was originally placed on her in 2011.
A yearling female, also radio-collared in 2011, dispersed from the Teanaway territory in March 2012 and traveled north and east into British Columbia where she was legally shot by a hunter in May 2012.
The pack is named for the Teanaway River, Ridge and Butte within its range in northern Kittitas County.
History
In response to remote camera images of a large wolf-like canids collected by citizen science volunteers in 2010, a survey effort that included WDFW, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Conservation Northwest, and the Western Transportation Institute, was conducted in the Teanaway Valley in the North Cascades. This effort produced multiple remote camera images of at least three large canids.
WDFW captured a lactating adult female in the pack in June 2011 and fitted her with a radio-collar. Genetic analysis confirmed this animal to be a descendant of the Lookout Pack. In September 2011, a yearling female was also captured and fitted with a radio-collar. The presence of a yearling wolf indicated this pack has been in the area since at least spring of 2010. At the end of 2011 there were three adults and four pups in this pack, and it was considered a successful breeding pair.
Post by: boneaddict on September 26, 2014, 01:10:02 PM
Quote
nor has any other state or federal agency.
Really? :chuckle: Must mean everything else is true in the story as well. Oh, they just mean into Wa
Post by: Alchase on September 26, 2014, 01:27:45 PM
Why now?
If all the above is true..............
Then lets look at this from a "Scientific Method"
Why did wolves decide in 2008 to start repopulating Washington?
Was there more game?
No!
Was there more available territory?
No!
Was there a lack of food in Canada?
No!
Was there over hunting in Canada?
No!
Was there a population explosion in Canada pushing young wolves out?
No!
What changed in the last decade, that instigated this southerly (and Westerly from Idaho) migration so to speak?
No answer is being provided.
That is what has been bothering me this whole time.
I can't believe all the Bio's in the WDFW and the other "agencies" can not or have not asked this same question and determined an answer.
Before trapping, DNA samples, collaring, tracking, adding another pack to the list, the question "Why Now" would have to have been answered.
Post by: KFhunter on September 26, 2014, 01:36:31 PM
Quotenor has any other state or federal agency.
Really? :chuckle: Must mean everything else is true in the story as well. Oh, they just mean into Wa
exactly - I don't know what's so special about WA that they wouldn't release them here as well.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 26, 2014, 02:21:03 PM
The million dollar question:I think the data pretty clearly shows why wolves started showing up far more regularly in/around 2008 in washington...it was near the peak of the exponential growth of wolf numbers in idaho. As their population grew exponentially it expanded into washington and oregon.
Why now?
If all the above is true..............
Then lets look at this from a "Scientific Method"
Why did wolves decide in 2008 to start repopulating Washington?
Was there more game?
No!
Was there more available territory?
No!
Was there a lack of food in Canada?
No!
Was there over hunting in Canada?
No!
Was there a population explosion in Canada pushing young wolves out?
No!
What changed in the last decade, that instigated this southerly (and Westerly from Idaho) migration so to speak?
No answer is being provided.
That is what has been bothering me this whole time.
I can't believe all the Bio's in the WDFW and the other "agencies" can not or have not asked this same question and determined an answer.
Before trapping, DNA samples, collaring, tracking, adding another pack to the list, the question "Why Now" would have to have been answered.
To the questions about why didn't they expand sooner from Canada...I don't have a good understanding of the productivity and limitations and dynamics that would affect wolves in BC. For whatever reason, and there are probably many that unfortunately for some do not involve a grand conspiracy, they did not expand exponentially like Idaho wolves. Most likely it represents that bc had a stable population which was not growing a whole lot or was not as productive...haven't they always been able to hunt/trap wolves in BC? Either way, wolves inhabiting their former range (which has been vacant of substantial numbers of wolves for 70+ years in Idaho) followed a pretty expected path of exponential population growth and expansion.
All of this seems pretty basic and easy to understand with minimal effort, so to the folks who say "the question remains unanswered"...I have to say again...you can lead a horse to water...
Post by: Yelper Guy on September 26, 2014, 02:31:37 PM
It was amazing how far some of those animals traveled - multiple states in most cases.
As the packs in Montana & Idaho grew, more and more started venturing into new territory.
What better place to start a pack, without any other pack to compete with.
Post by: bigmacc on September 26, 2014, 06:01:48 PM
As others have said, they have been here the whole time. Through the 80-90s the lettered government entities were denying the existence of "establish" wolves. They were on a blitz to discredit all wolf sightings as coyotes. Yet at the same time those flyers showing the differences between wolves and coyotes started to appear LOL.
Using the Lookout pack as an example, they blamed this pack for all the kills from Alta to Winthrop, some times on the same day!
That has got to be the biggest baddest most traveled pack of 6-8 wolves to ever exist. They denied the existence of a NW corner pack, yet pictures appeared of wolves the had been collared by a "Wolf Support group" years before their denials.
What has everyone going "Huh!"
Is the fact that they were here for decades, why the population "pack" explosion between 2008 (the first acknowledged pack) and now?
For decades, no measurable increase, in the six years they "admit" to wolf packs being in Washington, the acknowledged packs have grown to 14 Packs and over 60 animals.
Do the math:
1 pack, 6-8 animals in 2008
14 packs over 60 2014
That is over 1000% increase in six years!
This represents only the wolves they "admit" to being here.
Previous countless decades, with more game, more territory, no measurable gains.
And Alchase dont forget this,a Methow herd that was once 30 thousand strong not to long ago is now 10 thousand....things that make you go HMMMM!
Post by: boneaddict on September 26, 2014, 06:51:06 PM
Post by: mkcj on September 26, 2014, 06:54:59 PM
I have just enough involvement to be skeptical. Eventhough I am wrapping ribs for the que at the moment I am not fashioning my tinfoil hat yet. ITs difficult for me to wrap my head around the sudden expansion of them, and the shroud of secrecy that seem s to go along with their numbers leads just enough doubt in my mind everything has been above board.
This is a very fair statement that I think MANY in this state will agree to. :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on September 26, 2014, 07:17:17 PM
Again, it seems about as simple as population dynamics can get to explain why wolves increased :dunno: As far as the "secrecy"...I don't get that either. Have you ever called or talked to any number of wdfw people? I don't think it counts as secrecy if you are unwilling to ask or make an effort to ascertain the answer.I have just enough involvement to be skeptical. Eventhough I am wrapping ribs for the que at the moment I am not fashioning my tinfoil hat yet. ITs difficult for me to wrap my head around the sudden expansion of them, and the shroud of secrecy that seem s to go along with their numbers leads just enough doubt in my mind everything has been above board.
This is a very fair statement that I think MANY in this state will agree to. :twocents:
Post by: boneaddict on September 26, 2014, 07:27:49 PM
Post by: Jason on September 26, 2014, 07:41:09 PM
My uncles never laid eyes on them, but some nights when the wind wasn't blowing they could hear what they thought was wolf's howling.
Every time they seen tracks they would tell the game warden what they saw and where, and the game warden would tell them the same thing every time that it was just coyote tracks they were seeing and it would be a waste of time investigating it.
Post by: Alchase on September 26, 2014, 09:40:38 PM
The million dollar question:I think the data pretty clearly shows why wolves started showing up far more regularly in/around 2008 in washington...it was near the peak of the exponential growth of wolf numbers in idaho. As their population grew exponentially it expanded into washington and oregon.
Why now?
Show us this obvious data you are talking about.
I poste d the FAQ questions and answers to show specifically nowhere does the state in their released documentation, explain why mysteriously in 2008 wolves decided to migrate south.
They mention "natural migration" as the leading theory with no explaination to the "whyThe million dollar question:I think the data pretty clearly shows why wolves started showing up far more regularly in/around 2008 in washington...it was near the peak of the exponential growth of wolf numbers in idaho. As their population grew exponentially it expanded into washington and oregon.
Why now?
If all the above is true..............
Then lets look at this from a "Scientific Method"
Why did wolves decide in 2008 to start repopulating Washington?
Was there more game?
No!
Was there more available territory?
No!
Was there a lack of food in Canada?
No!
Was there over hunting in Canada?
No!
Was there a population explosion in Canada pushing young wolves out?
No!
What changed in the last decade, that instigated this southerly (and Westerly from Idaho) migration so to speak?
No answer is being provided.
That is what has been bothering me this whole time.
I can't believe all the Bio's in the WDFW and the other "agencies" can not or have not asked this same question and determined an answer.
Before trapping, DNA samples, collaring, tracking, adding another pack to the list, the question "Why Now" would have to have been answered.
To the questions about why didn't they expand sooner from Canada...I don't have a good understanding of the productivity and limitations and dynamics that would affect wolves in BC. For whatever reason, and there are probably many that unfortunately for some do not involve a grand conspiracy, they did not expand exponentially like Idaho wolves. Most likely it represents that bc had a stable population which was not growing a whole lot or was not as productive...haven't they always been able to hunt/trap wolves in BC? Either way, wolves inhabiting their former range (which has been vacant of substantial numbers of wolves for 70+ years in Idaho) followed a pretty expected path of exponential population growth and expansion.
All of this seems pretty basic and easy to understand with minimal effort, so to the folks who say "the question remains unanswered"...I have to say again...you can lead a horse to water...
If all the above is true..............
Then lets look at this from a "Scientific Method"
Why did wolves decide in 2008 to start repopulating Washington?
Was there more game?
No!
Was there more available territory?
No!
Was there a lack of food in Canada?
No!
Was there over hunting in Canada?
No!
Was there a population explosion in Canada pushing young wolves out?
No!
What changed in the last decade, that instigated this southerly (and Westerly from Idaho) migration so to speak?
No answer is being provided.
That is what has been bothering me this whole time.
I can't believe all the Bio's in the WDFW and the other "agencies" can not or have not asked this same question and determined an answer.
Before trapping, DNA samples, collaring, tracking, adding another pack to the list, the question "Why Now" would have to have been answered.
To the questions about why didn't they expand sooner from Canada...I don't have a good understanding of the productivity and limitations and dynamics that would affect wolves in BC. For whatever reason, and there are probably many that unfortunately for some do not involve a grand conspiracy, they did not expand exponentially like Idaho wolves. Most likely it represents that bc had a stable population which was not growing a whole lot or was not as productive...haven't they always been able to hunt/trap wolves in BC? Either way, wolves inhabiting their former range (which has been vacant of substantial numbers of wolves for 70+ years in Idaho) followed a pretty expected path of exponential population growth and expansion.
All of this seems pretty basic and easy to understand with minimal effort, so to the folks who say "the question remains unanswered"...I have to say again...you can lead a horse to water...
Please by all means show us this obvious data you are referring to?
The reason I posted the FAQ and asked the question "why now" is because nowhere in any of the released documentation do they address the "why now"
The use "natural migration" as the reason.
If natural migration is the reason for the sudden movement south and west, then since it certainly would not be "natural" if it just magically start in 2008.
"All of this seems pretty basic and easy to understand with minimal effort, "
Please by all means produce this data that is "pretty basic and easy to understand".
While youare at it, you might want to share you data with the state, they must have missed it as well.
Post by: MtnMuley on September 26, 2014, 09:53:14 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on September 26, 2014, 10:13:34 PM
http://thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/final_2010_figure_5_rec_area_num__bp.jpg (http://thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/final_2010_figure_5_rec_area_num__bp.jpg)The million dollar question:I think the data pretty clearly shows why wolves started showing up far more regularly in/around 2008 in washington...it was near the peak of the exponential growth of wolf numbers in idaho. As their population grew exponentially it expanded into washington and oregon.
Why now?
Show us this obvious data you are talking about.
I poste d the FAQ questions and answers to show specifically nowhere does the state in their released documentation, explain why mysteriously in 2008 wolves decided to migrate south.
They mention "natural migration" as the leading theory with no explaination to the "whyThe million dollar question:I think the data pretty clearly shows why wolves started showing up far more regularly in/around 2008 in washington...it was near the peak of the exponential growth of wolf numbers in idaho. As their population grew exponentially it expanded into washington and oregon.
Why now?
If all the above is true..............
Then lets look at this from a "Scientific Method"
Why did wolves decide in 2008 to start repopulating Washington?
Was there more game?
No!
Was there more available territory?
No!
Was there a lack of food in Canada?
No!
Was there over hunting in Canada?
No!
Was there a population explosion in Canada pushing young wolves out?
No!
What changed in the last decade, that instigated this southerly (and Westerly from Idaho) migration so to speak?
No answer is being provided.
That is what has been bothering me this whole time.
I can't believe all the Bio's in the WDFW and the other "agencies" can not or have not asked this same question and determined an answer.
Before trapping, DNA samples, collaring, tracking, adding another pack to the list, the question "Why Now" would have to have been answered.
To the questions about why didn't they expand sooner from Canada...I don't have a good understanding of the productivity and limitations and dynamics that would affect wolves in BC. For whatever reason, and there are probably many that unfortunately for some do not involve a grand conspiracy, they did not expand exponentially like Idaho wolves. Most likely it represents that bc had a stable population which was not growing a whole lot or was not as productive...haven't they always been able to hunt/trap wolves in BC? Either way, wolves inhabiting their former range (which has been vacant of substantial numbers of wolves for 70+ years in Idaho) followed a pretty expected path of exponential population growth and expansion.
All of this seems pretty basic and easy to understand with minimal effort, so to the folks who say "the question remains unanswered"...I have to say again...you can lead a horse to water...
If all the above is true..............
Then lets look at this from a "Scientific Method"
Why did wolves decide in 2008 to start repopulating Washington?
Was there more game?
No!
Was there more available territory?
No!
Was there a lack of food in Canada?
No!
Was there over hunting in Canada?
No!
Was there a population explosion in Canada pushing young wolves out?
No!
What changed in the last decade, that instigated this southerly (and Westerly from Idaho) migration so to speak?
No answer is being provided.
That is what has been bothering me this whole time.
I can't believe all the Bio's in the WDFW and the other "agencies" can not or have not asked this same question and determined an answer.
Before trapping, DNA samples, collaring, tracking, adding another pack to the list, the question "Why Now" would have to have been answered.
To the questions about why didn't they expand sooner from Canada...I don't have a good understanding of the productivity and limitations and dynamics that would affect wolves in BC. For whatever reason, and there are probably many that unfortunately for some do not involve a grand conspiracy, they did not expand exponentially like Idaho wolves. Most likely it represents that bc had a stable population which was not growing a whole lot or was not as productive...haven't they always been able to hunt/trap wolves in BC? Either way, wolves inhabiting their former range (which has been vacant of substantial numbers of wolves for 70+ years in Idaho) followed a pretty expected path of exponential population growth and expansion.
All of this seems pretty basic and easy to understand with minimal effort, so to the folks who say "the question remains unanswered"...I have to say again...you can lead a horse to water...
Please by all means show us this obvious data you are referring to?
The reason I posted the FAQ and asked the question "why now" is because nowhere in any of the released documentation do they address the "why now"
The use "natural migration" as the reason.
If natural migration is the reason for the sudden movement south and west, then since it certainly would not be "natural" if it just magically start in 2008.
"All of this seems pretty basic and easy to understand with minimal effort, "
Please by all means produce this data that is "pretty basic and easy to understand".
While youare at it, you might want to share you data with the state, they must have missed it as well.
look at the part of the graph from 02-09...that is called exponential population growth...that is when you have expansion.
There is no need to share this data with WDFW...they are well aware of why they are seeing more and more wolves. Again, just because a few folks on this forum are uninformed about why wolves are increasing in WA does not mean everyone else in the world is also uninformed. I referred to leading a horse to water a few times now...if you look at this graph and are still mystified about why wolves started showing up increasingly in WA in 08 or so... :hello:
Post by: idahohuntr on September 26, 2014, 10:18:31 PM
If anybody on here honestly believes that the lookout pack just moved in from Canada and so happened to reside and den up in the Alder Ck area, you're outta your mind. Absolutely no £$¥÷*×£# way. :twocents:Im not familiar with the alder ck area...why would one be out of their mind to believe wolves just moved in and resided/denned up there? Wolves are highly migratory. :dunno:
Post by: GrainfedMuley on September 26, 2014, 10:33:09 PM
If anybody on here honestly believes that the lookout pack just moved in from Canada and so happened to reside and den up in the Alder Ck area, you're outta your mind. Absolutely no £$¥÷*×£# way. :twocents:Im not familiar with the alder ck area...why would one be out of their mind to believe wolves just moved in and resided/denned up there? Wolves are highly migratory. :dunno:
Because there were way to many wolves in a very short period of time.
Post by: PA BEN on September 27, 2014, 06:34:16 AM
I can't believe all the Bio's in the WDFW and the other "agencies" can not or have not asked this same question and determined an answer.
Before trapping, DNA samples, collaring, tracking, adding another pack to the list, the question "Why Now" would have to have been answered.
I remember back in the day the only turkeys to hunt was down by Hunters, Fruitland area. Then all of a sudden one year they started showing up in huntable numbers around the Colville Valley and they grew fast. I asked the game dept. how they got here and grew so fast. They had no idea how it happened. :twocents:
Post by: boneaddict on September 27, 2014, 06:44:48 AM
Quote
The NWTF’s Making Tracks program is a cooperative effort
involving the state wildlife agencies. The goal of the program is to
release wild turkeys in all suitable habitats in the United States
and Canada.
Except I figure it involves a couple other groups.
Post by: boneaddict on September 27, 2014, 06:47:55 AM
Post by: Special T on September 27, 2014, 07:11:41 AM
http://thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/final_2010_figure_5_rec_area_num__bp.jpg (http://thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/final_2010_figure_5_rec_area_num__bp.jpg)
look at the part of the graph from 02-09...that is called exponential population growth...that is when you have expansion.
There is no need to share this data with WDFW...they are well aware of why they are seeing more and more wolves. Again, just because a few folks on this forum are uninformed about why wolves are increasing in WA does not mean everyone else in the world is also uninformed. I referred to leading a horse to water a few times now...if you look at this graph and are still mystified about why wolves started showing up increasingly in WA in 08 or so... :hello:
Why have the wolves from ID and YNP had exponential growth YET the wolves that were already in the cascades did not have the same kind of growth?
Why was it necessary to bring wolves from the far north in the McKenzie Valley when just across the boarder in the Selkirk Mts the Canadians had plenty of them?
These are just a couple of the question that do not add up in my mind. When answers go against basic logic it requires me to be a skeptic and challenge both the methods and the motivations.
Post by: Alchase on September 27, 2014, 09:44:10 PM
LOL
Post by: GrainfedMuley on September 27, 2014, 10:21:41 PM
Notice the graph says "excludes Washington and Oregon"
LOL
Things that make ya go hhmmmmmmmmmm.................... :dunno:
Post by: idahohuntr on September 28, 2014, 09:10:53 PM
Maybe...seems pretty straight forward to me. But I don't look at things through the lens of a tinfoil hat. :chuckle:Notice the graph says "excludes Washington and Oregon"
LOL
Things that make ya go hhmmmmmmmmmm.................... :dunno:
Post by: AspenBud on September 28, 2014, 10:53:27 PM
http://thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/final_2010_figure_5_rec_area_num__bp.jpg (http://thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/final_2010_figure_5_rec_area_num__bp.jpg)
look at the part of the graph from 02-09...that is called exponential population growth...that is when you have expansion.
There is no need to share this data with WDFW...they are well aware of why they are seeing more and more wolves. Again, just because a few folks on this forum are uninformed about why wolves are increasing in WA does not mean everyone else in the world is also uninformed. I referred to leading a horse to water a few times now...if you look at this graph and are still mystified about why wolves started showing up increasingly in WA in 08 or so... :hello:
Why have the wolves from ID and YNP had exponential growth YET the wolves that were already in the cascades did not have the same kind of growth?
Why was it necessary to bring wolves from the far north in the McKenzie Valley when just across the boarder in the Selkirk Mts the Canadians had plenty of them?
These are just a couple of the question that do not add up in my mind. When answers go against basic logic it requires me to be a skeptic and challenge both the methods and the motivations.
I just got back from visiting family in Montana this weekend and to me there is a very obvious answer. There is a reason why Montana has always been considered one of THE big game destinations in the country and Washington has not. I saw loads of deer, a moose, and a few big horns and that was just while driving home. Even before wolves I never saw that much game while driving in WA.
This is not Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming. Mystery solved.
Post by: 3nails on September 29, 2014, 05:46:51 AM
I have property in MT not far from my dad who lives there. It is well noted among the locals that you now see way more animals in the lowlands and roadways because the wolves have driven the majority out of the backcountry. Some people think the populations are fine because of this but that's not the case.
http://thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/final_2010_figure_5_rec_area_num__bp.jpg (http://thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/final_2010_figure_5_rec_area_num__bp.jpg)
look at the part of the graph from 02-09...that is called exponential population growth...that is when you have expansion.
There is no need to share this data with WDFW...they are well aware of why they are seeing more and more wolves. Again, just because a few folks on this forum are uninformed about why wolves are increasing in WA does not mean everyone else in the world is also uninformed. I referred to leading a horse to water a few times now...if you look at this graph and are still mystified about why wolves started showing up increasingly in WA in 08 or so... :hello:
Why have the wolves from ID and YNP had exponential growth YET the wolves that were already in the cascades did not have the same kind of growth?
Why was it necessary to bring wolves from the far north in the McKenzie Valley when just across the boarder in the Selkirk Mts the Canadians had plenty of them?
These are just a couple of the question that do not add up in my mind. When answers go against basic logic it requires me to be a skeptic and challenge both the methods and the motivations.
I just got back from visiting family in Montana this weekend and to me there is a very obvious answer. There is a reason why Montana has always been considered one of THE big game destinations in the country and Washington has not. I saw loads of deer, a moose, and a few big horns and that was just while driving home. Even before wolves I never saw that much game while driving in WA.
This is not Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming. Mystery solved.
Cracks me up about the debate on whether wolves were released in WA or not. If I bring a rotting head full of maggots into my mudroom and flies spread throughout the house into my wifes sewing room I'm going to have a hard time convincing her that I didn't bring them in. "Hey man, I just brought them into the mudroom. They migrated into the sewing room. Not my fault!" :chuckle:
Post by: boneaddict on September 29, 2014, 07:18:37 AM
Good description of the deer in town too. I know somewhere else this is very common.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on September 29, 2014, 07:27:14 AM
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on September 29, 2014, 07:37:49 AM
I have property in MT not far from my dad who lives there. It is well noted among the locals that you now see way more animals in the lowlands and roadways because the wolves have driven the majority out of the backcountry. Some people think the populations are fine because of this but that's not the case.
http://thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/final_2010_figure_5_rec_area_num__bp.jpg (http://thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/final_2010_figure_5_rec_area_num__bp.jpg)
look at the part of the graph from 02-09...that is called exponential population growth...that is when you have expansion.
There is no need to share this data with WDFW...they are well aware of why they are seeing more and more wolves. Again, just because a few folks on this forum are uninformed about why wolves are increasing in WA does not mean everyone else in the world is also uninformed. I referred to leading a horse to water a few times now...if you look at this graph and are still mystified about why wolves started showing up increasingly in WA in 08 or so... :hello:
Why have the wolves from ID and YNP had exponential growth YET the wolves that were already in the cascades did not have the same kind of growth?
Why was it necessary to bring wolves from the far north in the McKenzie Valley when just across the boarder in the Selkirk Mts the Canadians had plenty of them?
These are just a couple of the question that do not add up in my mind. When answers go against basic logic it requires me to be a skeptic and challenge both the methods and the motivations.
I just got back from visiting family in Montana this weekend and to me there is a very obvious answer. There is a reason why Montana has always been considered one of THE big game destinations in the country and Washington has not. I saw loads of deer, a moose, and a few big horns and that was just while driving home. Even before wolves I never saw that much game while driving in WA.
This is not Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming. Mystery solved.
Cracks me up about the debate on whether wolves were released in WA or not. If I bring a rotting head full of maggots into my mudroom and flies spread throughout the house into my wifes sewing room I'm going to have a hard time convincing her that I didn't bring them in. "Hey man, I just brought them into the mudroom. They migrated into the sewing room. Not my fault!" :chuckle:
You wife no doubt had a few native blowflies in the sewing room already ( I'll bet you saw one there in the'80's )......so it does not matter that your blowflies migrated into the sewing room.. Tell your wife the blowflies are here to stay so get used to it..
Post by: AspenBud on September 29, 2014, 07:49:18 AM
I have property in MT not far from my dad who lives there. It is well noted among the locals that you now see way more animals in the lowlands and roadways because the wolves have driven the majority out of the backcountry. Some people think the populations are fine because of this but that's not the case.
http://thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/final_2010_figure_5_rec_area_num__bp.jpg (http://thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/final_2010_figure_5_rec_area_num__bp.jpg)
look at the part of the graph from 02-09...that is called exponential population growth...that is when you have expansion.
There is no need to share this data with WDFW...they are well aware of why they are seeing more and more wolves. Again, just because a few folks on this forum are uninformed about why wolves are increasing in WA does not mean everyone else in the world is also uninformed. I referred to leading a horse to water a few times now...if you look at this graph and are still mystified about why wolves started showing up increasingly in WA in 08 or so... :hello:
Why have the wolves from ID and YNP had exponential growth YET the wolves that were already in the cascades did not have the same kind of growth?
Why was it necessary to bring wolves from the far north in the McKenzie Valley when just across the boarder in the Selkirk Mts the Canadians had plenty of them?
These are just a couple of the question that do not add up in my mind. When answers go against basic logic it requires me to be a skeptic and challenge both the methods and the motivations.
I just got back from visiting family in Montana this weekend and to me there is a very obvious answer. There is a reason why Montana has always been considered one of THE big game destinations in the country and Washington has not. I saw loads of deer, a moose, and a few big horns and that was just while driving home. Even before wolves I never saw that much game while driving in WA.
This is not Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming. Mystery solved.
Cracks me up about the debate on whether wolves were released in WA or not. If I bring a rotting head full of maggots into my mudroom and flies spread throughout the house into my wifes sewing room I'm going to have a hard time convincing her that I didn't bring them in. "Hey man, I just brought them into the mudroom. They migrated into the sewing room. Not my fault!" :chuckle:
What I think is funny is you missed the point. Washington is no Idaho or Montana and never has been wolf or no wolf. People have always gone to Montana and Idaho because of their abundance of game. Wolves expanded there for a reason, plenty of food which meant higher pup survival rates. For someone to wonder how wolves could expand so fast in Idaho or Montana but not in Washington really means they don't understand that or are in denial about the realities of Washington's big game hunting. Things are not the same here.
They are also optimists about people and must not think many wolves get poached. Now that is funny.
There was a good one posted on hunting forums for years here and it went something like this, "the state says no wolves exist here, open season on big coyotes!" And yet we have people who wonder why they didn't edpand as fast...
Post by: KFhunter on September 29, 2014, 08:36:03 AM
WDFW's wolf FAQ page:
Quote
Is WDFW concerned that killing wolves will set back the statewide recovery effort?
No. Wolves are very adaptable animals that can thrive in a variety of habitats so long as they have adequate food and are not exterminated through indiscriminant killing. Thousands of wolves have been killed in the Rocky Mountain states in recent decades, yet the species continues to recover in that region.
A model developed by Washington State University in conjunction with the authors of Washington’s wolf plan found that removing wolves pose a very low risk to the statewide recovery objectives once population levels reach numbers currently documented in the eastern Washington recovery region. The real danger to recovery is if people lose confidence in WDFW’s ability to manage wolves and take matters into their own hands.
WA doesn't have MT's or Idaho's Elk herds because WDFW hasn't managed for such herds. End of a story that goes back well before the wolves showed up in numbers in WA.
It would take a big commitment to manage predators and people (including Indians) to build the Elk herds and bring WA up to par with the rest of the west. WDFW hasn't shown the desire and has managed for small struggling herds with very little calf recruitment. WDFW won't even close roads in heavily hit tribal Elk hunting areas, even off winter feeding sites!
All the Cow's I've seen this year did not have a calf with them, not one single juvenile. All were older mature cows. Tells me something is wrong!
Now that wolves are here we'll NEVER see Elk such as what's seen in all the other western states. Especially that WA has such a burdensome wolf plan.
Post by: AspenBud on September 29, 2014, 09:21:03 AM
If wolves were easy to kill or poach then WDFW wouldn't need choppers to get the job done even though they have tracking collars. The elusiveness of the wolf prevents that scenario from happening. The wedge wolves are a good example how hard they are to spot let alone get cross hairs on them. Wolves that are getting poached is because they're in someone's back yard or making themselves far too easy of an opportunity.
WDFW's wolf FAQ page:QuoteIs WDFW concerned that killing wolves will set back the statewide recovery effort?
No. Wolves are very adaptable animals that can thrive in a variety of habitats so long as they have adequate food and are not exterminated through indiscriminant killing. Thousands of wolves have been killed in the Rocky Mountain states in recent decades, yet the species continues to recover in that region.
A model developed by Washington State University in conjunction with the authors of Washington’s wolf plan found that removing wolves pose a very low risk to the statewide recovery objectives once population levels reach numbers currently documented in the eastern Washington recovery region. The real danger to recovery is if people lose confidence in WDFW’s ability to manage wolves and take matters into their own hands.
WA doesn't have MT's or Idaho's Elk herds because WDFW hasn't managed for such herds. End of a story that goes back well before the wolves showed up in numbers in WA.
It would take a big commitment to manage predators and people (including Indians) to build the Elk herds and bring WA up to par with the rest of the west. WDFW hasn't shown the desire and has managed for small struggling herds with very little calf recruitment. WDFW won't even close roads in heavily hit tribal Elk hunting areas, even off winter feeding sites!
All the Cow's I've seen this year did not have a calf with them, not one single juvenile. All were older mature cows. Tells me something is wrong!
Now that wolves are here we'll NEVER see Elk such as what's seen in all the other western states. Especially that WA has such a burdensome wolf plan.
If you'll allow me to play devil's advocate, if one reads some comments on here it sounds like wolves are in every backyard in Okanogan and Stevens County. At some point those losses add up if people are putting a coke bottle on the end of a rifle and taking care of things from the window and then digging a hole.
Comparing Montana and Idaho to Washington is really comparing apples to oranges. Once you get out of NE Washington the landscape stops being similar and is either devoid of forest or is forested land so thick with cover that you need a machete to cut your way through. We also have a lot more people per square mile.
Post by: KFhunter on September 29, 2014, 09:39:46 AM
I didn't mean we could have the overall numbers that other states have, but in Elk areas we could have the density that other western states enjoy. The habitat is there, it's going unused. Grasses up to your waist in a lot of areas that could hold a pretty heavy density with plenty of winter browse, and in areas with excellent summer forage but lacking good winter forage then feeding stations could bolster the over all herd size to make use of the rest of the 3 seasons.
It's just not managed to be that way, but it could.
Quote
Comparing Montana and Idaho to Washington is really comparing apples to oranges. Once you get out of NE Washington the landscape stops being similar and is either devoid of forest or is forested land so thick with cover that you need a machete to cut your way through. We also have a lot more people per square mile.
Exactly why WA's wolf plan makes no sense! We have room for wolves in WA, but no where near what our current wolf plan calls for. The current plan would be excellent if you wanted to eliminate open grazing and greatly reduce hunting opportunities. Due to Washington's population and smaller numbers or density of game (compared to MT/ID) we should likewise have a smaller wolf footprint, but our plan calls for MORE wolves than other western states :bash:
Post by: AspenBud on September 29, 2014, 10:28:26 AM
they're not in everyone's back yard all at the same time :chuckle:
I didn't mean we could have the overall numbers that other states have, but in Elk areas we could have the density that other western states enjoy. The habitat is there, it's going unused. Grasses up to your waist in a lot of areas that could hold a pretty heavy density with plenty of winter browse, and in areas with excellent summer forage but lacking good winter forage then feeding stations could bolster the over all herd size to make use of the rest of the 3 seasons.
It's just not managed to be that way, but it could.QuoteComparing Montana and Idaho to Washington is really comparing apples to oranges. Once you get out of NE Washington the landscape stops being similar and is either devoid of forest or is forested land so thick with cover that you need a machete to cut your way through. We also have a lot more people per square mile.
Exactly why WA's wolf plan makes no sense! We have room for wolves in WA, but no where near what our current wolf plan calls for. The current plan would be excellent if you wanted to eliminate open grazing and greatly reduce hunting opportunities. Due to Washington's population and smaller numbers or density of game (compared to MT/ID) we should likewise have a smaller wolf footprint, but our plan calls for MORE wolves than other western states :bash:
I can't disagree with any of that.
Post by: boneaddict on September 29, 2014, 10:46:34 AM
Post by: AspenBud on September 29, 2014, 10:50:56 AM
Who are you and what have you done with our Aspenbud? ;)
I have my disagreements, but I don't disagree with everything here.
Post by: boneaddict on September 29, 2014, 10:56:40 AM
Post by: KFhunter on September 29, 2014, 11:07:02 AM
It was a lot of work to get him where he is today :tup:
Post by: Alchase on September 29, 2014, 12:09:32 PM
In every valley, river drainage or farm in Montana were white tail deer. I was amazed!
On arrival to our cabin, I was talking to the owner about all the white tail.
I asked him if the mule deer were as plentiful.
He told me to turn around and look at the bulletin board on the back wall.
There were awesome pictures of mule deer herds, literally right outside the cabins.
He then said he had not seen a mule deer around the cabins in over seven years. All those pictures were before they allowed the return of the wolves.
He said we have a better chance of seeing wolves or Grizzly bears then seeing mule deer.
He then hands us a can of Bear Spray and says do not go hiking without it.
My wife asked him: "does the Bear Spray works for wolves as well?"
He said "Nope, Bear Spray is useless on wolves, that is what that is for" he was pointing to my XD .40 cal I was wearing.
I asked him how the elk are doing?
He replied: "The elk were the first to start disappearing, now the mule deer. Once all the mule deer and elk are gone the wolves will have to move down into the valleys and towns to get to the white tail. Once that happens the loony toons that wanted the da$% things will start screaming. By then it will be to late".
He was right, we saw no mule deer the whole trip.
Post by: sirmissalot on September 29, 2014, 01:22:27 PM
It was pretty interesting stopping in Gardiner on the way out. I walked into a store called ELK Inc, a company that's been around for a long time, it's one of the first books I had as a kid about hunting and the first deer and elk calls I had. The owner of the business was a cool old guy, talked for a long time to me about the good old days of hunting, and how bad the wolves have made it. I know guys like idahohunter think people make this stuff up, but to see a place like Gardiner, what used to be truly an elk Mecca, completely void of elk other than the ones stuck in town, on people's front lawns because apparently the wolves have enough fear of man they have yet to learn to hunt there. It's pretty dang sad.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 29, 2014, 01:44:46 PM
We just got back from a trip through Yellowstone. I was pretty jacked up to go through there in late September hoping to see some screaming Bulls, but that certainly wasn't the case. We saw on lone cow, then 3 cows and a calf in the park. The only elk we saw in numbers were literally in town in mammoth, where I saw an awesome bull chasing cows through the parking lot. We never saw a mule deer buck but saw a group of probably ten does in town. We went through the park at prime time both in evening and in the morning, as we stayed the night inside he park.Thats one of the most ignorant posts I've ever seen on this forum.
It was pretty interesting stopping in Gardiner on the way out. I walked into a store called ELK Inc, a company that's been around for a long time, it's one of the first books I had as a kid about hunting and the first deer and elk calls I had. The owner of the business was a cool old guy, talked for a long time to me about the good old days of hunting, and how bad the wolves have made it. I know guys like idahohunter think people make this stuff up, but to see a place like Gardiner, what used to be truly an elk Mecca, completely void of elk other than the ones stuck in town, on people's front lawns because apparently the wolves have enough fear of man they have yet to learn to hunt there. It's pretty dang sad.
Post by: sirmissalot on September 29, 2014, 01:46:04 PM
Post by: sirmissalot on September 29, 2014, 01:50:12 PM
Post by: bradslam on September 29, 2014, 01:51:48 PM
We just got back from a trip through Yellowstone. I was pretty jacked up to go through there in late September hoping to see some screaming Bulls, but that certainly wasn't the case. We saw on lone cow, then 3 cows and a calf in the park. The only elk we saw in numbers were literally in town in mammoth, where I saw an awesome bull chasing cows through the parking lot. We never saw a mule deer buck but saw a group of probably ten does in town. We went through the park at prime time both in evening and in the morning, as we stayed the night inside he park.
It was pretty interesting stopping in Gardiner on the way out. I walked into a store called ELK Inc, a company that's been around for a long time, it's one of the first books I had as a kid about hunting and the first deer and elk calls I had. The owner of the business was a cool old guy, talked for a long time to me about the good old days of hunting, and how bad the wolves have made it. I know guys like idahohunter think people make this stuff up, but to see a place like Gardiner, what used to be truly an elk Mecca, completely void of elk other than the ones stuck in town, on people's front lawns because apparently the wolves have enough fear of man they have yet to learn to hunt there. It's pretty dang sad.
Not completely disagreeing with what you are saying Chad, as elk numbers are definitely down substantially in Yellowstone, but I do think their habits have changed. From what rangers have told me and from what I have observed, they are hanging out more in timbered areas to avoid the wolves so they are less visible. I do miss the days of seeing rutting bulls everywhere. One evening, while my wife and I were on our one-year anniversary trip back in September of '98, we stopped at an overlook above Antelope Valley which is closed to human entry. We could see hundreds, and I mean hundreds, of elk from where we stood. We could see multiple battles going on at the same time and there was more bugling than I have ever heard in my life. It was incredible. I was in Yellowstone earlier this year and we saw a fair number of elk, but I think moments like what I experienced in '98 are gone forever.
Post by: KFhunter on September 29, 2014, 01:52:05 PM
Post by: KFhunter on September 29, 2014, 01:54:41 PM
We just got back from a trip through Yellowstone. I was pretty jacked up to go through there in late September hoping to see some screaming Bulls, but that certainly wasn't the case. We saw on lone cow, then 3 cows and a calf in the park. The only elk we saw in numbers were literally in town in mammoth, where I saw an awesome bull chasing cows through the parking lot. We never saw a mule deer buck but saw a group of probably ten does in town. We went through the park at prime time both in evening and in the morning, as we stayed the night inside he park.
It was pretty interesting stopping in Gardiner on the way out. I walked into a store called ELK Inc, a company that's been around for a long time, it's one of the first books I had as a kid about hunting and the first deer and elk calls I had. The owner of the business was a cool old guy, talked for a long time to me about the good old days of hunting, and how bad the wolves have made it. I know guys like idahohunter think people make this stuff up, but to see a place like Gardiner, what used to be truly an elk Mecca, completely void of elk other than the ones stuck in town, on people's front lawns because apparently the wolves have enough fear of man they have yet to learn to hunt there. It's pretty dang sad.
http://www.ktvq.com/news/gardiner-elk-hunt-falls-victim-to-wolves/ (http://www.ktvq.com/news/gardiner-elk-hunt-falls-victim-to-wolves/)
Post by: sirmissalot on September 29, 2014, 01:55:33 PM
We just got back from a trip through Yellowstone. I was pretty jacked up to go through there in late September hoping to see some screaming Bulls, but that certainly wasn't the case. We saw on lone cow, then 3 cows and a calf in the park. The only elk we saw in numbers were literally in town in mammoth, where I saw an awesome bull chasing cows through the parking lot. We never saw a mule deer buck but saw a group of probably ten does in town. We went through the park at prime time both in evening and in the morning, as we stayed the night inside he park.
It was pretty interesting stopping in Gardiner on the way out. I walked into a store called ELK Inc, a company that's been around for a long time, it's one of the first books I had as a kid about hunting and the first deer and elk calls I had. The owner of the business was a cool old guy, talked for a long time to me about the good old days of hunting, and how bad the wolves have made it. I know guys like idahohunter think people make this stuff up, but to see a place like Gardiner, what used to be truly an elk Mecca, completely void of elk other than the ones stuck in town, on people's front lawns because apparently the wolves have enough fear of man they have yet to learn to hunt there. It's pretty dang sad.
Not completely disagreeing with what you are saying Chad, as elk numbers are definitely down substantially in Yellowstone, but I do think their habits have changed. From what rangers have told me and from what I have observed, they are hanging out more in timbered areas to avoid the wolves so they are less visible. I do miss the days of seeing rutting bulls everywhere. One evening, while my wife and I were on our one-year anniversary trip back in September of '98, we stopped at an overlook above Antelope Valley which is closed to human entry. We could see hundreds, and I mean hundreds, of elk from where we stood. We could see multiple battles going on at the same time and there was more bugling than I have ever heard in my life. It was incredible. I was in Yellowstone earlier this year and we saw a fair number of elk, but I think moments like what I experience in '98 are gone forever.
They said the same to me, and I agree with it to an extent. But they also admitted to there being 25% of the elk herd there once was. I didn't expect to see hundreds of bulls from our trucks like we did with buffalo and antelope, but even our hikes were void of elk and deer.
Post by: AspenBud on September 29, 2014, 01:58:16 PM
We were checked by a park ranger and I asked where we could find some elk. He said before the wolves they had over 20,000 head. Now they have around 5,000. I know I'm pretty ignorant, but those numbers are pretty astonishing to me. The old man at ELK inc gave me even more disturbing numbers but I'll trust the park rangers numbers over his.
Right or wrong that was the plan from the start and not a secret. What has happened around there should not be a surprise to anyone, pro wolf or not. Those elk were going to get culled, they just turned wolves loose instead of hunters to do it.
Post by: bradslam on September 29, 2014, 02:03:27 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on September 29, 2014, 02:06:40 PM
You would say thatYes, because it is true. You are putting words in my mouth, and its clear you haven't read or understood my posts, which makes no difference to me...except when you characterize what I have said in a ridiculous and absurd manner. I realize you might not know the Lolo zone from that starbucks you live by in the Seattle suburbs but please don't try and tell folks I've suggested declines in elk in specific areas are made up.
Post by: KFhunter on September 29, 2014, 02:09:32 PM
We were checked by a park ranger and I asked where we could find some elk. He said before the wolves they had over 20,000 head. Now they have around 5,000. I know I'm pretty ignorant, but those numbers are pretty astonishing to me. The old man at ELK inc gave me even more disturbing numbers but I'll trust the park rangers numbers over his.
Right or wrong that was the plan from the start and not a secret. What has happened around there should not be a surprise to anyone, pro wolf or not. Those elk were going to get culled, they just turned wolves loose instead of hunters to do it.
"The plan" was to reduce Bison numbers and Elk numbers. The greater focus was on Bison though.
Bison gained in population making up for the huge decline in Elk, now they're in a quandary of what to do with the Bison. Bison are harder on stream beds and banks and cause more erosion than Elk.
The YNP wolf plan is and always was an epic failure.
Post by: bradslam on September 29, 2014, 02:14:05 PM
I never saw an opossum in Kitsap County until maybe 25 years ago, and now they are everywhere! I don't think the WDFW secretly planted them in the middle of the night when no one was looking. ;)
Post by: AspenBud on September 29, 2014, 02:14:36 PM
We were checked by a park ranger and I asked where we could find some elk. He said before the wolves they had over 20,000 head. Now they have around 5,000. I know I'm pretty ignorant, but those numbers are pretty astonishing to me. The old man at ELK inc gave me even more disturbing numbers but I'll trust the park rangers numbers over his.
Right or wrong that was the plan from the start and not a secret. What has happened around there should not be a surprise to anyone, pro wolf or not. Those elk were going to get culled, they just turned wolves loose instead of hunters to do it.
"The plan" was to reduce Bison numbers and Elk numbers. The greater focus was on Bison though.
Bison gained in population making up for the huge decline in Elk, now they're in a quandary of what to do with the Bison. Bison are harder on stream beds and banks and cause more erosion than Elk.
The YNP wolf plan is and always was an epic failure.
Some have claimed bison are suffering heavy losses from wolves there too. There are so many competing claims I have to admit I've stopped keeping track. I just know that way back when the topic I heard about was too many elk and how wolves would be an addition that could take care of the problem.
I have posted this before, I was surprised when I heard they were letting them loose outside the park. That was not the original plan as far as I knew it.
Post by: bradslam on September 29, 2014, 02:16:54 PM
You would say thatYes, because it is true. You are putting words in my mouth, and its clear you haven't read or understood my posts, which makes no difference to me...except when you characterize what I have said in a ridiculous and absurd manner. I realize you might not know the Lolo zone from that starbucks you live by in the Seattle suburbs but please don't try and tell folks I've suggested declines in elk in specific areas are made up.
Hey Chad, did you realize that Shelton is now considered a suburb of Seattle. Your real estate price is about to go way up! :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: sirmissalot on September 29, 2014, 02:35:12 PM
You would say thatYes, because it is true. You are putting words in my mouth, and its clear you haven't read or understood my posts, which makes no difference to me...except when you characterize what I have said in a ridiculous and absurd manner. I realize you might not know the Lolo zone from that starbucks you live by in the Seattle suburbs but please don't try and tell folks I've suggested declines in elk in specific areas are made up.
Hey Chad, did you realize that Shelton is now considered a suburb of Seattle. Your real estate price is about to go way up! :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
:chuckle: boy howdy, something's are lookin up!
In all honesty I was always for the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone, it just made sense to me. I was just amazed at how good of a job the wolves have done. I've read some people on here, one in particular, insist that he wolves have no negative impact, and that things are actually better than ever! In all my travels I've yet to find that to be true, but I will continue on the hunt.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 29, 2014, 02:38:41 PM
Another ignorant statement...or a lie...I'm not sure which. But the last part is probably right...you don't know what you are looking for or looking at so you probably do think wolves have annihilated all game in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. By all means, tell your friends at starbucks the bad news :tup: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:You would say thatYes, because it is true. You are putting words in my mouth, and its clear you haven't read or understood my posts, which makes no difference to me...except when you characterize what I have said in a ridiculous and absurd manner. I realize you might not know the Lolo zone from that starbucks you live by in the Seattle suburbs but please don't try and tell folks I've suggested declines in elk in specific areas are made up.
Hey Chad, did you realize that Shelton is now considered a suburb of Seattle. Your real estate price is about to go way up! :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
:chuckle: boy howdy, something's are lookin up!
In all honesty I was always for the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone, it just made sense to me. I was just amazed at how good of a job the wolves have done. I've read some people on here, one in particular, insist that he wolves have no negative impact, and that things are actually better than ever! In all my travels I've yet to find that to be true, but I will continue on the hunt.