Post by: Rufous on December 20, 2008, 09:56:46 PM
Post by: 270Shooter on December 20, 2008, 10:00:02 PM
I think they are everywhere now :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:.
And I don't think there is anything we can do about it :'( :'( :'(.
Post by: Machias on December 20, 2008, 10:19:31 PM
Post by: NWTFhunter on December 20, 2008, 10:46:41 PM
And if the ground is too frozen
SS
Post by: GEARHEAD on December 21, 2008, 12:39:01 AM
it's clear to me, that there are forces within the wildlife program conspiring to minimize these incidents. the ol', its ok to lie to people, when its in their best interest, because they are stupid rednecks and don't know anybetter.
Post by: addicted on December 21, 2008, 01:36:05 AM
Post by: Slenk on December 21, 2008, 06:28:46 AM
Slenk
Post by: 270Shooter on December 21, 2008, 07:10:02 AM
Post by: Alpinegus on December 21, 2008, 07:35:00 AM
Post by: bankwalker on December 21, 2008, 11:04:02 AM
Since there isn't a comfirmed pack in the yakima area yet. So if I happen to run into one is it still considered a coyote :chuckle: :chuckle: :stirthepot: :guns:
thats the way i look at it. if there are no confirmed packs or wolves in the area then they "must" be coyotes and should be fair game.
Post by: ThePascoKid on December 21, 2008, 11:16:54 AM
Post by: Rufous on December 21, 2008, 05:44:42 PM
Post by: BLUEBULLS on December 22, 2008, 07:37:44 AM
bad news for our herds.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on December 22, 2008, 07:47:01 AM
Since there isn't a comfirmed pack in the yakima area yet. So if I happen to run into one is it still considered a coyote :chuckle: :chuckle: :stirthepot: :guns:
thats the way i look at it. if there are no confirmed packs or wolves in the area then they "must" be coyotes and should be fair game.
Wrong. you are required to know what you're shooting at. The WDFW knows there are wolves around and freely admits that they are here. So, when you shoot one and try to pull that card...it will not work.
Did someone say wolf? Everyone get ready for the SSS poachers to start spouting their bs
Post by: TeacherMan on December 22, 2008, 07:52:35 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on December 22, 2008, 08:01:31 AM
What are we suppose to do about them, let them become a dominate predator, I thought humans where doing a good enough job of that. :dunno: There are enough predators already.
Let the WDFW and your reps know your opinion, and report your sightings, with evidence (tracks, photos, location) to the WDFW so they have accurate population data. Once they have that info. There is a FEDERAL LAW that says the state must work towards recovery of the species (you know the law, It also saved the eagles) so, the WDFW needs to know how many wolves we have so they can continue building a recovery plan and eventually work towards some management.
Post by: Rufous on December 22, 2008, 06:49:09 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on December 23, 2008, 12:30:18 PM
What if most of us in this state (or county since most of the idiot liberals in the Seattle area will win the vote) do not want wolves in our state? Do we as a state have no say in what goes on in our state? I thought we as states were largely autonomous. Why can the Feds dictate to us what goes on in our state? Wolves are not endangered. So what if there are no wolves in the lower 48? Who says there must be wolves in the lower 48? Those that do not want us hunting anything. That is my opinion. There are lots of wolves in Canada and Alaska so they are not endangered. We do not need them here in Washington. We (mankind) can manage our prey species effectively on our own. Why do we need to add wolves to the mix to reduce prey populations? The elk in the Blue Mountains of SE WA state are already hurting from a variety of factors, including too many open roads, too much human encroachment into the wild lands and too much predation by coyotes, cougars and bears.
You sort of hit the nail on the head with your comment about roads and human encroachment. The best thing we can do for the wildlife is block roads and protect their habitat. The wolves will take some animals, but certianly not all of them. If we could create and manage quality habitat in our NFS lands and our major public property, we could have both.
Wolves in WA are still listed. The Endangered Species Act is the law that says we have to work towards re-establishment of the species. It's the same law that says we need to protect eagles and grizzly bears.
Post by: Thenewguy on December 23, 2008, 01:04:26 PM
What are we suppose to do about them, let them become a dominate predator, I thought humans where doing a good enough job of that. :dunno: There are enough predators already.
Let the WDFW and your reps know your opinion, and report your sightings, with evidence (tracks, photos, location) to the WDFW so they have accurate population data. Once they have that info. There is a FEDERAL LAW that says the state must work towards recovery of the species (you know the law, It also saved the eagles) so, the WDFW needs to know how many wolves we have so they can continue building a recovery plan and eventually work towards some management.
The same management they have been doing with our current animlals? no thanks...
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on December 23, 2008, 01:51:02 PM
The WDFW has some tough decisions to make. I agree that some of the management appears to defy logic, and I think they could do a lot of things better. I also understand that they have lots of tough decisions to make about our game animals and how we hunt them. They will be the ones in charge of the wolves eventually. So, if you want to make a difference you should write a well constructed and thought out letter to your reps and to our WDFW outlining what you think should happen. Join RMEF or a sportsmens group and help them do the same thing. Coming on HuntWa and writing SSS everytime someone mentions wolves is not going to help. Being a part of a group and attending meetings to voice your opinion might actually make a difference.What are we suppose to do about them, let them become a dominate predator, I thought humans where doing a good enough job of that. :dunno: There are enough predators already.
Let the WDFW and your reps know your opinion, and report your sightings, with evidence (tracks, photos, location) to the WDFW so they have accurate population data. Once they have that info. There is a FEDERAL LAW that says the state must work towards recovery of the species (you know the law, It also saved the eagles) so, the WDFW needs to know how many wolves we have so they can continue building a recovery plan and eventually work towards some management.
The same management they have been doing with our current animlals? no thanks...
Maybe someone could draft a well written letter (s?) for the HuntWa group and you could email it to our reps?
Post by: skybusterbo on December 23, 2008, 02:21:27 PM
Post by: Machias on December 23, 2008, 02:42:06 PM
Looks folks I am as frustrated as you about the wolves that are here and the ones that are on their way, but WAcoyotehunter is right, first off most of us vent by saying SSS, however we know we won't, our pocket book wouldn't allow it and better yet our ethics as honest and law abiding hunters won't allow us. So venting and saying SSS only really does one thing and that is hurt our image and may lead some of these youngsters down the worng path. As much as we hate it we have to work inside the law and get things changed that way. At least other states that are currently over run with them are leading the fight so hopefully our herds will not be dessimated before we get good legal relief from what is coming. :twocents:
Post by: Elkstuffer on December 23, 2008, 06:35:04 PM
Question: Are Federally protected animals still fair game to the local Indian tribes?
Post by: runniNgunnin on December 23, 2008, 06:48:42 PM
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: MichaelJ on December 23, 2008, 06:52:27 PM
Michael
Post by: runamuk on December 23, 2008, 06:55:14 PM
Wolves were part of the ecology of this state. The endangered species act wants them reintroduced. Now the bigger issue is how do we manage them? So far it seems only Alaska is allowed to manage theirs.
Idaho is in a world of hurt because they haven't been allowed to manage them. I was there I voted, the people voted the feds shot them down. The fed doesn't want wolves managed by the states. The anti's don't understand the term management.
As for WA and wolves being introduced.....yes yes they were about 10 years ago or more. Several packs were created and when people started claiming sightings it was kept very hush hush. Same with the grizzlies. No photo's to confirm it.
Taking pics is a start, documenting numbers and areas will help. Hell send pics to the papers. Knowing how many there really are and where is important. Of course the same could be said for the hoof rot in elk, and other management issues.
Wolves do not have to be bad news IF and this is a huge IF, if we can manage them without being dictated to by do-gooders who know nothing of animal husbandry, and wildlife biology.
Post by: jackelope on December 23, 2008, 08:29:02 PM
don't get me wrong...i don't want them running around here or anywhere, but it's a fact of life we are going to have to get used to. everybody saying SSS just makes me think those folks are about equal with poachers of any kind, because thats what it is...plain and simple. they are federally protected, and if you kill one, you're a poacher.
Post by: American Rattlesnake on December 24, 2008, 02:11:23 PM
Do we as a state have no say in what goes on in our state? I thought we as states were largely autonomous. Why can the Feds dictate to us what goes on in our state?
I am afraid we lost that battle back in the 1860's.
Post by: American Rattlesnake on December 24, 2008, 02:16:14 PM
Once they meet their quota then they start managing? Not from what I've seen! Didn't they have a quota of like 350 or something like that for ID somewhere? Now they are up to almost 700? (This is just off the top of my head, and no I can't cite the info... so take it with a grain of salt...) And have they started managing??? NOPE!
Michael
To be perfectly fair, though, remember that ID, MT, and WY instituted hunting seasons for wolves in '08. They started their management plan but were stopped by a federal court order.
Post by: zach318 on December 24, 2008, 06:30:52 PM
Post by: jackelope on December 24, 2008, 07:39:35 PM
what does "SSS" mean?
shoot shovel shut up
Post by: bucklucky on December 24, 2008, 07:55:07 PM
Post by: jackelope on December 24, 2008, 07:56:13 PM
Sh_T, Shower, and Shave ;)
that too...
Post by: hunt4 on December 29, 2008, 11:23:19 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on December 30, 2008, 08:48:59 AM
http://wlf.rliv.com/wlf002001.jpg
That animal is not from Washington
Post by: hunt4 on December 30, 2008, 09:03:10 AM
Quote
That animal is not from Washington
How do you know he was not at one time?
Go to this sight educate your self
http://www.saveelk.com/wolf_004.htm
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwlf.rliv.com%2Fwlf001001.jpg&hash=19d30a93a46589899bc462f7c393c2ac0c761e1a)
Post by: benbo30 on December 30, 2008, 09:22:51 AM
isnt WDFW still claming that all sightings are coyotes..... legally we can shoot coyotes
yea we can just say i thought it was a coyote
Post by: hunt4 on December 30, 2008, 09:26:05 AM
I am not in the popular opinion but here goes.
Wolves were part of the ecology of this state.
Yes Timber Wolves NOT Canadian grey wolves
http://www.saveelk.com/wolf_005.htm
Post by: benbo30 on December 30, 2008, 09:26:54 AM
SSS.:yeah:
And if the ground is too frozen
SS
Post by: hunt4 on December 30, 2008, 09:39:22 AM
WAcoyotehunter you will not be needed anymore :dunno: :rolleyes:
Post by: benbo30 on December 30, 2008, 09:42:03 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on December 30, 2008, 01:53:17 PM
I am not in the popular opinion but here goes.
Wolves were part of the ecology of this state.
Yes Timber Wolves NOT Canadian grey wolves
http://www.saveelk.com/wolf_005.htm
That "save our elk" website is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. It's just redneck sensationalism.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on December 30, 2008, 01:55:06 PM
No...look at the WDFW website. It's pretty clear that the recognize that there are some wolves here :beatdeadhorse:isnt WDFW still claming that all sightings are coyotes..... legally we can shoot coyotes
yea we can just say i thought it was a coyote
Post by: skybusterbo on December 30, 2008, 03:37:53 PM
Post by: mossback91 on December 30, 2008, 03:58:08 PM
Post by: hunt4 on December 30, 2008, 04:08:57 PM
Quote
That "save our elk" website is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. It's just redneck sensationalism.
Pictures interviews movies articles facts = redneck sensationalism! Now that's someone with there head in the sand.
I would like you to debunk any of the information they have with any hard evidence they are just over sensationalism anything.
You think there just making up this :crap: for what reason? What is your reasoning for that statement? Is it that it makes you uncomfortable with your beliefs and that maybe everything the bleeding hearts have piped into your head might not be true?
Do you think the pictures of the cow elk with there asses eating out to get to the calf that is about to be born are PHOTO SHOPED?
Information seems to be coming from Federal and State Government, and Media
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/mammals/severity/results.htm#table1
http://www.yellowstonepark.com/MoreToKnow/ShowNewsDetails.aspx?newsid=10
Cathy Ellis, Special to Calgary Herald; Canwest News Service
Published: Mar 6th, 2008
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin
just for some examples off there fact page
I will stop and listen to any thing informed you have to rebuttel, but for now i have a hard time understanding how people can think bringing in another predator that is not even native to the area is a good idea they should not even be here for starters. We should not even have to worry about a management program for the Canadian Gray Wolf !
Post by: docsven on December 30, 2008, 04:38:16 PM
Post by: skybusterbo on December 30, 2008, 04:55:04 PM
According to that study, if I am reading it right, a collection of 5 known packs killed 61 elk in a one month period in 1997. Project that to about 700 elk in one year, not counting deer, moose, or bison. What will they eat when the elk are gone? Also noted that the number of wolves almost doubled in one year (from 1997 to 1998)If this survey is true, then in 5 years we will have a terrible problem in this state. Maybe sooner than that. NOT GOOD >:(
Post by: docsven on December 30, 2008, 05:08:05 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on December 31, 2008, 07:51:39 AM
Look closely at the Study about the #of elk eaten. It's an exerpt from the 'real' document. I would like to see the actual document. It's a study on winter predatation, so you cannot assume a 12 month # from that data.
Hunt4- my head is not in the sand- I know there are wolves here, and that they eat elk/deer/moose. They've been here for a LONG time. This isn't news. What makes you think they're going to have a population explosion and eat every living thing in WA? We're not even close to crossing that bridge.
BTW- many of the wolves we're seeing in WA are coming down from BC...not up from yellowstone, which makes them a native species and, yes, part of the ecosystem.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on December 31, 2008, 10:09:32 AM
Quote
That "save our elk" website is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. It's just redneck sensationalism.
Pictures interviews movies articles facts = redneck sensationalism! Now that's someone with there head in the sand.
I would like you to debunk any of the information they have with any hard evidence they are just over sensationalism anything.
You think there just making up this :crap: for what reason? What is your reasoning for that statement? Is it that it makes you uncomfortable with your beliefs and that maybe everything the bleeding hearts have piped into your head might not be true?
Do you think the pictures of the cow elk with there asses eating out to get to the calf that is about to be born are PHOTO SHOPED?
Information seems to be coming from Federal and State Government, and Media
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/mammals/severity/results.htm#table1
http://www.yellowstonepark.com/MoreToKnow/ShowNewsDetails.aspx?newsid=10
Cathy Ellis, Special to Calgary Herald; Canwest News Service
Published: Mar 6th, 2008
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin
just for some examples off there fact page
I will stop and listen to any thing informed you have to rebuttel, but for now i have a hard time understanding how people can think bringing in another predator that is not even native to the area is a good idea they should not even be here for starters. We should not even have to worry about a management program for the Canadian Gray Wolf !
After revisiting the site and really studying some of the material, I'm sticking to my guns. This is the dumbest "wildlife management" site I have ever seen. They have taken multiple studies and letters from professionals and totally changed the context. The have also taken some extreme 'liberties' in their assumptions about wolf predation.
See the speech by the west yellowstone director and shoe me where he says the goal of the wolf reintro was designed to remove 30,000 ranchers from public land.
I (btw) am in favor of revisiting grazing leases and removing some of the animals from public property. I'm also in favor of increased habitat protection and road closures. I've said it here before- weeds are a bigger threat to our elk than wolves are. If the habitat exists we can have both.
Post by: hunt4 on December 31, 2008, 10:25:52 AM
I understand any one can pull out exerpt and turn it any way they want. I do not want to see this State doing the same thing to us.
Very intersting read on there facts page
The Underlying Fraud and Deception behind this Wolf Introduction Exposed
“Nothing Wrong With Lying to the Public”
"Oversight Committee member Don Clower told us
the Committee knew the prey population figures were
highly inflated when they were given to FWS but said that
was necessary to support the rapid build-up of wolves that
would occur in the Nonessential Experimental recovery
option. Then he said he saw nothing wrong with lying to
the public to accomplish that goal."
from the Smithsonian Institution
Under a strict
interpretation of the current taxonomy, wolves that were introduced to YNP and central Idaho were from
founder populations of C. l. occidentalis and C. l. columbianus. In the 1978,
WDFW
The gray wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains “Distinct Population Segment” (DPS) that included the eastern third of Washington was federally de-listed in March 2008. De-listing was based on increased populations in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming where wolf re-introductions occurred in the mid-1990’s. Inclusion of the eastern third of Washington in that DPS was based on distances that wolves disperse, measured by relocations of radio-collared wolves.
There are no federal or state plans to reintroduce wolves into Washington. With the success of recent federal wolf-recovery efforts in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, it is likely that wolves will increasingly disperse into eastern Washington. State and federal wildlife authorities are monitoring the activity of resident wolves to learn more about their use of habitat and to reduce potential conflicts.
DRAFT WOLF CONSERVATION
AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR WASHINGTON
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/gray_wolf/conservation_plan.pdf
I found this funny "NOT" this is in our states grey wolf plan
"Washington could conceivably develop a sizable wolf-related tourist industry, depending on where wolves reestablish, at what numbers, and their detectability."
WDFG
Wolves were again found in the area during 1991, 1992, and 1993. However, it was later learned that a pet wolf released at Hozomeen in the early 1990s (Martino 1997) was responsible for some of these sightings
Additionally, one wolf was found dead near Callispell Lake in southern Pend Oreille County in May 1994 (Palmquist 2002; WDFW, unpubl. data). This animal was radio-collared and had immigrated from northwestern Montana.
In February 2002, a radio-marked female spent several weeks in northern Pend Oreille County, including sites near Metaline Falls and the Salmo-Priest Wilderness (Palmquist 2002). This
individual had also immigrated from northwestern Montana and soon departed for British
Columbia.
In summary, Washington currently holds at least a few solitary wolves in scattered locations and one pack confirmed to have bred, with possibly one or several additional packs present. Wolves occurring in northern Washington probably represent animals that have dispersed from areas of northern Idaho and northwestern Montana that were naturally repopulated by wolves, or from British Columbia ;). By contrast, wolves present in the Blue Mountains probably originate from central Idaho (via Oregon), where a population was reestablished through reintroductions in 1995 and 1996
The rates at which wolves kill and consume prey are highly variable with time of year and species taken. Both rates (usually expressed as biomass per wolf per day) have been investigated in many North American studies and average about 7.2 kg/wolf/day for kill rate (winter only; Mech and Peterson 2003) and 5.4 kg/wolf/day for consumption rate (winter only; Peterson and Ciucci 2003). The figure for kill rate roughly corresponds to about one 150-kg elk killed per 21 days per wolf (or 17 elk per wolf per year) or one 60-kg deer killed per 8.3 days per wolf (or 44 deer per wolf per year). However, these estimates are probably somewhat inaccurate because they are based on 1) winter studies, when predation rates are highest causing annual take to be overestimated, and 2) do not account well for the number of fawns and calves killed in summer or supplementary prey (e.g., beavers, hares) taken in other seasons (Mech and Peterson 2003, Smith et al. 2004). White et al.2003) attempted to overcome some of these problems and estimated an annual kill rate of 25 ungulates per wolf per year in prey-rich Yellowstone National Park. However, it should be noted that wolf kill rates are generally higher for reestablishing and expanding wolf populations like those at Yellowstone than for long established and stable populations (Jaffe 2001). Predicting predation rates for wolves in Washington is difficult because of many uncertainties, including where wolves will become reestablished in the state and at what population level.
Post by: hunt4 on December 31, 2008, 10:29:19 AM
GREAT IDEA all for it
Post by: runamuk on January 02, 2009, 09:02:12 PM
Quote
That "save our elk" website is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. It's just redneck sensationalism.
Pictures interviews movies articles facts = redneck sensationalism! Now that's someone with there head in the sand.
I would like you to debunk any of the information they have with any hard evidence they are just over sensationalism anything.
You think there just making up this :crap: for what reason? What is your reasoning for that statement? Is it that it makes you uncomfortable with your beliefs and that maybe everything the bleeding hearts have piped into your head might not be true?
Do you think the pictures of the cow elk with there asses eating out to get to the calf that is about to be born are PHOTO SHOPED?
Information seems to be coming from Federal and State Government, and Media
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/mammals/severity/results.htm#table1
http://www.yellowstonepark.com/MoreToKnow/ShowNewsDetails.aspx?newsid=10
Cathy Ellis, Special to Calgary Herald; Canwest News Service
Published: Mar 6th, 2008
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin
just for some examples off there fact page
I will stop and listen to any thing informed you have to rebuttel, but for now i have a hard time understanding how people can think bringing in another predator that is not even native to the area is a good idea they should not even be here for starters. We should not even have to worry about a management program for the Canadian Gray Wolf !
After revisiting the site and really studying some of the material, I'm sticking to my guns. This is the dumbest "wildlife management" site I have ever seen. They have taken multiple studies and letters from professionals and totally changed the context. The have also taken some extreme 'liberties' in their assumptions about wolf predation.
See the speech by the west yellowstone director and shoe me where he says the goal of the wolf reintro was designed to remove 30,000 ranchers from public land.
I (btw) am in favor of revisiting grazing leases and removing some of the animals from public property. I'm also in favor of increased habitat protection and road closures. I've said it here before- weeds are a bigger threat to our elk than wolves are. If the habitat exists we can have both.
+1
Post by: Pathfinder101 on January 03, 2009, 12:30:36 PM
I had a trail cam out for about 4 weeks this August and September until elk archery started. Got 3 different adult bears on it, and 2 cougar (I am sure it was the same cougar twice-I hope). I only had one camera out. That's a lot of predators on one ridge. I only had one camera out. Like I said, the elk seem to be holding their own and the whitetails breed like rabbits. I am worried about our mulies though.
I am afraid that a healthy wolf pack would put the last nail in the coffin...
Post by: bowhuntin on January 03, 2009, 01:05:30 PM
Post by: Joeman3285 on January 04, 2009, 04:14:08 PM
First off, I would like to say I hunt and I enjoy hunting. I enjoy game meat and I enjoy getting out into the woods. I also enjoy the feeling of self-sufficiency I get from bringing home a game animal. That being said let me voice my opinions on this wolf issue.
Someone said they are part of the ecosystem. I agree whole-heartedly with this. Wolves, humans, and prey have lived together for what some archeologists believe to be upwards of 40,000 years. Now suddenly in the last 200 years we will not tolerate the existence of other predators. We humans are the only predators I can think of that will go out of their way to kill the "opposition". You don't see bears hunting wolves or wolves hunting cougars even though if one of more these predators didn't exist then there would be conceivably more game for the others (you may point to that youtube vid where the wolves killed that yote, but it looked to me like the wolves were defending their kill as opposed to seeking out their competitors, as if coyotes are much by way of a competitor at all). So why do we feel compelled to hate/fear wolves?
Since the advent of agriculture and its encroachment onto hunter-gather type cultures, we have felt like the land and anything in or on it is ours by right. This mindset has led to huge losses of wilderness through logging, mining, and development. I repeatedly see people here referring to "our" elk, or "our" game. What makes it ours other then the fact that we are here? By that same logic, these prey animals, if they belong to anyone, belong as much to the wolves as us, or even more theirs since they have been here much longer then our race has. Perhaps now we feel as though the wolves are the intruders since in our short memory, there have been none. But remember, wolves were here long before the first of our ancestors were even thinking about crossing the ocean. Someone mentioned that these 'intruding wolves' are in-fact Canadian wolves, not timber wolves. Well, as far as I know there is one species of wolf in NA, the grey wolf. This species is divided into three or four other varieties based more on geographic occurrence than actual genetic difference: Arctic wolves, red wolves (may be a true subspecies, not sure), grey/timber wolves, and mexican wolves. Therefore, to say that any migrating wolves in WA do not belong would be similar to saying that we do not belong and should go back to Europe.
Some people have expressed fears regarding the impact of wolves on their hunting. Will there be an impact? Probably. However, I was reading a study done in Yellowstone on yearly wolf predation. Something like 3 monitored packs were bringing down 30-35 elk a month (measured in March and Nov). Projecting that over a year gives a maximum of 410 elk lost to 3 packs of wolves. Now think about predator/prey relationships.
That being said, the number of predators always follows the number of prey. A spike in elk populations will be followed by an increase in predators. Likewise, a decrease in elk will be followed by a decrease in predators. The number of predators and prey is never stable in nature, but only fluctuates about some mean. Now, throw in humans who are independent of this system. That is, we have other means of sustenance which means that as a species we are not effect by fluctuations in prey animals. Therefore, the only limiting factor in how much game we kill is ourselves. And we have an incomplete understanding of these fragile relationships (yes incomplete, no matter how many biologists we put in the field there will always some new variable that we will uncover that will throw off our predictions). As a result we are the single largest threat to game.
I guess my point here is this: If you want to point fingers for a decrease in game and harder hunting point it toward over population of people. More people = more hunting which says nothing of our encroachment onto these animals habitat. So don't be so anti-wolf. They have every right to be here and are much more healthy for the ecosystem then we are, no matter how good our 'management' plan is.
Post by: Ridgerunner on January 04, 2009, 04:23:58 PM
Quote
I am not particularly excited about having wolves in this state, but the one thing that has me concerned is when will they get delisted and managed. Idaho, Montana and Wyoming are still fighting to get them delisted and managed. If I remember correctly the wolf management plan in our state calls for fifteen breeding pairs just to get delisted. Now the other states had a number given to them and they watched as that number was passed and is still growing and there doesn't seem to me that they are going to be delisted anytime soon because of litigation. I think that is what lies in wait for us. Even if we hit that number they have set, we won't get to hunt them and manage them until it well exceeds their minimum of getting them off the list and then it will all go to hell with the courts and litigation for years because of groups like Defenders of Wildlife, etc.
AMEN. That is the problem, the species are hitting the recovery goals and the anti groups are letting them be delisted they are fighting to keep them listed. If management would be turned over to the state it wouldn't be the problem that it currently is in MT, ID and WY and will be hte problem here in WA.
Post by: Thenewguy on January 04, 2009, 04:28:27 PM
So I was reading this thread and I have several strong opinions myself on wolves, humans, and prey animals. I fear that many of these opinions may be very unpopular but here it goes.
First off, I would like to say I hunt and I enjoy hunting. I enjoy game meat and I enjoy getting out into the woods. I also enjoy the feeling of self-sufficiency I get from bringing home a game animal. That being said let me voice my opinions on this wolf issue.
Someone said they are part of the ecosystem. I agree whole-heartedly with this. Wolves, humans, and prey have lived together for what some archeologists believe to be upwards of 40,000 years. Now suddenly in the last 200 years we will not tolerate the existence of other predators. We humans are the only predators I can think of that will go out of their way to kill the "opposition". You don't see bears hunting wolves or wolves hunting cougars even though if one of more these predators didn't exist then there would be conceivably more game for the others (you may point to that youtube vid where the wolves killed that yote, but it looked to me like the wolves were defending their kill as opposed to seeking out their competitors, as if coyotes are much by way of a competitor at all). So why do we feel compelled to hate/fear wolves?
Since the advent of agriculture and its encroachment onto hunter-gather type cultures, we have felt like the land and anything in or on it is ours by right. This mindset has led to huge losses of wilderness through logging, mining, and development. I repeatedly see people here referring to "our" elk, or "our" game. What makes it ours other then the fact that we are here? By that same logic, these prey animals, if they belong to anyone, belong as much to the wolves as us, or even more theirs since they have been here much longer then our race has. Perhaps now we feel as though the wolves are the intruders since in our short memory, there have been none. But remember, wolves were here long before the first of our ancestors were even thinking about crossing the ocean. Someone mentioned that these 'intruding wolves' are in-fact Canadian wolves, not timber wolves. Well, as far as I know there is one species of wolf in NA, the grey wolf. This species is divided into three or four other varieties based more on geographic occurrence than actual genetic difference: Arctic wolves, red wolves (may be a true subspecies, not sure), grey/timber wolves, and mexican wolves. Therefore, to say that any migrating wolves in WA do not belong would be similar to saying that we do not belong and should go back to Europe.
Some people have expressed fears regarding the impact of wolves on their hunting. Will there be an impact? Probably. However, I was reading a study done in Yellowstone on yearly wolf predation. Something like 3 monitored packs were bringing down 30-35 elk a month (measured in March and Nov). Projecting that over a year gives a maximum of 410 elk lost to 3 packs of wolves. Now think about predator/prey relationships.
That being said, the number of predators always follows the number of prey. A spike in elk populations will be followed by an increase in predators. Likewise, a decrease in elk will be followed by a decrease in predators. The number of predators and prey is never stable in nature, but only fluctuates about some mean. Now, throw in humans who are independent of this system. That is, we have other means of sustenance which means that as a species we are not effect by fluctuations in prey animals. Therefore, the only limiting factor in how much game we kill is ourselves. And we have an incomplete understanding of these fragile relationships (yes incomplete, no matter how many biologists we put in the field there will always some new variable that we will uncover that will throw off our predictions). As a result we are the single largest threat to game.
I guess my point here is this: If you want to point fingers for a decrease in game and harder hunting point it toward over population of people. More people = more hunting which says nothing of our encroachment onto these animals habitat. So don't be so anti-wolf. They have every right to be here and are much more healthy for the ecosystem then we are, no matter how good our 'management' plan is.
I respect your opinion but 2 things i think you missed:
1. We can;t do anything about the over population of people...
2. when Wolves and people lived together 200 years ago, we didn;t have concrete and cars destroying the habitat of our already failing deer and elk herds
Post by: docsven on January 04, 2009, 05:46:56 PM
I don't have anything against the wolves, I just wish the State had more habitat, gave farmers more incentive to put food plots in the corners and edges of fields for game etc. Just don't think hunters are as well represented in this state as necessary.
Post by: FrankDown on January 04, 2009, 08:32:23 PM
I do think that it will be hard to manage them with the anti's gunning for protection, like in the other western states. if a problem arises though it may make it difficult to take care of it.
As far as an intervention of humans thing goes, hunting period is an intervention, and without hunting, who cares what happens to them? Remember that hunters are the ones that started a lot of reintroduction programs to begin wtih, and brought back numbers to those species that were dwindling. Not tree huggers. I think that emotion plays too much in some management practices and definately antis. Look at it naturally and scientifically. Wolves are natural predators here, yes they will eat elk, its possible that they will eat your little girl or a dog out the backyard, but most likely they will be introduced, grow in numbers, and not be managed like in the other states they were reintroduced to. As long as they are manged properly is the key. Theres other big proplems with the states game and animal management philosophy that need to be addressed before they throw in another variable.
Post by: hunt4 on January 04, 2009, 09:46:44 PM
(2) Federal implementation of wolf introduction has violated the Endangered Species act (ESA) on virtually every count. Dr. Richard Mitchell, PhD., one of the original authors of the ESA, traveled from Washington, D.C., on January 11, 2000, to testify in Billings [Montana] at the Predator Management Symposium. Dr. Mitchell stated to an audience of several hundred, including Sen. Conrad Burns, that it was a violation of the ESA to dump the Canadian Grey[wolf] on top of the Rocky Mountain wolf.
(3) The Rocky Mountain wolf didn't need to be ‘re-introduced’ -- because it was already there. Locals testified at the aforementioned event to having seen the native wolf in and around the park prior to the "soft" introduction of this "experimental-non essential" predator that was already migrating into Montana naturally from Canada.
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on January 05, 2009, 10:46:10 AM
http://www.saveelk.com/
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on January 05, 2009, 12:40:36 PM
1) The wolves dropped into Yellowstone Park were not Rocky Mountain wolves, known in the scientific community as Canis Lupus Irremotus, a smaller animal that hunted in pairs and was the indigenous species in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. Rather, they were the Canadian Grey Wolf, a super sized predator hunting in super sized packs that evolved to chase caribou herds for hundreds of miles.
(2) Federal implementation of wolf introduction has violated the Endangered Species act (ESA) on virtually every count. Dr. Richard Mitchell, PhD., one of the original authors of the ESA, traveled from Washington, D.C., on January 11, 2000, to testify in Billings [Montana] at the Predator Management Symposium. Dr. Mitchell stated to an audience of several hundred, including Sen. Conrad Burns, that it was a violation of the ESA to dump the Canadian Grey[wolf] on top of the Rocky Mountain wolf.
(3) The Rocky Mountain wolf didn't need to be ‘re-introduced’ -- because it was already there. Locals testified at the aforementioned event to having seen the native wolf in and around the park prior to the "soft" introduction of this "experimental-non essential" predator that was already migrating into Montana naturally from Canada.
Let me guess- this info is all from the very scientific minds over at "save our elk". They twist the facts as well as the anti's do, only in the opposite direction.
Also- addressing #3 there have been wolves reported in WA off and on for the last 50 yrs. So, there is a high likelihood that some/many of WA's wolves are not the reintroduced wolves, but a population that has been around a long time.
Post by: hunt4 on January 08, 2009, 07:37:09 AM
Quote
No somthing out of Bozeman, Montana newspaper
Let me guess- this info is all from the very scientific minds over at "save our elk". They twist the facts as well as the anti's do, only in the opposite direction.
Post by: docsven on January 08, 2009, 09:01:20 AM
"Also- addressing #3 there have been wolves reported in WA off and on for the last 50 yrs. So, there is a high likelihood that some/many of WA's wolves are not the reintroduced wolves, but a population that has been around a long time."
Good Point-