Post by: pianoman9701 on January 19, 2015, 04:35:40 PM
http://www.capitalpress.com/Washington/20150116/washington-lawmaker-proposes-moving-wolves (http://www.capitalpress.com/Washington/20150116/washington-lawmaker-proposes-moving-wolves)
A northeast Washington legislator introduces bills to speed up wolf recovery.
OLYMPIA, Wash. — A northeast Washington legislator has introduced two bills to hasten wolf recovery and the day the predator no longer is protected by the state’s endangered species law.
Rep. Joel Kretz, an Okanogan County Republican, said ranchers can’t wait several more years for wolves to spread out before measures are put in place to control their numbers.
He said “social acceptance” of wolves has eroded in his district because his constituents have suffered the consequences of what’s purported to be a statewide goal.
“I’m really concerned about the disproportionate distribution more than anything,” Kretz said. “I don’t want to kill the last wolf, but we have to have more management tools than we’ve had so far.”
House Bill 1224 would authorize the state Department of Fish and Wildlife to study moving wolves to state or federal lands in regions of the state they have yet to venture.
House Bill 1225 would allow the state to remove wolves from its endangered species list in regions where recovery goals have been met. Regional delisting would open up discussions about whether to regulate wolves as a game animal in some areas.
The state’s recovery plan carves up the state in three districts, with each region needing at least four breeding pairs. The plan does not limit the wolf population.
The state’s wolf recovery plan holds out as an option moving wolves to help the species establish itself throughout the state. WDFW Game Manager Dave Ware said the agency isn’t considering it.
At a work session Thursday, Ware told the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee that moving wolves would require studying the environmental impacts. The studies would take years and by the time they were done, wolf recovery objectives would probably have been met, he said.
WDFW projects recovery could occur as soon as 2021.
“Moving a few wolves out of the northeast probably isn’t going to solve your problem because those wolves would probably be replaced pretty fast,” Ware told Kretz at the work session.
Kretz proposes waiving state environmental review laws in moving wolves. The state would still have to comply with federal laws.
Two years ago, Kretz introduced tongue-in-cheek legislation calling on the Olympic Peninsula and Whidbey Island to “enjoy” the “ecological benefits” of “apex predators.” The bill this year has a serious tone, calling on WDFW to look for “suitable (wolf) habitat that is located the farthest from any known and recognized wolf packs and the most unlikely to be populated through the natural dispersion of the species.”
The bills have been referred to the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. Hearings on the bills have not been scheduled.
“I think there’s more of a recognition we have a real problem in the northeast,” Kretz said.
De-listing wolves by region would erase a lot of the frustration, he said.
Post by: montana44mag on January 19, 2015, 04:42:49 PM
Except every 5 years Id open it to night hunting as well for 1 year. That way they cant just pattern to thrive at night.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 19, 2015, 04:43:26 PM
Why do they need environmental impact studies to move wolves to areas already slated to require them before plan goals are met? Ware is basically saying that they made the plan to have a given number of packs (15 total) spread out in different zones in the state, but to hasten the spread to those areas, they'd need an environmental impact study. Wasn't there an environmental impact study done to determine the plan to begin with? If not, why? If there was, what is the need now?
Post by: mkcj on January 19, 2015, 04:45:37 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on January 19, 2015, 04:46:37 PM
At a work session Thursday, Ware told the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee that moving wolves would require studying the environmental impacts. The studies would take years and by the time they were done, wolf recovery objectives would probably have been met, he said.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 19, 2015, 04:48:46 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 19, 2015, 04:55:14 PM
If the wolf plan is determined to need changed in some way, then re-write it. I can't believe anyone would be in favor of this. Those that think it's a good idea, did you agree with what has been done by the USFWS in the past- moving wolves from Canada into Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming? If not, then why would you think this is okay?
To me it's a total waste of money, and the WDFW does not have extra ,money that just needs to be thrown away. If there's money for this then there's money to hire more enforcement officers and try to get poaching under control.
Post by: mkcj on January 19, 2015, 05:00:09 PM
"The state’s wolf recovery plan holds out as an option moving wolves to help the species establish itself throughout the state. WDFW Game Manager Dave Ware said the agency isn’t considering it."
So they could do this right now!
Post by: KFhunter on January 19, 2015, 05:13:04 PM
Why would we want wolves moved into areas they may not ever get to on their own? Stupid. I don't want any more money wasted on wolves than what has already been wasted. Wolves will go wherever they want on their own. They don't need our help.
If the wolf plan is determined to need changed in some way, then re-write it. I can't believe anyone would be in favor of this. Those that think it's a good idea, did you agree with what has been done by the USFWS in the past- moving wolves from Canada into Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming? If not, then why would you think this is okay?
To me it's a total waste of money, and the WDFW does not have extra ,money that just needs to be thrown away. If there's money for this then there's money to hire more enforcement officers and try to get poaching under control.
You don't think the wolves would do well in the hoof rot areas?
Might be a win/win
I'm all for it.
Post by: bearpaw on January 19, 2015, 05:24:00 PM
Why would we want wolves moved into areas they may not ever get to on their own? Stupid. I don't want any more money wasted on wolves than what has already been wasted. Wolves will go wherever they want on their own. They don't need our help.
If the wolf plan is determined to need changed in some way, then re-write it. I can't believe anyone would be in favor of this. Those that think it's a good idea, did you agree with what has been done by the USFWS in the past- moving wolves from Canada into Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming? If not, then why would you think this is okay?
To me it's a total waste of money, and the WDFW does not have extra ,money that just needs to be thrown away. If there's money for this then there's money to hire more enforcement officers and try to get poaching under control.
Obviously you are not too concerned about what happens to us in the NE until wolves are delisted, maybe if you shared in the many claimed benefits of wolves you would have a better understanding of why NE Washington residents are fed up and you would be more willing to help get them delisted! :dunno:
Post by: KFhunter on January 19, 2015, 05:25:08 PM
Why would we want wolves moved into areas they may not ever get to on their own? Stupid. I don't want any more money wasted on wolves than what has already been wasted. Wolves will go wherever they want on their own. They don't need our help.
If the wolf plan is determined to need changed in some way, then re-write it. I can't believe anyone would be in favor of this. Those that think it's a good idea, did you agree with what has been done by the USFWS in the past- moving wolves from Canada into Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming? If not, then why would you think this is okay?
To me it's a total waste of money, and the WDFW does not have extra ,money that just needs to be thrown away. If there's money for this then there's money to hire more enforcement officers and try to get poaching under control.
Obviously you are not too concerned about what happens to us in the NE until wolves are delisted, maybe if you shared in the many claimed benefits of wolves you would have a better understanding of why NE Washington residents are fed up and you would be more willing to help get them delisted! :dunno:
exactly, moving them to the hoof rot area would supercharge their population. I know some are there already but there's plenty of room to move some more, concentrating on the worst hoof rot areas.
Post by: bearpaw on January 19, 2015, 05:28:08 PM
Why would we want wolves moved into areas they may not ever get to on their own? Stupid. I don't want any more money wasted on wolves than what has already been wasted. Wolves will go wherever they want on their own. They don't need our help.
If the wolf plan is determined to need changed in some way, then re-write it. I can't believe anyone would be in favor of this. Those that think it's a good idea, did you agree with what has been done by the USFWS in the past- moving wolves from Canada into Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming? If not, then why would you think this is okay?
To me it's a total waste of money, and the WDFW does not have extra ,money that just needs to be thrown away. If there's money for this then there's money to hire more enforcement officers and try to get poaching under control.
Obviously you are not too concerned about what happens to us in the NE until wolves are delisted, maybe if you shared in the many claimed benefits of wolves you would have a better understanding of why NE Washington residents are fed up and you would be more willing to help get them delisted! :dunno:
exactly, moving them to the hoof rot area would supercharge their population. I know some are there already but there's plenty of room to move some more, concentrating on the worst hoof rot areas.
I think wolves could also help reduce the goat population in the Olympics, something the park has wanted to do for years!
Post by: wolfbait on January 19, 2015, 05:32:29 PM
Why would we want wolves moved into areas they may not ever get to on their own? Stupid. I don't want any more money wasted on wolves than what has already been wasted. Wolves will go wherever they want on their own. They don't need our help.
If the wolf plan is determined to need changed in some way, then re-write it. I can't believe anyone would be in favor of this. Those that think it's a good idea, did you agree with what has been done by the USFWS in the past- moving wolves from Canada into Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming? If not, then why would you think this is okay?
To me it's a total waste of money, and the WDFW does not have extra ,money that just needs to be thrown away. If there's money for this then there's money to hire more enforcement officers and try to get poaching under control.
Obviously you are not too concerned about what happens to us in the NE until wolves are delisted, maybe if you shared in the many claimed benefits of wolves you would have a better understanding of why NE Washington residents are fed up and you would be more willing to help get them delisted! :dunno:
:tup:
Bobcat, you could become more in tune with the phrase "wolves are here to stay, so get use to it".
Post by: KFhunter on January 19, 2015, 05:35:02 PM
wolves make you a better hunter
only lazy hunters won't be successful in wolf country
show me where Idaho has had hunter opportunity restricted.......oh I just meant bulls! oh.....that's due to habitat loss
Post by: bearpaw on January 19, 2015, 05:36:28 PM
wolves don't cause declines in elk/moose populations, poor habitat does
:chuckle: That's what they say, why should anyone worry?
Post by: bobcat on January 19, 2015, 05:43:39 PM
Why would we want wolves moved into areas they may not ever get to on their own? Stupid. I don't want any more money wasted on wolves than what has already been wasted. Wolves will go wherever they want on their own. They don't need our help.
If the wolf plan is determined to need changed in some way, then re-write it. I can't believe anyone would be in favor of this. Those that think it's a good idea, did you agree with what has been done by the USFWS in the past- moving wolves from Canada into Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming? If not, then why would you think this is okay?
To me it's a total waste of money, and the WDFW does not have extra ,money that just needs to be thrown away. If there's money for this then there's money to hire more enforcement officers and try to get poaching under control.
Obviously you are not too concerned about what happens to us in the NE until wolves are delisted, maybe if you shared in the many claimed benefits of wolves you would have a better understanding of why NE Washington residents are fed up and you would be more willing to help get them delisted! :dunno:
Sure I'm concerned, but that doesn't mean I want the state wasting money on moving wolves. If you're not aware, moving wildlife around is NOT cheap. Wolves are fully capable of moving themselves, with their own four feet.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 19, 2015, 05:49:39 PM
Post by: iusmc2002 on January 19, 2015, 05:55:28 PM
It doesn't have so much to do with MOVING the wolves, as SHARING the wolves with the people who really want them. That's what his last bill was about, and that is exactly what this is about. His area is affected by it, and is doing what the majority of his constituents what.Why would we want wolves moved into areas they may not ever get to on their own? Stupid. I don't want any more money wasted on wolves than what has already been wasted. Wolves will go wherever they want on their own. They don't need our help.
If the wolf plan is determined to need changed in some way, then re-write it. I can't believe anyone would be in favor of this. Those that think it's a good idea, did you agree with what has been done by the USFWS in the past- moving wolves from Canada into Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming? If not, then why would you think this is okay?
To me it's a total waste of money, and the WDFW does not have extra ,money that just needs to be thrown away. If there's money for this then there's money to hire more enforcement officers and try to get poaching under control.
Obviously you are not too concerned about what happens to us in the NE until wolves are delisted, maybe if you shared in the many claimed benefits of wolves you would have a better understanding of why NE Washington residents are fed up and you would be more willing to help get them delisted! :dunno:
Sure I'm concerned, but that doesn't mean I want the state wasting money on moving wolves. If you're not aware, moving wildlife around is NOT cheap. Wolves are fully capable of moving themselves, with their own four feet.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 19, 2015, 06:11:45 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 19, 2015, 06:18:43 PM
Who says it would have to cost much? I bet the ranchers in the NE would pay to trap and sedate even loan a few trailers for transport. :chuckle:
Just going by what Dave Ware says, I'd say it would cost plenty. How much does it cost to do studies for "years?"
Quote
At a work session Thursday, Ware told the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee that moving wolves would require studying the environmental impacts. The studies would take years and by the time they were done, wolf recovery objectives would probably have been met, he said.
Post by: huntnphool on January 19, 2015, 06:20:57 PM
Why would we want wolves moved into areas they may not ever get to on their own? Stupid. I don't want any more money wasted on wolves than what has already been wasted. Wolves will go wherever they want on their own. They don't need our help.
If the wolf plan is determined to need changed in some way, then re-write it. I can't believe anyone would be in favor of this. Those that think it's a good idea, did you agree with what has been done by the USFWS in the past- moving wolves from Canada into Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming? If not, then why would you think this is okay?
To me it's a total waste of money, and the WDFW does not have extra ,money that just needs to be thrown away. If there's money for this then there's money to hire more enforcement officers and try to get poaching under control.
Obviously you are not too concerned about what happens to us in the NE until wolves are delisted, maybe if you shared in the many claimed benefits of wolves you would have a better understanding of why NE Washington residents are fed up and you would be more willing to help get them delisted! :dunno:
Cut off our nose to spite our face? Brilliant!
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 19, 2015, 06:23:16 PM
Interesting thing is that the feds--USFWS and NPS did studies already for a few areas, with all the environmental/economic/cultural issues addressed.Who says it would have to cost much? I bet the ranchers in the NE would pay to trap and sedate even loan a few trailers for transport. :chuckle:
Just going by what Dave Ware says, I'd say it would cost plenty. How much does it cost to do studies for "years?"QuoteAt a work session Thursday, Ware told the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee that moving wolves would require studying the environmental impacts. The studies would take years and by the time they were done, wolf recovery objectives would probably have been met, he said.
Post by: Bob33 on January 19, 2015, 06:29:07 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 19, 2015, 06:36:47 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 19, 2015, 06:53:19 PM
Who says it would have to cost much? I bet the ranchers in the NE would pay to trap and sedate even loan a few trailers for transport. :chuckle:
I got one, if someone will fill it I'll haul it on my dime.
Post by: Curly on January 19, 2015, 07:08:42 PM
I serious doubt wolves will ever find their way to the Olympic Peninsula on their own. I sure wouldn't want them to get help finding their way there.
As far as hoof rot elk goes, maybe wolves would be OK in those areas if canines can die from the bacteria that are affecting the elk.....
Post by: bobcat on January 19, 2015, 07:17:13 PM
Thankfully, they don't want to.
Post by: jasnt on January 19, 2015, 07:21:04 PM
Post by: jasnt on January 19, 2015, 07:26:55 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 19, 2015, 07:31:33 PM
I'd bet the soft release will be the most expensive part
I heard if you blind fold them, spin them around and around until their good and dizzy they won't find their way home.
Post by: huntnphool on January 19, 2015, 07:32:48 PM
Why would we want wolves moved into areas they may not ever get to on their own? Stupid. I don't want any more money wasted on wolves than what has already been wasted. Wolves will go wherever they want on their own. They don't need our help.
If the wolf plan is determined to need changed in some way, then re-write it. I can't believe anyone would be in favor of this. Those that think it's a good idea, did you agree with what has been done by the USFWS in the past- moving wolves from Canada into Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming? If not, then why would you think this is okay?
To me it's a total waste of money, and the WDFW does not have extra ,money that just needs to be thrown away. If there's money for this then there's money to hire more enforcement officers and try to get poaching under control.
Obviously you are not too concerned about what happens to us in the NE until wolves are delisted, maybe if you shared in the many claimed benefits of wolves you would have a better understanding of why NE Washington residents are fed up and you would be more willing to help get them delisted! :dunno:
Seriously Bobcat!!! If you don't get the wolf managment under control there will be no need to control poaching as nothing will be left.
I have stated many times I will be ready to donate to get wolves relocated to the Southwest part of Washington. The sooner that goal is accomplished the sooner we can have an active wolf management program in the state.
Your statement just shows that you have no dawg in this fight as long it doesn't effect your part of the state and you don't want them.
My offer still stands tell me who I need to send the check to!!!
KF I can stop by and pay you if you would like!!!
Clearly you have not thought this issue through either.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 19, 2015, 07:39:22 PM
Hopefully not much back tracking for the packs that could go to the San Juans.I'd bet the soft release will be the most expensive part
I heard if you blind fold them, spin them around and around until their good and dizzy they won't find their way home.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 19, 2015, 07:49:26 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 19, 2015, 07:53:05 PM
I am 100% opposed to the transport of wolves. Why don't state reps propose bills eliminating this states stupid ESA law? Or require revisions to the wolf plan? The proposed bill seems rather illogical.
It's political posturing and it's doing well at it's intended goal of bringing awareness and firming up the voting base of the 7th district.
It has no chance of passing, but that doesn't mean we can't have fun with the idea.
Post by: jasnt on January 19, 2015, 07:57:28 PM
I'd bet the soft release will be the most expensive part
I heard if you blind fold them, spin them around and around until their good and dizzy they won't find their way home.
:chuckle:
Post by: huntnphool on January 19, 2015, 07:59:44 PM
Post by: Curly on January 19, 2015, 08:13:35 PM
I am 100% opposed to the transport of wolves. Why don't state reps propose bills eliminating this states stupid ESA law? Or require revisions to the wolf plan? The proposed bill seems rather illogical.Exactly. This seems like a good time to try to get a revision to the wolf plan with a new director coming in. Get a bill passed forcing them to revise the plan and immediately call for delisting in the NE.
Post by: KFhunter on January 19, 2015, 08:21:51 PM
I am 100% opposed to the transport of wolves. Why don't state reps propose bills eliminating this states stupid ESA law? Or require revisions to the wolf plan? The proposed bill seems rather illogical.Exactly. This seems like a good time to try to get a revision to the wolf plan with a new director coming in. Get a bill passed forcing them to revise the plan and immediately call for delisting in the NE.
pie in the sky approach won't work.
Do you all honestly think any revisions to the wolf plan, or any other positive action (management) would come about if it weren't for bills like this applying pressure to the west side legislatures and thus WDFW?
Post by: KFhunter on January 19, 2015, 08:27:44 PM
KFH, Bearpaw, Ridgerat and anyone else, as hunters why do you want more wolves in this state? This is completely illogical to me. :dunno:
I do not want more wolves in this State but what I do want is to meet the managment goals so we as a state can move forward with a mangement plan to preserve what resources we have!!
As a west sider perhaps you don't have the intimate knowledge of the game populations in eastern washington which in my views are from Ritzville east not as you folks think anything over the pass. I have watched the resource dwindle from 40+ deer in my pasture to this fall 2 does with fawns. Granted we had hard winters during 2008 and then in 2009 but the winters since have been fairly mild and the herd has not recovered. When the WDFW did the aerial gunning of the Wedge wolf pack that was 5 miles due east from my front deck. I ran across the WDFW Wolf Bio about 6 weeks later during Elk season and he shared the fact they had gotten some of them but not all which satisfied both user groups the pro and con. 4 days after that I was standing in fresh wolf scat just about the Diamond M. The next March I had wolves howling off my back deck in Ferry county.
I know our paths have never crossed but Bobcat's our yours but I do feel honored that the westside Liberals are looking out for the best interests of the folks on this side of the state by not wanting to accelerate the managment plan and get them de-listed so we can move forward.
As I was told by the Jay Shepard he said the locals are just not "Talking" thats where I'm going back to.
Once again, Thank you for opening my eyes.
Thanks for that, it's true, by being silent we capitulate and allow it to happen.
SSS doesn't work and will never work in the NE, there has to be state funded management to lower the wolf population, or we'll see our version of LOLO
I don't want that.
Post by: wolfbait on January 19, 2015, 08:30:55 PM
KFH, Bearpaw, Ridgerat and anyone else, as hunters why do you want more wolves in this state? This is completely illogical to me. :dunno:
More wolves? The wolves released where there aren't any would be collared wolves, documented packs and breeding pairs wouldn't have to be confirmed after livestock predation. And if there aren't wolves there yet then how would it add more wolves? :dunno:
Look at the rate WDFW are confirming bp's, at the rate they are going how many wolves will WA have by the time delisting rolls around? How many areas will be saturated with wolves while waiting for WDFW to confirm ten more bps?
IDFG's illegal permit authorized additional wolves to be "translocated" and injected into rich Central Idaho elk herds:
Due to the special permit and letter that IDFG illegally signed this allowed the USFWS to not only bring in the initial wolves in 1995, but gave them the authority “Translocate” additional "Problem" wolves all over Idaho’s back country. In fact the USFWS translocated 117 wolves into then NRM from 1998-2001 and many of these additional wolves were released throughout Idaho’s elk rich backcountry devastating these elk populations.
Post by: jasnt on January 19, 2015, 08:31:37 PM
:yeah: :yeah:KFH, Bearpaw, Ridgerat and anyone else, as hunters why do you want more wolves in this state? This is completely illogical to me. :dunno:
I do not want more wolves in this State but what I do want is to meet the managment goals so we as a state can move forward with a mangement plan to preserve what resources we have!!
As a west sider perhaps you don't have the intimate knowledge of the game populations in eastern washington which in my views are from Ritzville east not as you folks think anything over the pass. I have watched the resource dwindle from 40+ deer in my pasture to this fall 2 does with fawns. Granted we had hard winters during 2008 and then in 2009 but the winters since have been fairly mild and the herd has not recovered. When the WDFW did the aerial gunning of the Wedge wolf pack that was 5 miles due east from my front deck. I ran across the WDFW Wolf Bio about 6 weeks later during Elk season and he shared the fact they had gotten some of them but not all which satisfied both user groups the pro and con. 4 days after that I was standing in fresh wolf scat just about the Diamond M. The next March I had wolves howling off my back deck in Ferry county.
I know our paths have never crossed but Bobcat's our yours but I do feel honored that the westside Liberals are looking out for the best interests of the folks on this side of the state by not wanting to accelerate the managment plan and get them de-listed so we can move forward.
As I was told by the Jay Shepard he said the locals are just not "Talking" thats where I'm going back to.
Once again, Thank you for opening my eyes.
Thanks for that, it's true, by being silent we capitulate and allow it to happen.
SSS doesn't work and will never work in the NE, there has to be state funded management to lower the wolf population, or we'll see our version of LOLO
I don't want that.
Post by: huntnphool on January 19, 2015, 08:43:19 PM
KFH, Bearpaw, Ridgerat and anyone else, as hunters why do you want more wolves in this state? This is completely illogical to me. :dunno:
I do not want more wolves in this State but what I do want is to meet the managment goals so we as a state can move forward with a mangement plan to preserve what resources we have!!
As a west sider perhaps you don't have the intimate knowledge of the game populations in eastern washington which in my views are from Ritzville east not as you folks think anything over the pass. I have watched the resource dwindle from 40+ deer in my pasture to this fall 2 does with fawns. Granted we had hard winters during 2008 and then in 2009 but the winters since have been fairly mild and the herd has not recovered. When the WDFW did the aerial gunning of the Wedge wolf pack that was 5 miles due east from my front deck. I ran across the WDFW Wolf Bio about 6 weeks later during Elk season and he shared the fact they had gotten some of them but not all which satisfied both user groups the pro and con. 4 days after that I was standing in fresh wolf scat just about the Diamond M. The next March I had wolves howling off my back deck in Ferry county.
I know our paths have never crossed but Bobcat's our yours but I do feel honored that the westside Liberals are looking out for the best interests of the folks on this side of the state by not wanting to accelerate the managment plan and get them de-listed so we can move forward.
As I was told by the Jay Shepard he said the locals are just not "Talking" thats where I'm going back to.
Once again, Thank you for opening my eyes.
Thanks for that, it's true, by being silent we capitulate and allow it to happen.
SSS doesn't work and will never work in the NE, there has to be state funded management to lower the wolf population, or we'll see our version of LOLO
I don't want that.
But what you guys obviously don't understand is to reach the 15 BP number there needs to be a increase in wolf numbers overall. Then, once we have reached that number, it will be maintained, the "management" will not allow the numbers to go below it.
So you are falling for the politics of the whole thing. They bait you with the promise of "delisting" while hoping you don't realize that this means increasing the wolf numbers, which you guys obviously have fallen for.
Which is better, the number of wolves we have now, let's just say 100 for example, and not having them "delisted", or 150 and having them "delisted"? Just because they get stamped with the "delisted" label does not mean we can then hunt them to a point of less than that 150 delisting number.
If you are wanting them to be delisted in this state, you are, by default, wanting more wolves here than we currently have...............think about it!
Post by: mkcj on January 19, 2015, 08:51:44 PM
KFH, Bearpaw, Ridgerat and anyone else, as hunters why do you want more wolves in this state? This is completely illogical to me. :dunno:
I do not want more wolves in this State but what I do want is to meet the managment goals so we as a state can move forward with a mangement plan to preserve what resources we have!!
As a west sider perhaps you don't have the intimate knowledge of the game populations in eastern washington which in my views are from Ritzville east not as you folks think anything over the pass. I have watched the resource dwindle from 40+ deer in my pasture to this fall 2 does with fawns. Granted we had hard winters during 2008 and then in 2009 but the winters since have been fairly mild and the herd has not recovered. When the WDFW did the aerial gunning of the Wedge wolf pack that was 5 miles due east from my front deck. I ran across the WDFW Wolf Bio about 6 weeks later during Elk season and he shared the fact they had gotten some of them but not all which satisfied both user groups the pro and con. 4 days after that I was standing in fresh wolf scat just about the Diamond M. The next March I had wolves howling off my back deck in Ferry county.
I know our paths have never crossed but Bobcat's our yours but I do feel honored that the westside Liberals are looking out for the best interests of the folks on this side of the state by not wanting to accelerate the managment plan and get them de-listed so we can move forward.
As I was told by the Jay Shepard he said the locals are just not "Talking" thats where I'm going back to.
Once again, Thank you for opening my eyes.
Thanks for that, it's true, by being silent we capitulate and allow it to happen.
SSS doesn't work and will never work in the NE, there has to be state funded management to lower the wolf population, or we'll see our version of LOLO
I don't want that.
But what you guys obviously don't understand is to reach the 15 BP number there needs to be a increase in wolf numbers overall. Then, once we have reached that number, it will be maintained, the "management" will not allow the numbers to go below it.
So you are falling for the politics of the whole thing. They bait you with the promise of "delisting" while hoping you don't realize that this means increasing the wolf numbers, which you guys obviously have fallen for.
Which is better, the number of wolves we have now, let's just say 100 for example, and not having them "delisted", or 150 and having them "delisted"? Just because they get stamped with the "delisted" label does not mean we can then hunt them to a point of less than that 150 delisting number.
If you are wanting them to be delisted in this state, you are, by default, wanting more wolves here than we currently have...............think about it!
If we move wolves we already have in this state to another part of the state how does that equal more wolves?
Post by: KFhunter on January 19, 2015, 08:54:10 PM
KFH, Bearpaw, Ridgerat and anyone else, as hunters why do you want more wolves in this state? This is completely illogical to me. :dunno:
I do not want more wolves in this State but what I do want is to meet the managment goals so we as a state can move forward with a mangement plan to preserve what resources we have!!
As a west sider perhaps you don't have the intimate knowledge of the game populations in eastern washington which in my views are from Ritzville east not as you folks think anything over the pass. I have watched the resource dwindle from 40+ deer in my pasture to this fall 2 does with fawns. Granted we had hard winters during 2008 and then in 2009 but the winters since have been fairly mild and the herd has not recovered. When the WDFW did the aerial gunning of the Wedge wolf pack that was 5 miles due east from my front deck. I ran across the WDFW Wolf Bio about 6 weeks later during Elk season and he shared the fact they had gotten some of them but not all which satisfied both user groups the pro and con. 4 days after that I was standing in fresh wolf scat just about the Diamond M. The next March I had wolves howling off my back deck in Ferry county.
I know our paths have never crossed but Bobcat's our yours but I do feel honored that the westside Liberals are looking out for the best interests of the folks on this side of the state by not wanting to accelerate the managment plan and get them de-listed so we can move forward.
As I was told by the Jay Shepard he said the locals are just not "Talking" thats where I'm going back to.
Once again, Thank you for opening my eyes.
Thanks for that, it's true, by being silent we capitulate and allow it to happen.
SSS doesn't work and will never work in the NE, there has to be state funded management to lower the wolf population, or we'll see our version of LOLO
I don't want that.
But what you guys obviously don't understand is to reach the 15 BP number there needs to be a increase in wolf numbers overall. Then, once we have reached that number, it will be maintained, the "management" will not allow the numbers to go below it.
So you are falling for the politics of the whole thing. They bait you with the promise of "delisting" while hoping you don't realize that this means increasing the wolf numbers, which you guys obviously have fallen for.
Which is better, the number of wolves we have now, let's just say 100 for example, and not having them "delisted", or 150 and having them "delisted"? Just because they get stamped with the "delisted" label does not mean we can then hunt them to a point of less than that 150 delisting number.
If you are wanting them to be delisted in this state, you are, by default, wanting more wolves here than we currently have...............think about it!
We're well beyond those numbers, we have enough wolves just in three counties to delist for the entire state if only they were in the appropriate places and counted. The problem is they aren't being counted or documented, WDFW delays all they can in sanctifying a new wolf pack and BP as defined by the wolf plan. Only when it's impossible to delay any longer (they're eating sheep/cattle/pets) then do we get a new wolf pack in WA.
By moving wolves from the east to the west there's no danger of falling below the objectives set for e/wa - as we're well beyond that already.
Post by: bobcat on January 19, 2015, 08:54:29 PM
Quote
If we move wolves we already have in this state to another part of the state how does that equal more wolves?
Basic biology. Two wolves don't stay two wolves for long. They reproduce and have a litter of pups. Then you get more reproduction, and more pups. That's how moving a couple of wolves to another part of the state would equal more wolves.
Post by: huntnphool on January 19, 2015, 08:56:16 PM
KFH, Bearpaw, Ridgerat and anyone else, as hunters why do you want more wolves in this state? This is completely illogical to me. :dunno:
I do not want more wolves in this State but what I do want is to meet the managment goals so we as a state can move forward with a mangement plan to preserve what resources we have!!
As a west sider perhaps you don't have the intimate knowledge of the game populations in eastern washington which in my views are from Ritzville east not as you folks think anything over the pass. I have watched the resource dwindle from 40+ deer in my pasture to this fall 2 does with fawns. Granted we had hard winters during 2008 and then in 2009 but the winters since have been fairly mild and the herd has not recovered. When the WDFW did the aerial gunning of the Wedge wolf pack that was 5 miles due east from my front deck. I ran across the WDFW Wolf Bio about 6 weeks later during Elk season and he shared the fact they had gotten some of them but not all which satisfied both user groups the pro and con. 4 days after that I was standing in fresh wolf scat just about the Diamond M. The next March I had wolves howling off my back deck in Ferry county.
I know our paths have never crossed but Bobcat's our yours but I do feel honored that the westside Liberals are looking out for the best interests of the folks on this side of the state by not wanting to accelerate the managment plan and get them de-listed so we can move forward.
As I was told by the Jay Shepard he said the locals are just not "Talking" thats where I'm going back to.
Once again, Thank you for opening my eyes.
Thanks for that, it's true, by being silent we capitulate and allow it to happen.
SSS doesn't work and will never work in the NE, there has to be state funded management to lower the wolf population, or we'll see our version of LOLO
I don't want that.
But what you guys obviously don't understand is to reach the 15 BP number there needs to be a increase in wolf numbers overall. Then, once we have reached that number, it will be maintained, the "management" will not allow the numbers to go below it.
So you are falling for the politics of the whole thing. They bait you with the promise of "delisting" while hoping you don't realize that this means increasing the wolf numbers, which you guys obviously have fallen for.
Which is better, the number of wolves we have now, let's just say 100 for example, and not having them "delisted", or 150 and having them "delisted"? Just because they get stamped with the "delisted" label does not mean we can then hunt them to a point of less than that 150 delisting number.
If you are wanting them to be delisted in this state, you are, by default, wanting more wolves here than we currently have...............think about it!
If we move wolves we already have in this state to another part of the state how does that equal more wolves?
If you go back and read their posts you will see that they are hoping for delisting, which equates to more wolves, and the reason for my question.
QuoteIf we move wolves we already have in this state to another part of the state how does that equal more wolves?
Basic biology. Two wolves don't stay two wolves for long. They reproduce and have a litter of pups. Then you get more reproduction, and more pups. That's how moving a couple of wolves to another part of the state would equal more wolves.
Then there is this example from Bobcat.
Post by: KFhunter on January 19, 2015, 08:56:33 PM
KFH, Bearpaw, Ridgerat and anyone else, as hunters why do you want more wolves in this state? This is completely illogical to me. :dunno:
I do not want more wolves in this State but what I do want is to meet the managment goals so we as a state can move forward with a mangement plan to preserve what resources we have!!
As a west sider perhaps you don't have the intimate knowledge of the game populations in eastern washington which in my views are from Ritzville east not as you folks think anything over the pass. I have watched the resource dwindle from 40+ deer in my pasture to this fall 2 does with fawns. Granted we had hard winters during 2008 and then in 2009 but the winters since have been fairly mild and the herd has not recovered. When the WDFW did the aerial gunning of the Wedge wolf pack that was 5 miles due east from my front deck. I ran across the WDFW Wolf Bio about 6 weeks later during Elk season and he shared the fact they had gotten some of them but not all which satisfied both user groups the pro and con. 4 days after that I was standing in fresh wolf scat just about the Diamond M. The next March I had wolves howling off my back deck in Ferry county.
I know our paths have never crossed but Bobcat's our yours but I do feel honored that the westside Liberals are looking out for the best interests of the folks on this side of the state by not wanting to accelerate the managment plan and get them de-listed so we can move forward.
As I was told by the Jay Shepard he said the locals are just not "Talking" thats where I'm going back to.
Once again, Thank you for opening my eyes.
Thanks for that, it's true, by being silent we capitulate and allow it to happen.
SSS doesn't work and will never work in the NE, there has to be state funded management to lower the wolf population, or we'll see our version of LOLO
I don't want that.
But what you guys obviously don't understand is to reach the 15 BP number there needs to be a increase in wolf numbers overall. Then, once we have reached that number, it will be maintained, the "management" will not allow the numbers to go below it.
So you are falling for the politics of the whole thing. They bait you with the promise of "delisting" while hoping you don't realize that this means increasing the wolf numbers, which you guys obviously have fallen for.
Which is better, the number of wolves we have now, let's just say 100 for example, and not having them "delisted", or 150 and having them "delisted"? Just because they get stamped with the "delisted" label does not mean we can then hunt them to a point of less than that 150 delisting number.
If you are wanting them to be delisted in this state, you are, by default, wanting more wolves here than we currently have...............think about it!
If we move wolves we already have in this state to another part of the state how does that equal more wolves?
Two smaller packs with 1 BP each will out produce one larger pack with 1 BP. By splitting a bigger pack you do increase the wolf footprint artificially fast.
Once a pack is established and breeding they pump out the pups according to available prey. In the west side of the state loaded with crippled Elk they'd multiple very fast.
It's a fast track to delisting.
edit: I didn't see bobcat's explanation, we're on the same page there.
Post by: huntnphool on January 19, 2015, 08:58:49 PM
KFH, Bearpaw, Ridgerat and anyone else, as hunters why do you want more wolves in this state? This is completely illogical to me. :dunno:
I do not want more wolves in this State but what I do want is to meet the managment goals so we as a state can move forward with a mangement plan to preserve what resources we have!!
As a west sider perhaps you don't have the intimate knowledge of the game populations in eastern washington which in my views are from Ritzville east not as you folks think anything over the pass. I have watched the resource dwindle from 40+ deer in my pasture to this fall 2 does with fawns. Granted we had hard winters during 2008 and then in 2009 but the winters since have been fairly mild and the herd has not recovered. When the WDFW did the aerial gunning of the Wedge wolf pack that was 5 miles due east from my front deck. I ran across the WDFW Wolf Bio about 6 weeks later during Elk season and he shared the fact they had gotten some of them but not all which satisfied both user groups the pro and con. 4 days after that I was standing in fresh wolf scat just about the Diamond M. The next March I had wolves howling off my back deck in Ferry county.
I know our paths have never crossed but Bobcat's our yours but I do feel honored that the westside Liberals are looking out for the best interests of the folks on this side of the state by not wanting to accelerate the managment plan and get them de-listed so we can move forward.
As I was told by the Jay Shepard he said the locals are just not "Talking" thats where I'm going back to.
Once again, Thank you for opening my eyes.
Thanks for that, it's true, by being silent we capitulate and allow it to happen.
SSS doesn't work and will never work in the NE, there has to be state funded management to lower the wolf population, or we'll see our version of LOLO
I don't want that.
But what you guys obviously don't understand is to reach the 15 BP number there needs to be a increase in wolf numbers overall. Then, once we have reached that number, it will be maintained, the "management" will not allow the numbers to go below it.
So you are falling for the politics of the whole thing. They bait you with the promise of "delisting" while hoping you don't realize that this means increasing the wolf numbers, which you guys obviously have fallen for.
Which is better, the number of wolves we have now, let's just say 100 for example, and not having them "delisted", or 150 and having them "delisted"? Just because they get stamped with the "delisted" label does not mean we can then hunt them to a point of less than that 150 delisting number.
If you are wanting them to be delisted in this state, you are, by default, wanting more wolves here than we currently have...............think about it!
If we move wolves we already have in this state to another part of the state how does that equal more wolves?
two BP will out produce one BP, they'd breed more wolves. Once a pack is established and breeding they pump out the pups according to available prey. In the west side of the state loaded with crippled Elk they'd multiple very fast.
It's a fast track to delisting.
Spot on KF
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 19, 2015, 09:01:06 PM
Why would we want wolves moved into areas they may not ever get to on their own? Stupid. I don't want any more money wasted on wolves than what has already been wasted. Wolves will go wherever they want on their own. They don't need our help.
If the wolf plan is determined to need changed in some way, then re-write it. I can't believe anyone would be in favor of this. Those that think it's a good idea, did you agree with what has been done by the USFWS in the past- moving wolves from Canada into Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming? If not, then why would you think this is okay?
To me it's a total waste of money, and the WDFW does not have extra ,money that just needs to be thrown away. If there's money for this then there's money to hire more enforcement officers and try to get poaching under control.
According to the outrageous wolf plan, if they never move their on their own, management doesn't ever begin. Remember that without attaining the outrageous goals, the clock will never start ticking. Because we already know which areas the plan requires, move some of the excess wolves from the NE and let's get this thing moving. The sooner they're everywhere the plan requires, the sooner we can start killing them.
Post by: jasnt on January 19, 2015, 09:01:15 PM
yup and those same 2 wolves left where they are will do the same thing, breed. But who cares it's not your back yardQuoteIf we move wolves we already have in this state to another part of the state how does that equal more wolves?
Basic biology. Two wolves don't stay two wolves for long. They reproduce and have a litter of pups. Then you get more reproduction, and more pups. That's how moving a couple of wolves to another part of the state would equal more wolves.
Post by: TONTO on January 19, 2015, 09:02:00 PM
KFH, Bearpaw, Ridgerat and anyone else, as hunters why do you want more wolves in this state? This is completely illogical to me. :dunno:
I do not want more wolves in this State but what I do want is to meet the managment goals so we as a state can move forward with a mangement plan to preserve what resources we have!!
As a west sider perhaps you don't have the intimate knowledge of the game populations in eastern washington which in my views are from Ritzville east not as you folks think anything over the pass. I have watched the resource dwindle from 40+ deer in my pasture to this fall 2 does with fawns. Granted we had hard winters during 2008 and then in 2009 but the winters since have been fairly mild and the herd has not recovered. When the WDFW did the aerial gunning of the Wedge wolf pack that was 5 miles due east from my front deck. I ran across the WDFW Wolf Bio about 6 weeks later during Elk season and he shared the fact they had gotten some of them but not all which satisfied both user groups the pro and con. 4 days after that I was standing in fresh wolf scat just about the Diamond M. The next March I had wolves howling off my back deck in Ferry county.
I know our paths have never crossed but Bobcat's our yours but I do feel honored that the westside Liberals are looking out for the best interests of the folks on this side of the state by not wanting to accelerate the managment plan and get them de-listed so we can move forward.
As I was told by the Jay Shepard he said the locals are just not "Talking" thats where I'm going back to.
Once again, Thank you for opening my eyes.
Thanks for that, it's true, by being silent we capitulate and allow it to happen.
SSS doesn't work and will never work in the NE, there has to be state funded management to lower the wolf population, or we'll see our version of LOLO
I don't want that.
But what you guys obviously don't understand is to reach the 15 BP number there needs to be a increase in wolf numbers overall. Then, once we have reached that number, it will be maintained, the "management" will not allow the numbers to go below it.
So you are falling for the politics of the whole thing. They bait you with the promise of "delisting" while hoping you don't realize that this means increasing the wolf numbers, which you guys obviously have fallen for.
Which is better, the number of wolves we have now, let's just say 100 for example, and not having them "delisted", or 150 and having them "delisted"? Just because they get stamped with the "delisted" label does not mean we can then hunt them to a point of less than that 150 delisting number.
If you are wanting them to be delisted in this state, you are, by default, wanting more wolves here than we currently have...............think about it!
Exactly, you don't spread a dissease to find a cure.
Post by: KFhunter on January 19, 2015, 09:02:06 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 19, 2015, 09:02:42 PM
yup and those same 2 wolves left where they are will do the same thing, breed. But who cares it's not your back yardQuoteIf we move wolves we already have in this state to another part of the state how does that equal more wolves?
Basic biology. Two wolves don't stay two wolves for long. They reproduce and have a litter of pups. Then you get more reproduction, and more pups. That's how moving a couple of wolves to another part of the state would equal more wolves.
No, not really. Did you read KF's post? He explained it better.
Post by: huntnphool on January 19, 2015, 09:07:18 PM
But who cares it's not your back yardQuoteIf we move wolves we already have in this state to another part of the state how does that equal more wolves?
Basic biology. Two wolves don't stay two wolves for long. They reproduce and have a litter of pups. Then you get more reproduction, and more pups. That's how moving a couple of wolves to another part of the state would equal more wolves.
Wow this is a great attitude. Wolves are destroying the deer in my backyard so it's only fair to move some to your backyard and destroy them too.......unbelievable.
Post by: bobcat on January 19, 2015, 09:08:19 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 19, 2015, 09:10:07 PM
But who cares it's not your back yardQuoteIf we move wolves we already have in this state to another part of the state how does that equal more wolves?
Basic biology. Two wolves don't stay two wolves for long. They reproduce and have a litter of pups. Then you get more reproduction, and more pups. That's how moving a couple of wolves to another part of the state would equal more wolves.
Wow this is a great attitude. Wolves are destroying the deer in my backyard so it's only fair to move some to your backyard and destroy them too.......unbelievable.
It's the same bitter medicine the west side policy makers have used on the folks living with wolves on the east side.
It didn't have to be this way, they could have documented and been open and honest.
Post by: jasnt on January 19, 2015, 09:12:22 PM
i did and I agree 100%. What I'm getting at is the NE is already pumping wolves out like crazy. IMO the wolves are here to stay. The entire state will be covered wolf packs at some point! There are NEVER going to be less wolves in wa than there are right now! They are spredding and they are going to be in sw wa. We want delisting now! Today not next decade. We have enough for delisting just not the proper spredyup and those same 2 wolves left where they are will do the same thing, breed. But who cares it's not your back yardQuoteIf we move wolves we already have in this state to another part of the state how does that equal more wolves?
Basic biology. Two wolves don't stay two wolves for long. They reproduce and have a litter of pups. Then you get more reproduction, and more pups. That's how moving a couple of wolves to another part of the state would equal more wolves.
No, not really. Did you read KF's post? He explained it better.
Post by: huntnphool on January 19, 2015, 09:12:34 PM
But who cares it's not your back yardQuoteIf we move wolves we already have in this state to another part of the state how does that equal more wolves?
Basic biology. Two wolves don't stay two wolves for long. They reproduce and have a litter of pups. Then you get more reproduction, and more pups. That's how moving a couple of wolves to another part of the state would equal more wolves.
Wow this is a great attitude. Wolves are destroying the deer in my backyard so it's only fair to move some to your backyard and destroy them too.......unbelievable.
It didn't have to be this way, they could have documented and been open and honest.
These are politicians we are talking about remember.
Post by: KFhunter on January 19, 2015, 09:15:02 PM
It seems a lot of people keep forgetting that the wolf plan actually does not require any wolves in western Washington. The region that takes in all of western Washington also includes the south central part of the state. So all we need is wolves from the I-90 south to the Columbia River. So basically the south half of Kittitas County, Yakima County, and Klickitat County. I don't think they're very far from being inside the boundary of that region now. So, no need for any wolves west of the Cascade Mountains. And definitely there's no need to have them on the Olympic Peninsula.
I'm not super familiar with that area, but what's to keep wolves from coming north up from mt saint Helens?
Post by: bobcat on January 19, 2015, 09:18:42 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 19, 2015, 09:27:02 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 19, 2015, 09:31:43 PM
I was asking why wolves would never populate the OP
Oh, well, I think they very well could. It would take quite a while for them to get there, in my opinion, but I don't doubt it could happen. Although I'm not a biologist and I really don't know how well they'd do in the thick habitat over here. Yes, wolves were native here 100 years ago, but it was entirely different back then.
I'm pretty sure they could do quite well around Mt. St. Helens but how much they could spread from there I really don't know.
And btw, what I said in the previous post was not that they would never get to the Olympic Peninsula, but that they DID NOT NEED TO (to satisfy the requirements of the WDFW wolf plan)
Post by: Curly on January 19, 2015, 09:32:35 PM
Post by: mkcj on January 19, 2015, 09:37:36 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 19, 2015, 09:39:09 PM
I was asking why wolves would never populate the OP
Oh, well, I think they very well could. It would take quite a while for them to get there, in my opinion, but I don't doubt it could happen. Although I'm not a biologist and I really don't know how well they'd do in the thick habitat over here. Yes, wolves were native here 100 years ago, but it was entirely different back then.
I'm pretty sure they could do quite well around Mt. St. Helens but how much they could spread from there I really don't know.
According to pro-wolf bio's.... "A wolf is a wolf is a wolf"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tXplYRCUpk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tXplYRCUpk)
That's how they discredited the argument that they transplanted the wrong wolf instead of the native timber wolf they bring in these land sharks out of Canada; but when wolves in India eat people (http://www.wolfsongalaska.org/chorus/?q=node/253 (http://www.wolfsongalaska.org/chorus/?q=node/253)) it's not the same wolf, when we talk about transplanting some wolves back to the OP the bio's don't know if they'll survive in the dense forest.....when we talk about huge Canadian wolves in the NE "a wolf is a wolf is a wolf"
Did you know the bio's wanted the bigger wolves hoping they'd eat the buffalo in YNP? It didn't work, the Elk population plummeted and the buffalo increased.
Buffalo do more a lot more damage to the stream beds/bank than Elk do.
Post by: Humptulips on January 19, 2015, 09:40:16 PM
I was asking why wolves would never populate the OP naturally.
I think they will make it to the OP but St Helens is in a different mountain range separated by bunch of people and roads. The Olympics are not north of St Helens.
Honestly if you E Wa hunters think you have problems you should try deer hunting on the OP. I often think what will the wolves eat when they get here. The cougars have pretty well taken care of that.
Why do you think all the deer hunters head to the east side? That's what I hear on here.
Post by: northwesthunter84 on January 19, 2015, 09:41:46 PM
Post by: jasnt on January 19, 2015, 09:45:03 PM
One thing we need to remember in this state, is that even if delisting happens and even if wdfw allowed a season, the stupid voters would have an initiative out really fast preventing the killing of wolves. Hunting won't even keep them in check much anyway, but I know it would make us feel better being able to legally shoot them.I think if the more of the state was having wolf problems there would be a much greater cry for a wolf hunting season. I understand how this sounds. Ever wonder why most the people crying about delisting are in the NE wa(yes not all). It's because of what we are dealing with, what we've seen and been through. None of us want more wolves or to wish these problems for any one else. But we do want delisting! If you lived here you would be on this side of the fence!
Post by: Curly on January 19, 2015, 09:47:00 PM
Any ranchers think about filing a lawsuit against the wdfw? I think they should for the stupid plan they came up with. If they move wolves to other parts of the state, they should be sued too.
Post by: bobcat on January 19, 2015, 09:47:50 PM
Post by: huntnphool on January 19, 2015, 09:52:16 PM
One thing we need to remember in this state, is that even if delisting happens and even if wdfw allowed a season, the stupid voters would have an initiative out really fast preventing the killing of wolves. Hunting won't even keep them in check much anyway, but I know it would make us feel better being able to legally shoot them.I think if the more of the state was having wolf problems there would be a much greater cry for a wolf hunting season. I understand how this sounds. Ever wonder why most the people crying about delisting are in the NE wa(yes not all). It's because of what we are dealing with, what we've seen and been through. None of us want more wolves or to wish these problems for any one else. But we do want delisting! If you lived here you would be on this side of the fence!
What will be the result of delisting in this state?
Post by: KFhunter on January 19, 2015, 09:55:06 PM
One thing we need to remember in this state, is that even if delisting happens and even if wdfw allowed a season, the stupid voters would have an initiative out really fast preventing the killing of wolves. Hunting won't even keep them in check much anyway, but I know it would make us feel better being able to legally shoot them.I think if the more of the state was having wolf problems there would be a much greater cry for a wolf hunting season. I understand how this sounds. Ever wonder why most the people crying about delisting are in the NE wa(yes not all). It's because of what we are dealing with, what we've seen and been through. None of us want more wolves or to wish these problems for any one else. But we do want delisting! If you lived here you would be on this side of the fence!
What will be the result of delisting in this state?
We will see something very similar to our current cougar plan once WDFW delist and allow hunting.
hmm, I wonder if the cougar plan is a test model for wolf management now I think about it ?
Post by: Curly on January 19, 2015, 09:55:20 PM
It will make us feel better for a while if we get a season. But ultimately it does nothing. What we need is a more realistic management plan.One thing we need to remember in this state, is that even if delisting happens and even if wdfw allowed a season, the stupid voters would have an initiative out really fast preventing the killing of wolves. Hunting won't even keep them in check much anyway, but I know it would make us feel better being able to legally shoot them.I think if the more of the state was having wolf problems there would be a much greater cry for a wolf hunting season. I understand how this sounds. Ever wonder why most the people crying about delisting are in the NE wa(yes not all). It's because of what we are dealing with, what we've seen and been through. None of us want more wolves or to wish these problems for any one else. But we do want delisting! If you lived here you would be on this side of the fence!
What will be the result of delisting in this state?
Post by: Humptulips on January 19, 2015, 09:57:17 PM
One thing we need to remember in this state, is that even if delisting happens and even if wdfw allowed a season, the stupid voters would have an initiative out really fast preventing the killing of wolves. Hunting won't even keep them in check much anyway, but I know it would make us feel better being able to legally shoot them.I think if the more of the state was having wolf problems there would be a much greater cry for a wolf hunting season. I understand how this sounds. Ever wonder why most the people crying about delisting are in the NE wa(yes not all). It's because of what we are dealing with, what we've seen and been through. None of us want more wolves or to wish these problems for any one else. But we do want delisting! If you lived here you would be on this side of the fence!
I think that is wishful thinking. Especially in Pugetropilis. Probably be more worried about how long the line is at Starbucks then what wolves are doing. Pretty hard to concern someone who works in a cubicle and lives in a Condo.
Post by: jasnt on January 19, 2015, 09:59:33 PM
hopfully a hunting and trapping season. They can't protect them forever! Something is going to break. Like I said earlier if there is a major out cry from everywhere in the state(not just eastern wa) it would be harder to ignore. Also like I said earlier we are never getting rid of wolves they are here to stay, we may as we'll get to enjoy hunting them and make the most out of these lemonsOne thing we need to remember in this state, is that even if delisting happens and even if wdfw allowed a season, the stupid voters would have an initiative out really fast preventing the killing of wolves. Hunting won't even keep them in check much anyway, but I know it would make us feel better being able to legally shoot them.I think if the more of the state was having wolf problems there would be a much greater cry for a wolf hunting season. I understand how this sounds. Ever wonder why most the people crying about delisting are in the NE wa(yes not all). It's because of what we are dealing with, what we've seen and been through. None of us want more wolves or to wish these problems for any one else. But we do want delisting! If you lived here you would be on this side of the fence!
What will be the result of delisting in this state?
Post by: KFhunter on January 19, 2015, 10:02:45 PM
One thing we need to remember in this state, is that even if delisting happens and even if wdfw allowed a season, the stupid voters would have an initiative out really fast preventing the killing of wolves. Hunting won't even keep them in check much anyway, but I know it would make us feel better being able to legally shoot them.I think if the more of the state was having wolf problems there would be a much greater cry for a wolf hunting season. I understand how this sounds. Ever wonder why most the people crying about delisting are in the NE wa(yes not all). It's because of what we are dealing with, what we've seen and been through. None of us want more wolves or to wish these problems for any one else. But we do want delisting! If you lived here you would be on this side of the fence!
I think that is wishful thinking. Especially in Pugetropilis. Probably be more worried about how long the line is at Starbucks then what wolves are doing. Pretty hard to concern someone who works in a cubicle and lives in a condo donating money to the cliché` hugger cause of the day.
added to your quote
Post by: Humptulips on January 19, 2015, 10:03:27 PM
You really are dreaming! Nice dream though!hopfully a hunting and trapping season. They can't protect them forever! Something is going to break. Like I said earlier if there is a major out cry from everywhere in the state(not just eastern wa) it would be harder to ignore. Also like I said earlier we are never getting rid of wolves they are here to stay, we may as we'll get to enjoy hunting them and make the most out of these lemonsOne thing we need to remember in this state, is that even if delisting happens and even if wdfw allowed a season, the stupid voters would have an initiative out really fast preventing the killing of wolves. Hunting won't even keep them in check much anyway, but I know it would make us feel better being able to legally shoot them.I think if the more of the state was having wolf problems there would be a much greater cry for a wolf hunting season. I understand how this sounds. Ever wonder why most the people crying about delisting are in the NE wa(yes not all). It's because of what we are dealing with, what we've seen and been through. None of us want more wolves or to wish these problems for any one else. But we do want delisting! If you lived here you would be on this side of the fence!
What will be the result of delisting in this state?
Post by: idahohuntr on January 19, 2015, 10:06:39 PM
What will be the result of delisting in this state?A voter initiative to protect wolves forever.
Post by: jasnt on January 19, 2015, 10:07:18 PM
Post by: huntnphool on January 19, 2015, 10:08:30 PM
One thing we need to remember in this state, is that even if delisting happens and even if wdfw allowed a season, the stupid voters would have an initiative out really fast preventing the killing of wolves. Hunting won't even keep them in check much anyway, but I know it would make us feel better being able to legally shoot them.I think if the more of the state was having wolf problems there would be a much greater cry for a wolf hunting season. I understand how this sounds. Ever wonder why most the people crying about delisting are in the NE wa(yes not all). It's because of what we are dealing with, what we've seen and been through. None of us want more wolves or to wish these problems for any one else. But we do want delisting! If you lived here you would be on this side of the fence!
What will be the result of delisting in this state?
We will see something very similar to our current cougar plan once WDFW delist and allow hunting.
hmm, I wonder if the cougar plan is a test model for wolf management now I think about it ?
I don't believe we will ever see wolf hunting in this state. Lobbyists and liberal politicians in this state will make sure CNW, Humane Society and other anti hunting groups will be well informed on when to begin their law suits, which will take years.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 19, 2015, 10:08:55 PM
I said they wouldn't naturally make it to the Olympic peninsula. It just seems unlikely to me. If they finish off what's left of the St Helens elk herd, maybe they would make their way across interstate 5 into the Willipa Hills, eat up a bunch of those elk and work their way north eventually reaching the peninsula, but to me that seems really unlikely.Once you get south of Olympia I think there are a few places where they can make it across I-5. I seem to remember some bridges down by Toutle/Cowlits with greenbelts and a bit of a corridor beneath. But once across, I think they would make it up north pretty quickly. Fishers were released in the park and didn't waste much time spreading down south.
Any ranchers think about filing a lawsuit against the wdfw? I think they should for the stupid plan they came up with. If they move wolves to other parts of the state, they should be sued too.
Post by: CementFinisher on January 19, 2015, 10:09:27 PM
hopfully a hunting and trapping season. They can't protect them forever! Something is going to break. Like I said earlier if there is a major out cry from everywhere in the state(not just eastern wa) it would be harder to ignore. Also like I said earlier we are never getting rid of wolves they are here to stay, we may as we'll get to enjoy hunting them and make the most out of these lemonsOne thing we need to remember in this state, is that even if delisting happens and even if wdfw allowed a season, the stupid voters would have an initiative out really fast preventing the killing of wolves. Hunting won't even keep them in check much anyway, but I know it would make us feel better being able to legally shoot them.I think if the more of the state was having wolf problems there would be a much greater cry for a wolf hunting season. I understand how this sounds. Ever wonder why most the people crying about delisting are in the NE wa(yes not all). It's because of what we are dealing with, what we've seen and been through. None of us want more wolves or to wish these problems for any one else. But we do want delisting! If you lived here you would be on this side of the fence!
What will be the result of delisting in this state?
Even if we got a trapping season do you think you are catching one in a cage trap? lMAO!!! wait :'( Look this state will never approve snaring wich seems to be the only effective way to trap and manage them
Post by: huntnphool on January 19, 2015, 10:09:38 PM
What will be the result of delisting in this state?A voter initiative to protect wolves forever.
Ain't that the sad truth!
Post by: jasnt on January 19, 2015, 10:10:11 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 19, 2015, 10:12:42 PM
I said they wouldn't naturally make it to the Olympic peninsula. It just seems unlikely to me. If they finish off what's left of the St Helens elk herd, maybe they would make their way across interstate 5 into the Willipa Hills, eat up a bunch of those elk and work their way north eventually reaching the peninsula, but to me that seems really unlikely.Once you get south of Olympia I think there are a few places where they can make it across I-5. I seem to remember some bridges down by Toutle/Cowlits with greenbelts and a bit of a corridor beneath. But once across, I think they would make it up north pretty quickly. Fishers were released in the park and didn't waste much time spreading down south.
Any ranchers think about filing a lawsuit against the wdfw? I think they should for the stupid plan they came up with. If they move wolves to other parts of the state, they should be sued too.
like a coyote on a fence line, wolves love trotting down along barriers until they find a river with a bridge and pass under it.
I-5 is no barrier to a wolf/s
Post by: washelkhunter on January 19, 2015, 10:14:12 PM
Post by: CementFinisher on January 19, 2015, 10:14:25 PM
Post by: jasnt on January 19, 2015, 10:15:20 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 19, 2015, 10:18:12 PM
If oly wants wolves in washington, then shouldnt washington want wolves in oly?
Who says Olympia wants wolves in Washington? :dunno:
The WDFW didn't want them, but we got them anyway.
Post by: KFhunter on January 19, 2015, 10:18:51 PM
Foot holds are not allowed either, nor will they ever be again
They are allowed with a landowner permit, bio's also use them.
The mechanism's are in place for limited permitted usage.
Post by: CementFinisher on January 19, 2015, 10:19:48 PM
Post by: jasnt on January 19, 2015, 10:20:03 PM
Foot holds are not allowed either, nor will they ever be againcorrect me if I'm wrong but doesn't the nuisense wildlife permit allow the use of body gripping traps. I know snares are a no but I thought foot holds are ok with the permit?
Post by: KFhunter on January 19, 2015, 10:20:32 PM
What will be the result of delisting in this state?A voter initiative to protect wolves forever.
Have no fear, this bill isn't going anywhere but it is far more likely to happen than your over the top threat - which isn't going to shut this topic down lest the voters get any ideas :rolleyes:
Post by: CementFinisher on January 19, 2015, 10:21:16 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 19, 2015, 10:22:03 PM
Wolves arnt deer most people wont spend a bunch of money to hunt wolves:yeah: and won't spend money when the deer and elk are gone, they'll go to a place with enough deer and elk.
Post by: KFhunter on January 19, 2015, 10:24:14 PM
From what a hear from nuisance traers and from guys who trap for cities and countys theres no way the are handing out those permits
Krem2 ran a story a few years back where the bio was trapping the wedge wolf pack, the bio on camera was touting the rubber padded foot hold trap and even stuck his hand in the trap to show it's viewers how it doesn't hurt or cause harm.
That was the biggest thing I've seen done to promote padded foothold traps and gave me some hope that it could eventually be used on wolves by the public on a very limited permit basis...albeit years down the road.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 19, 2015, 10:26:33 PM
I don't have a clue what you are even trying to suggest with your post. I will repeat again in case I was unclear: Wolf Management in Washington State will be ultimately decided by voter initiative.What will be the result of delisting in this state?A voter initiative to protect wolves forever.
Have no fear, this bill isn't going anywhere but it is far more likely to happen than your over the top threat - which isn't going to shut this topic down lest the voters get any ideas :rolleyes:
Post by: CementFinisher on January 19, 2015, 10:26:57 PM
Post by: jasnt on January 19, 2015, 10:28:28 PM
not everyone can afford to hunt out of state. Just because you wouldn't doesn't mean others will not. There are plenty of wolf hunters in this state willing to spend $ hunting wolves and plenty of predator hunters hoping and praying just like me. If there is ever so few deer and elk that we can't hunt them hunters will be turning to what is available to huntWolves arnt deer most people wont spend a bunch of money to hunt wolves:yeah: and won't spend money when the deer and elk are gone, they'll go to a place with enough deer and elk.
Post by: CementFinisher on January 19, 2015, 10:30:35 PM
Post by: CementFinisher on January 19, 2015, 10:32:27 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 19, 2015, 10:33:28 PM
I don't have a clue what you are even trying to suggest with your post. I will repeat again in case I was unclear: Wolf Management in Washington State will be ultimately decided by voter initiative.What will be the result of delisting in this state?A voter initiative to protect wolves forever.
Have no fear, this bill isn't going anywhere but it is far more likely to happen than your over the top threat - which isn't going to shut this topic down lest the voters get any ideas :rolleyes:
Possibly for a short time, until the other animals collapse. Even a voter initiative can't protect one animal at the severe detriment of another, your dream of wolves protected forever would be struck down in court faster than I-594.
I almost hope this chain of events come to pass. I think it would be very comparable to I-594.
Post by: Humptulips on January 19, 2015, 10:35:59 PM
Foot holds are not allowed either, nor will they ever be againcorrect me if I'm wrong but doesn't the nuisense wildlife permit allow the use of body gripping traps. I know snares are a no but I thought foot holds are ok with the permit?
Even right now WDFW is trying to clamp down on issuing those permits and we are not even talking about wolves.
But yea you could get a permit to trap wolves,
If the State delists them,
If the Feds delist them,
If it is on Private Land,
If you have a demonstrable problem that cannot be handled by other means,
If there are no lawsuits to stop management,
If WDFW allows the permits to be issued (they won't issue them for bears or cougars to most trappers, They have said they would have a training program that would make this possible but has never happened)
If,
If,
If
Post by: kentrek on January 19, 2015, 10:37:06 PM
I don't have a clue what you are even trying to suggest with your post. I will repeat again in case I was unclear: Wolf Management in Washington State will be ultimately decided by voter initiative.What will be the result of delisting in this state?A voter initiative to protect wolves forever.
Have no fear, this bill isn't going anywhere but it is far more likely to happen than your over the top threat - which isn't going to shut this topic down lest the voters get any ideas :rolleyes:
Possibly for a short time, until the other animals collapse. Even a voter initiative can't protect one animal at the severe detriment of another, your dream of wolves protected forever would be struck down in court faster than I-594.
I almost hope this chain of events come to pass. I think it would be very comparable to I-594.
Are you sure about that ?
Post by: KFhunter on January 19, 2015, 10:37:35 PM
Foot holds are not allowed either, nor will they ever be againcorrect me if I'm wrong but doesn't the nuisense wildlife permit allow the use of body gripping traps. I know snares are a no but I thought foot holds are ok with the permit?
Even right now WDFW is trying to clamp down on issuing those permits and we are not even talking about wolves.
But yea you could get a permit to trap wolves,
If the State delists them,
If the Feds delist them,
If it is on Private Land,
If you have a demonstrable problem that cannot be handled by other means,
If there are no lawsuits to stop management,
If WDFW allows the permits to be issued (they won't issue them for bears or cougars to most trappers, They have said they would have a training program that would make this possible but has never happened)
If,
If,
If
:yeah:
it would take *a lot* of pain
Post by: idahohuntr on January 19, 2015, 10:39:04 PM
I'm explaining what is going to happen, I've never endorsed ballot box wildlife management and never will. Your personal attacks continue to bore me. :rolleyes:I don't have a clue what you are even trying to suggest with your post. I will repeat again in case I was unclear: Wolf Management in Washington State will be ultimately decided by voter initiative.What will be the result of delisting in this state?A voter initiative to protect wolves forever.
Have no fear, this bill isn't going anywhere but it is far more likely to happen than your over the top threat - which isn't going to shut this topic down lest the voters get any ideas :rolleyes:
Possibly for a short time, until the other animals collapse. Even a voter initiative can't protect one animal at the severe detriment of another, your dream of wolves protected forever would be struck down in court faster than I-594.
I almost hope this chain of events come to pass. I think it would be very comparable to I-594.
Post by: jasnt on January 19, 2015, 10:43:34 PM
so what are supposed to do just accept it? Leave our home state? I'm not ready to give in! We have to fight back. We have to stand up for each other and our way of life or before we know it......Foot holds are not allowed either, nor will they ever be againcorrect me if I'm wrong but doesn't the nuisense wildlife permit allow the use of body gripping traps. I know snares are a no but I thought foot holds are ok with the permit?
Even right now WDFW is trying to clamp down on issuing those permits and we are not even talking about wolves.
But yea you could get a permit to trap wolves,
If the State delists them,
If the Feds delist them,
If it is on Private Land,
If you have a demonstrable problem that cannot be handled by other means,
If there are no lawsuits to stop management,
If WDFW allows the permits to be issued (they won't issue them for bears or cougars to most trappers, They have said they would have a training program that would make this possible but has never happened)
If,
If,
If
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 19, 2015, 10:44:37 PM
Oh, I would. I live in a part of the state that makes it that much harder to go out of state. I'm talking about the people that have to drive a few hours to go hunting anyways. I just don't see the loss in money from fewer deer/elk hunters being made up for by wolf hunters. Pretty sure Idaho and Montana didn't either.not everyone can afford to hunt out of state. Just because you wouldn't doesn't mean others will not. There are plenty of wolf hunters in this state willing to spend $ hunting wolves and plenty of predator hunters hoping and praying just like me. If there is ever so few deer and elk that we can't hunt them hunters will be turning to what is available to huntWolves arnt deer most people wont spend a bunch of money to hunt wolves:yeah: and won't spend money when the deer and elk are gone, they'll go to a place with enough deer and elk.
Post by: KFhunter on January 19, 2015, 10:44:39 PM
https://www.animallaw.info/statute/az-initiatives-proposition-102-voter-wildlife-initatives (https://www.animallaw.info/statute/az-initiatives-proposition-102-voter-wildlife-initatives)
Plenty of precedence prohibiting ballot box animal management. If what you predict came to pass I think we'd see this on our ballets...just like I-591 which rode against I-594
(ya ya I know 594 passed and 591 didn't) I just think that's how it'd play out.
Post by: Humptulips on January 19, 2015, 10:52:49 PM
so what are supposed to do just accept it? Leave our home state? I'm not ready to give in! We have to fight back. We have to stand up for each other and our way of life or before we know it......Foot holds are not allowed either, nor will they ever be againcorrect me if I'm wrong but doesn't the nuisense wildlife permit allow the use of body gripping traps. I know snares are a no but I thought foot holds are ok with the permit?
Even right now WDFW is trying to clamp down on issuing those permits and we are not even talking about wolves.
But yea you could get a permit to trap wolves,
If the State delists them,
If the Feds delist them,
If it is on Private Land,
If you have a demonstrable problem that cannot be handled by other means,
If there are no lawsuits to stop management,
If WDFW allows the permits to be issued (they won't issue them for bears or cougars to most trappers, They have said they would have a training program that would make this possible but has never happened)
If,
If,
If
Hey I'm with you. I've just been beat down I guess. Spent a lot of time and money trying to do something about I-713 (trap Ban) to no avail.
Post by: mkcj on January 19, 2015, 11:05:11 PM
Post by: jasnt on January 19, 2015, 11:12:52 PM
Ps
We need to make hunting and fishing and trapping our right. Not a privilege slowly taken away
Post by: AspenBud on January 20, 2015, 08:47:16 AM
Careful what you wish for.
Post by: ipkus on January 20, 2015, 09:34:08 AM
On the other hand it could backfire, they could be relocated, nothing could change, and then the argument of "easy for people without skin in the game" argument dies.
Careful what you wish for.
There's almost 20 years of evidence from Mont/Id/Wyo that says I'm willing to take the chance. It's not really a gamble.
Post by: bearpaw on January 20, 2015, 09:38:23 AM
On the other hand it could backfire, they could be relocated, nothing could change, and then the argument of "easy for people without skin in the game" argument dies.
Careful what you wish for.
:chuckle: Where do some of these guys get their logic, what gamble? When wolves move in livestock/pets get eaten!
Post by: ipkus on January 20, 2015, 09:46:39 AM
I'm shocked at some of the guys on here making some of the arguments they do. Baffling.
Post by: jasnt on January 20, 2015, 09:55:54 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 20, 2015, 10:13:21 AM
This is why I'm all for this bill of course it will be denied and have to be re written and submitted but at least it's a push in the right direction. We need to make hunting and fishing and trapping our right. Not a privilege slowly taken away
The representative's proposal is based on earlier declassification of wolves. That's the whole point of it. I'm sure it would be spelled out in the legislation.
Post by: AspenBud on January 20, 2015, 10:16:32 AM
On the other hand it could backfire, they could be relocated, nothing could change, and then the argument of "easy for people without skin in the game" argument dies.
Careful what you wish for.
:chuckle: Where do some of these guys get their logic, what gamble? When wolves move in livestock/pets get eaten!
You're betting that people will run to the hills demanding an all out season over night once some wolves get relocated. Good luck with that.
Northeast Washington has howled about cougars since the hound ban and to date this state has not voted to lift it...and cougars are on boths sides of the mountains so the "skin in the game" argument holds little weight with people.
I just think you guys underestimate peoples' tolerance for predators this side of the mountains.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on January 20, 2015, 10:16:56 AM
Post by: jasnt on January 20, 2015, 10:23:08 AM
I edited my post to be less confusing.This is why I'm all for this bill of course it will be denied and have to be re written and submitted but at least it's a push in the right direction. We need to make hunting and fishing and trapping our right. Not a privilege slowly taken away
The representative's proposal is based on earlier declassification of wolves. That's the whole point of it. I'm sure it would be spelled out in the legislation.
Post by: jasnt on January 20, 2015, 10:26:29 AM
You may well be right on that one. It's like a whole different country over those mountainsOn the other hand it could backfire, they could be relocated, nothing could change, and then the argument of "easy for people without skin in the game" argument dies.
Careful what you wish for.
:chuckle: Where do some of these guys get their logic, what gamble? When wolves move in livestock/pets get eaten!
You're betting that people will run to the hills demanding an all out season over night once some wolves get relocated. Good luck with that.
Northeast Washington has howled about cougars since the hound ban and to date this state has not voted to lift it...and cougars are on boths sides of the mountains so the "skin in the game" argument holds little weight with people.
I just think you guys underestimate peoples' tolerance for predators this side of the mountains.
Post by: KFhunter on January 20, 2015, 10:30:30 AM
What happened to the Profanity Pack ? WDFW took them and transplanted them someplace illegally I bet. We have not heard one word about that pack since they were confirmed, nothing, nada, zip, zilch.....
Cattle were removed = no more problem
until next summer
Post by: Curly on January 20, 2015, 10:55:47 AM
Post by: ipkus on January 20, 2015, 11:10:52 AM
This much is fact...Washington State's wolf plan looks like it does because of the liberal base that resides in large majority on the west side of the mountains.
This much is fact...whenever the criteria to de-list in the current wolf plan is reached, the greenies will argue/cry/sue to change the rules and stop de-listing/actual management from occurring and the wolf problem will grow further out of control.
There really isn't a valid argument for not giving all of those who desire wolves the joy of living amongst them. It won't change anyone's mind overnight, and it won't ever change a lot of people's mind. But at least it's harder for KING TV and the Seattle Times to ignore the truth when it's happening in your backyard instead of ours.
YOU wanted them. YOU should have them.
I've got gas money for you KFhunter!
Post by: vandeman17 on January 20, 2015, 11:14:59 AM
Post by: Curly on January 20, 2015, 11:18:32 AM
If we could just get more voter turn out, then some real change could happen in this state by getting a good governor and reps elected. But everyone seems to sit on their a$$ and can't seem to get the energy to put a stamp on a ballot or drop it off in a drop box. It's very frustrating.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 20, 2015, 11:20:27 AM
In 1995 were you guys hoping for wolves to get transplanted all over the west so that they would be federally delisted quicker? :dunno: Didn't think so.
Maybe you're coming in late or something. The NE part of the state is now completely saturated with wolves, to a point where ranchers and communities are suffering. Our outrageous wolf plan calls for 15 breeding pairs, but the distribution of those breeding pairs must include distribution across several different zones. Until there are enough breeding pairs in the other zones, the three-year timeclock for management won't even start ticking. So, we could wait for perhaps another 10-20-30 years and let the folks in the NE suck wind while the wolves eat them out of business and our ungulates out of game status. Or, the WDFW could be proactive and move some surplus packs to those areas around the state so that delisting and killing will happen much sooner. It's important to remember that the outrageous wolf plan says specifically that all the goals must be met before the three year waiting period starts leading up to delisting and game management of the species.
I'd be all for it. I'd actually like to see more wolves on this side of the state - the closer to Thurston, King, and Pierce Counties, the better. Unfortunately, the WDFW would put up as many roadblocks as possible. The fact that their plan calls for distribution to those specific zones yet Ware says that to move wolves to those zones would require an environmental impact survey is mind-numbingly mentally challenged thinking. Let's get them dispersed properly and start killing them ASAP, anywhere in the state they can be found.
Post by: Curly on January 20, 2015, 11:23:19 AM
I'm not late to the discussion. I don't think you understood what I was getting at. I don't have time right now to explain better.
Post by: kentrek on January 20, 2015, 11:34:48 AM
Post by: Curly on January 20, 2015, 12:48:04 PM
In 1995 were you guys hoping for wolves to get transplanted all over the west so that they would be federally delisted quicker? :dunno: Didn't think so.
Maybe you're coming in late or something. The NE part of the state is now completely saturated with wolves, to a point where ranchers and communities are suffering. Our outrageous wolf plan calls for 15 breeding pairs, but the distribution of those breeding pairs must include distribution across several different zones. Until there are enough breeding pairs in the other zones, the three-year timeclock for management won't even start ticking. So, we could wait for perhaps another 10-20-30 years and let the folks in the NE suck wind while the wolves eat them out of business and our ungulates out of game status. Or, the WDFW could be proactive and move some surplus packs to those areas around the state so that delisting and killing will happen much sooner. It's important to remember that the outrageous wolf plan says specifically that all the goals must be met before the three year waiting period starts leading up to delisting and game management of the species.
I'd be all for it. I'd actually like to see more wolves on this side of the state - the closer to Thurston, King, and Pierce Counties, the better. Unfortunately, the WDFW would put up as many roadblocks as possible. The fact that their plan calls for distribution to those specific zones yet Ware says that to move wolves to those zones would require an environmental impact survey is mind-numbingly mentally challenged thinking. Let's get them dispersed properly and start killing them ASAP, anywhere in the state they can be found.
The point I tried to make (poorly I might add) was that when the USFWS transplanted wolves into Yellowstone we weren't all hoping that they would transplant them all over the place so that they would be federally delisted any quicker. Anyway, to get back more to the point of this proposal by the politician.......
Wouldn't it serve the people in this state better if instead of this proposal, they tried to get the stupid state wolf plan revised? Instead of forcing wolves into areas where they may never get to on their own, they could revise the plan to let us hunt them in the eastern third of the state and get that 15 number down hopefully at least in half. Seems like there is a lot of scientific data to show that the plan isn't working and needs to be revised. With a new WDFW director, it might be a good time to call for wolf plan revision.
(I do have one idea on transplanting though. If you look at the wolf map in the link below, you can see that the Yakima Indian Reservation is a large land area in the SW wolf zone. Why not plant a pack or two in there and let them take care of all those wild horses? Those wolf huggers are probably also horse huggers; that would serve them right). :chuckle:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/graphics/draft_pack_map_2-27-2014.jpg (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/graphics/draft_pack_map_2-27-2014.jpg)
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 20, 2015, 01:09:05 PM
You pointed the transplant of the wolves into the GYA in 1996 and that no one proposed placing them everywhere. That's correct. At that time, we in WA were still more than a decade away from having our own established plan. I don't think at that time, any of us hunters or the ranchers actually believed that we, as a state, would adopt a plan so monumental in its scope as it eventually became. I know the greenies wanted it but they were just blithering idiots that no one was going to listen to anyway. Fast forward 14 years or so. The Wildlife Commission, now stacked with greenies from decades of liberal governors, votes in a wolf plan that makes those of ID, WY, and MT look like child's play. Not only was the number of breeding pairs off the charts, but the actual distribution was purposely done so that it would be decades before any real and measured management could take place. Then, on top of all off that, a three year waiting period after all goals have been met to begin game management. This is the result of a concerted effort on the part of some to use wolves and the ESA to end hunting and if possible, ranching in WA. The Commission and the WDFW fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
Fast forward to today. We've been under the wolf plan now for about 4 years I think. The wolves have been allowed to migrate "naturally" from the GYA through ID and MT into WA. The problem is that they're not doing so according to the outrageous wolf plan. They're congregating mostly in the NE in a relatively small area. And, instead of the wildlife managers actually reaching down and finding anything at all substantial in their pants to allow them to go to the commission and say "Hey, we really need to adapt and make some changes.", they sit dumb and impotent, and say nothing. meanwhile, as you're well aware, screw the folks and wildlife in the NE corner. All in the name of the cuddly, uncooperative wolf.
The proposed legislation could at the very least point out that the plan is very problematic. At best, if it actually passed, we'd get the distribution we need to move delisting along and start killing these critters. Especially if regional management of wolves was then allowed, at least the ranchers and communities of the NE would feel a little better about the situation. As it is now, the rest of the state has completely forgotten them.
Post by: bearpaw on January 20, 2015, 01:18:43 PM
On the other hand it could backfire, they could be relocated, nothing could change, and then the argument of "easy for people without skin in the game" argument dies.
Careful what you wish for.
:chuckle: Where do some of these guys get their logic, what gamble? When wolves move in livestock/pets get eaten!
You're betting that people will run to the hills demanding an all out season over night once some wolves get relocated. Good luck with that.
Northeast Washington has howled about cougars since the hound ban and to date this state has not voted to lift it...and cougars are on boths sides of the mountains so the "skin in the game" argument holds little weight with people.
I just think you guys underestimate peoples' tolerance for predators this side of the mountains.
Your argument is faulty, cougar are being hunted throughout Washington by boot hunting and by dogs in certain problem areas, you are comparing apples with oranges since wolf numbers are not being controlled in any way.
Post by: bobcat on January 20, 2015, 01:21:17 PM
Quote
The proposed legislation could at the very least point out that the plan is very problematic. At best, if it actually passed, we'd get the distribution we need to move delisting along and start killing these critters. Especially if regional management of wolves was then allowed, at least the ranchers and communities of the NE would feel a little better about the situation. As it is now, the rest of the state has completely forgotten them.
The wolf plan already has the option of moving wolves from one part of the state to another. The proposed new law would change nothing.
Post by: Curly on January 20, 2015, 01:25:45 PM
Sorry Curly. It wasn't my intent to sound sarcastic. The problem I have is that neither the Wildlife Commission nor the WDFW working on its behalf have shown any interest in deviating from the outrageous plan one bit, regardless of how far under the surface of the water their heads become.
But, could they be forced to with some legislation? :dunno: Probably as likely to pass as this proposal we're discussing though, I know, but just seems like something else could be done other than forcing wolves into other areas that also don't want them.
Why doesn't somebody sue the State and/or feds for this wolf fiasco? I suppose I'm naive and don't know how this political stuff works, but I just hate the idea of wolves infesting much of our state and seeming like nothing can be done to stop the bleeding.
I also think that if transplanted wolves start eating livestock or worse.......a human, then whoever is responsible for transplanting said wolves will be in a world of hurt from lawsuits. Maybe I'm wrong here too. :dunno:
Post by: AspenBud on January 20, 2015, 01:37:07 PM
On the other hand it could backfire, they could be relocated, nothing could change, and then the argument of "easy for people without skin in the game" argument dies.
Careful what you wish for.
:chuckle: Where do some of these guys get their logic, what gamble? When wolves move in livestock/pets get eaten!
You're betting that people will run to the hills demanding an all out season over night once some wolves get relocated. Good luck with that.
Northeast Washington has howled about cougars since the hound ban and to date this state has not voted to lift it...and cougars are on boths sides of the mountains so the "skin in the game" argument holds little weight with people.
I just think you guys underestimate peoples' tolerance for predators this side of the mountains.
Your argument is faulty, cougar are being hunted throughout Washington by boot hunting and by dogs in certain problem areas, you are comparing apples with oranges since wolf numbers are not being controlled in any way.
Nothing faulty about it at all, this state has not repealed the hound ban on cougars despite some quite loud yelling from northeastern Washington. It is a fact that before wolves it was cougars that were the boogie man for people in NE Washington post ban and despite kitties and dogs and other animals being taken out by mountain lions west of the mountains no one has voted to have that ban lifted.
To think turning loose a flock of wolves west of the mountains is somehow going to make west siders want them gone as bad as people in the NE is more than wishful thinking and it could actually make the argument that "only people who don't have to live with them want them" ineffective. I still have my doubts about how wolves will fair in an area with more people than Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and eastern Washington combined, and it's a much smaller land area at that, but fundamentally I could see relatively few attitudes changing even if they were turned loose here. More likely you'd have hippy tourist groups going to "nature watch" wolves. Hunting isn't that popular and livestock does not make up the majority of jobs or money here. Someone's cow or dog getting killed by a wolf pack here isn't going to impact jobs at Boeing or Microsoft or Amazon and so forth and if wolves were to somehow make a living in a suburb, well, for one more power to them and for another the state would likely remove them and thereby no one would call for their eradication.
The lawmaker proposing this bill really doesn't understand the other half of the state.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 20, 2015, 01:46:19 PM
Post by: wolfbait on January 20, 2015, 02:10:37 PM
We could have delisted in 2010 with wolves to spare, if WDFW were honestly concerned, they aren't. Unless WDFW are forced to confirm wolf packs/BPs the wolf delisting will drag out for a very long time.
At some point there needs to be some accountability, WDFW can only BS their way through an over population of wolves for so long. Remember the Lolo elk herd and the habitat lie?
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 20, 2015, 02:18:30 PM
Having wolves in every part of WA where they are required to delist isn't a problem, the problem is getting WDFW to confirm these wolves.
We could have delisted in 2010 with wolves to spare, if WDFW were honestly concerned, they aren't. Unless WDFW are forced to confirm wolf packs/BPs the wolf delisting will drag out for a very long time.
At some point there needs to be some accountability, WDFW can only BS their way through an over population of wolves for so long. Remember the Lolo elk herd and the habitat lie?
Really? They seem to be doing fine BS-ing all they want. Even the response to this guy was that they'd have to do environmental impact studies which would,...blah blah blah. They have the support of the lousy governor, his Wildlife Commission, and all the dread-locked and ignorant King Co. wolf lovers. The could lie straight-faced to a reporter and there'd be no consequence.
Post by: wolfbait on January 20, 2015, 02:36:53 PM
Having wolves in every part of WA where they are required to delist isn't a problem, the problem is getting WDFW to confirm these wolves.
We could have delisted in 2010 with wolves to spare, if WDFW were honestly concerned, they aren't. Unless WDFW are forced to confirm wolf packs/BPs the wolf delisting will drag out for a very long time.
At some point there needs to be some accountability, WDFW can only BS their way through an over population of wolves for so long. Remember the Lolo elk herd and the habitat lie?
Really? They seem to be doing fine BS-ing all they want. Even the response to this guy was that they'd have to do environmental impact studies which would,...blah blah blah. They have the support of the lousy governor, his Wildlife Commission, and all the dread-locked and ignorant King Co. wolf lovers. The could lie straight-faced to a reporter and there'd be no consequence.
I know for a fact there are already wolf packs on the westside, and just like on the east side WDFW will not confirm any packs/bps unless they are forced into it.
It's interesting to see the folks that don't want them in their backyard, and the reasoning for No relocation of wolves :chuckle:
It took IDFG 10 years to finally come out and say, yes it was wolves that had been and are decimating the elk herds etc.. WDFW are pretending they have a different wolf, it's a new wolf story, with the same old wolf and the same outcome no matter how they try to spin it.
Maybe this push will some how force WDFW to start confirming wolf packs and BP's. :dunno: At any rate it sure does show how the other side thinks.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 20, 2015, 02:37:33 PM
Also, the scope of the impact of wolves is being exaggerated in some instances. I would swear there is not a child, pet, cow, or deer to be found in the entire NE corner of WA the way some folks talk because the wolves have "saurated" the area and killed everything.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 20, 2015, 02:38:21 PM
Post by: jasnt on January 20, 2015, 03:28:59 PM
I agree with you Aspen. Wolves over on the westside are not going to be a driving force of any kind because the presence of wolves will still affect a very small number of (mostly rural) people.wolves can be a driving force on the west side. We need numbers in the right spots. Tack a few breeding pairs and move them to where it's needed. They are still a document BP even if they have been moved threw soft release. All moved wolves would be callord and tracked. There is no need to wait for confirmation they are already a pair.
Also, the scope of the impact of wolves is being exaggerated in some instances. I would swear there is not a child, pet, cow, or deer to be found in the entire NE corner of WA the way some folks talk because the wolves have "saurated" the area and killed everything.
No one has said there is no game left If so it's cause they don't want anyone hunting there grounds. But it has declined! Even 2010 and 2012 was better than 2014.
Post by: AspenBud on January 20, 2015, 04:19:35 PM
I agree with you Aspen. Wolves over on the westside are not going to be a driving force of any kind because the presence of wolves will still affect a very small number of (mostly rural) people.
Also, the scope of the impact of wolves is being exaggerated in some instances. I would swear there is not a child, pet, cow, or deer to be found in the entire NE corner of WA the way some folks talk because the wolves have "saurated" the area and killed everything.
Again, there are more people on this side of the mountains than there are in all of Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and eastern Washington combined and everyone is packed into much less land. That's a lot of cars, parvo, people with guns, industrial poisons, etc etc etc etc that will kill a lot of wolves fast. Faster than people in any of the states I mentioned can do. This is hostile territory for wolves by virtue of human numbers and the hazards that come with that for wild animals, numbers that far in away exceed anywhere else that they exist in the lower 48. They won't be much of a threat to most people here...because they'll be dying, a lot, due to modern life. People will probably be more concerned that so many cars accidentally kill them which may actually lead to more protections.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 20, 2015, 04:27:20 PM
And like you mention about the population, the Puget Sound region of four counties (Snohomish, King, Pierce, Kitsap) are projected to grow by another 1.7 million in the next 15 years.I agree with you Aspen. Wolves over on the westside are not going to be a driving force of any kind because the presence of wolves will still affect a very small number of (mostly rural) people.
Also, the scope of the impact of wolves is being exaggerated in some instances. I would swear there is not a child, pet, cow, or deer to be found in the entire NE corner of WA the way some folks talk because the wolves have "saurated" the area and killed everything.
Again, there are more people on this side of the mountains than there are in all of Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and eastern Washington combined and everyone is packed into much less land. That's a lot of cars, parvo, people with guns, industrial poisons, etc etc etc etc that will kill a lot of wolves fast. Faster than people in any of the states I mentioned can do. This is hostile territory for wolves by virtue of human numbers and the hazards that come with that for wild animals, numbers that far in away exceed anywhere else that they exist in the lower 48.
Post by: AspenBud on January 20, 2015, 04:29:42 PM
And like you mention about the population, the Puget Sound region of four counties (Snohomish, King, Pierce, Kitsap) are projected to grow by another 1.7 million in the next 15 years.I agree with you Aspen. Wolves over on the westside are not going to be a driving force of any kind because the presence of wolves will still affect a very small number of (mostly rural) people.
Also, the scope of the impact of wolves is being exaggerated in some instances. I would swear there is not a child, pet, cow, or deer to be found in the entire NE corner of WA the way some folks talk because the wolves have "saurated" the area and killed everything.
Again, there are more people on this side of the mountains than there are in all of Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and eastern Washington combined and everyone is packed into much less land. That's a lot of cars, parvo, people with guns, industrial poisons, etc etc etc etc that will kill a lot of wolves fast. Faster than people in any of the states I mentioned can do. This is hostile territory for wolves by virtue of human numbers and the hazards that come with that for wild animals, numbers that far in away exceed anywhere else that they exist in the lower 48.
Wolves on the west side = road pizza
Post by: KFhunter on January 20, 2015, 04:34:58 PM
Wolves on the west side = road pizza
I'm fine with that, better that then eating a hole in the arse of an elk and dragging it's guts out while it's alive.
Post by: AspenBud on January 20, 2015, 04:54:52 PM
Wolves on the west side = road pizza
I'm fine with that, better that then eating a hole in the arse of an elk and dragging it's guts out while it's alive.
Wild animals doing what wild animals do. People will worry more about cars hitting wolves. You wait.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 20, 2015, 04:56:54 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 20, 2015, 05:22:46 PM
I agree with you Aspen. Wolves over on the westside are not going to be a driving force of any kind because the presence of wolves will still affect a very small number of (mostly rural) people.
Also, the scope of the impact of wolves is being exaggerated in some instances. I would swear there is not a child, pet, cow, or deer to be found in the entire NE corner of WA the way some folks talk because the wolves have "saurated" the area and killed everything.
Again, there are more people on this side of the mountains than there are in all of Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and eastern Washington combined and everyone is packed into much less land. That's a lot of cars, parvo, people with guns, industrial poisons, etc etc etc etc that will kill a lot of wolves fast. Faster than people in any of the states I mentioned can do. This is hostile territory for wolves by virtue of human numbers and the hazards that come with that for wild animals, numbers that far in away exceed anywhere else that they exist in the lower 48. They won't be much of a threat to most people here...because they'll be dying, a lot, due to modern life. People will probably be more concerned that so many cars accidentally kill them which may actually lead to more protections.
Your reasoning is why the outrageous wolf plan should be changed, yet the WDFW refuses to look at that. This is an excerpt from the plan:
"Three recovery regions were delineated for the state: (1) Eastern Washington, (2) Northern Cascades, and (3) Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast. Target numbers and distribution for downlisting and delisting within the three recovery regions are:
•To reclassify from state endangered to state threatened status: 6 successful breeding pairs present for 3 consecutive years, with 2 successful breeding pairs in each of the three recovery regions.
•To reclassify from state threatened to state sensitive status: 12 successful breeding pairs present for 3 consecutive years, with 4 successful breeding pairs in each of the three recovery regions.
•To delist from state sensitive status: 15 successful breeding pairs present for 3 consecutive years, with 4 successful breeding pairs in each of the three recovery regions and 3 successful breeding pairs anywhere in the state.
•In addition to the delisting objective of 15 successful breeding pairs distributed in the three geographic regions for 3 consecutive years, an alternative delisting objective is also established whereby the gray wolf will be considered for delisting when 18 successful breeding pairs are present, with 4 successful breeding pairs in the Eastern Washington region, 4 successful breeding pairs in the Northern Cascades region, 4 successful breeding pairs distributed in the Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast region, and 6 anywhere in the state."
So the wolf plan requires wolves in the west side, where all the people and cars are, before delisting can happen. They're not moving here to the west side in the numbers that are needed, probably for all the reasons you've mentioned. And, without any changes to the plan, the state and we will be unable to control their numbers. It's only when conflict with ranchers do they kill them. So, without either changing the plan OR transplanting wolves into the west side of the state, their numbers will continue to increase unabated. This is different from any of the other states. If you don't think this will have a negative effect on ungulate herds in the areas where they DO thrive, you're being completely naïve.
Post by: AspenBud on January 20, 2015, 05:55:24 PM
I agree with you Aspen. Wolves over on the westside are not going to be a driving force of any kind because the presence of wolves will still affect a very small number of (mostly rural) people.
Also, the scope of the impact of wolves is being exaggerated in some instances. I would swear there is not a child, pet, cow, or deer to be found in the entire NE corner of WA the way some folks talk because the wolves have "saurated" the area and killed everything.
Again, there are more people on this side of the mountains than there are in all of Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and eastern Washington combined and everyone is packed into much less land. That's a lot of cars, parvo, people with guns, industrial poisons, etc etc etc etc that will kill a lot of wolves fast. Faster than people in any of the states I mentioned can do. This is hostile territory for wolves by virtue of human numbers and the hazards that come with that for wild animals, numbers that far in away exceed anywhere else that they exist in the lower 48. They won't be much of a threat to most people here...because they'll be dying, a lot, due to modern life. People will probably be more concerned that so many cars accidentally kill them which may actually lead to more protections.
Your reasoning is why the outrageous wolf plan should be changed, yet the WDFW refuses to look at that. This is an excerpt from the plan:
"Three recovery regions were delineated for the state: (1) Eastern Washington, (2) Northern Cascades, and (3) Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast. Target numbers and distribution for downlisting and delisting within the three recovery regions are:
•To reclassify from state endangered to state threatened status: 6 successful breeding pairs present for 3 consecutive years, with 2 successful breeding pairs in each of the three recovery regions.
•To reclassify from state threatened to state sensitive status: 12 successful breeding pairs present for 3 consecutive years, with 4 successful breeding pairs in each of the three recovery regions.
•To delist from state sensitive status: 15 successful breeding pairs present for 3 consecutive years, with 4 successful breeding pairs in each of the three recovery regions and 3 successful breeding pairs anywhere in the state.
•In addition to the delisting objective of 15 successful breeding pairs distributed in the three geographic regions for 3 consecutive years, an alternative delisting objective is also established whereby the gray wolf will be considered for delisting when 18 successful breeding pairs are present, with 4 successful breeding pairs in the Eastern Washington region, 4 successful breeding pairs in the Northern Cascades region, 4 successful breeding pairs distributed in the Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast region, and 6 anywhere in the state."
So the wolf plan requires wolves in the west side, where all the people and cars are, before delisting can happen. They're not moving here to the west side in the numbers that are needed, probably for all the reasons you've mentioned. And, without any changes to the plan, the state and we will be unable to control their numbers. It's only when conflict with ranchers do they kill them. So, without either changing the plan OR transplanting wolves into the west side of the state, their numbers will continue to increase unabated. This is different from any of the other states. If you don't think this will have a negative effect on ungulate herds in the areas where they DO thrive, you're being completely naïve.
Oh I think they'll negatively impact them. I just think that it will be out of sight and out of mind for most. No, I know it will, ever see many ungulates in most hikers' photos? I sure don't. It's a big deal to them if they see anything at all. I also know that wolves will have a lot more to worry from the general population here. They aren't coyotes, they'll struggle outside of the woods and rural areas.
Post by: Curly on January 20, 2015, 05:58:29 PM
Post by: zike on January 20, 2015, 06:18:50 PM
Post by: zike on January 20, 2015, 06:25:42 PM
Oh I think they'll negatively impact them. I just think that it will be out of sight and out of mind for most. No, I know it will, ever see many ungulates in most hikers' photos? I sure don't. It's a big deal to them if they see anything at all. I also know that wolves will have a lot more to worry from the general population here. They aren't coyotes, they'll struggle outside of the woods and rural areas.
[/quote]
I guess you haven't heard about the wolves in the Pullman area. Not much for woods there.
Post by: ipkus on January 20, 2015, 06:34:43 PM
The wolf plan does not require wolves on the westside. Look at the map. I posted a link earlier.
So, you don't think the vast majority of the people who want them here so bad shouldn't have them running around their hiking trails?
Pro wolf...just not in your backyard?
Post by: KFhunter on January 20, 2015, 06:39:33 PM
Post by: Curly on January 20, 2015, 07:17:26 PM
I say they should go to northwest trek, wolf haven, or Canada to see wolves. We need a shoot on sight program in place along with trapping and aerial gunning if necessary to drop the numbers down to say a pack or two. But that program that I wish has about as much chance of happening as us ever getting to hunt them in this state. Even if wdfw were to eventually allow hunting (which is doubtful) a voter initiative would most likely shut it right down.The wolf plan does not require wolves on the westside. Look at the map. I posted a link earlier.
So, you don't think the vast majority of the people who want them here so bad shouldn't have them running around their hiking trails?
Pro wolf...just not in your backyard?
BTW I've never been accused of being pro wolf.
I sympathize with the frustration the people in NE are dealing with, but I don't think others should have to have wolves forced on them too just because the people in NE are getting screwed over.
Post by: KFhunter on January 20, 2015, 07:35:31 PM
The goal of the bill was to promote discussion at a higher level than just water coolers and hunting forums, it was meant to foster discussion and debate at the highest levels of the legislature and make some news stories. It's done very well in that.
I applaud Mr. Kretz, he's doing fine work.
Post by: Curly on January 20, 2015, 07:39:19 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 20, 2015, 07:44:34 PM
Post by: AspenBud on January 20, 2015, 08:46:36 PM
Oh I think they'll negatively impact them. I just think that it will be out of sight and out of mind for most. No, I know it will, ever see many ungulates in most hikers' photos? I sure don't. It's a big deal to them if they see anything at all. I also know that wolves will have a lot more to worry from the general population here. They aren't coyotes, they'll struggle outside of the woods and rural areas.
I guess you haven't heard about the wolves in the Pullman area. Not much for woods there.
[/quote]
I've lived in Pullman, they got their first movie theater that shows more than one at a time what, maybe ten years ago? Pullman is rural whether they want to admit it or not. It is not in the same class as Seattle and its suburbs, Olympia, Bellingham, or Vancouver. Not even close.
Post by: mountainman on January 20, 2015, 09:13:50 PM
There's no point in arguing about this bill, it's not meant to pass and was written knowing full well it wasn't going to pass. The house leadership wouldn't even let this bill see the floor. ( I see they're already shelved HB1224/5, to die in Agriculture & Natural Resources )Joel is a good man! Remember taking him on his first bear/hound hunt. That was a bear kicking experience! Lol
The goal of the bill was to promote discussion at a higher level than just water coolers and hunting forums, it was meant to foster discussion and debate at the highest levels of the legislature and make some news stories. It's done very well in that.
I applaud Mr. Kretz, he's doing fine work.
Post by: bearpaw on January 21, 2015, 12:34:05 AM
There's no point in arguing about this bill, it's not meant to pass and was written knowing full well it wasn't going to pass. The house leadership wouldn't even let this bill see the floor. ( I see they're already shelved HB1224/5, to die in Agriculture & Natural Resources )
The goal of the bill was to promote discussion at a higher level than just water coolers and hunting forums, it was meant to foster discussion and debate at the highest levels of the legislature and make some news stories. It's done very well in that.
I applaud Mr. Kretz, he's doing fine work.
:yeah: gotta keep the wolf conversation and education ongoing
Post by: wolfbait on January 21, 2015, 01:38:52 PM
I agree with you Aspen. Wolves over on the westside are not going to be a driving force of any kind because the presence of wolves will still affect a very small number of (mostly rural) people.
Also, the scope of the impact of wolves is being exaggerated in some instances. I would swear there is not a child, pet, cow, or deer to be found in the entire NE corner of WA the way some folks talk because the wolves have "saurated" the area and killed everything.
Again, there are more people on this side of the mountains than there are in all of Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and eastern Washington combined and everyone is packed into much less land. That's a lot of cars, parvo, people with guns, industrial poisons, etc etc etc etc that will kill a lot of wolves fast. Faster than people in any of the states I mentioned can do. This is hostile territory for wolves by virtue of human numbers and the hazards that come with that for wild animals, numbers that far in away exceed anywhere else that they exist in the lower 48. They won't be much of a threat to most people here...because they'll be dying, a lot, due to modern life. People will probably be more concerned that so many cars accidentally kill them which may actually lead to more protections.
Your reasoning is why the outrageous wolf plan should be changed, yet the WDFW refuses to look at that. This is an excerpt from the plan:
"Three recovery regions were delineated for the state: (1) Eastern Washington, (2) Northern Cascades, and (3) Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast. Target numbers and distribution for downlisting and delisting within the three recovery regions are:
•To reclassify from state endangered to state threatened status: 6 successful breeding pairs present for 3 consecutive years, with 2 successful breeding pairs in each of the three recovery regions.
•To reclassify from state threatened to state sensitive status: 12 successful breeding pairs present for 3 consecutive years, with 4 successful breeding pairs in each of the three recovery regions.
•To delist from state sensitive status: 15 successful breeding pairs present for 3 consecutive years, with 4 successful breeding pairs in each of the three recovery regions and 3 successful breeding pairs anywhere in the state.
•In addition to the delisting objective of 15 successful breeding pairs distributed in the three geographic regions for 3 consecutive years, an alternative delisting objective is also established whereby the gray wolf will be considered for delisting when 18 successful breeding pairs are present, with 4 successful breeding pairs in the Eastern Washington region, 4 successful breeding pairs in the Northern Cascades region, 4 successful breeding pairs distributed in the Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast region, and 6 anywhere in the state."
So the wolf plan requires wolves in the west side, where all the people and cars are, before delisting can happen. They're not moving here to the west side in the numbers that are needed, probably for all the reasons you've mentioned. And, without any changes to the plan, the state and we will be unable to control their numbers. It's only when conflict with ranchers do they kill them. So, without either changing the plan OR transplanting wolves into the west side of the state, their numbers will continue to increase unabated. This is different from any of the other states. If you don't think this will have a negative effect on ungulate herds in the areas where they DO thrive, you're being completely naïve.
Where did the "naturally Migrating" wolves go? If WDFW refuse to confirm "migrating wolves" does it stop the migration?
Until 2008, no wild wolves had been confirmed west of the DPS boundary in Washington or Oregon. However, in July 2008, a wolf pack (2 adults and 6 pups) was discovered near Twisp, WA (just east of the North Cascades and west of the DPS boundary). Genetic testing showed these wolves did not originate from the NRM DPS; instead they apparently dispersed southward from the wolf population in southcentral British Columbia. Both adults were radio-collared and the pack is being monitored via radio telemetry by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. If this pack persists it will remain separated and distinct from the NRM DPS by the large expanse of unsuitable wolf habitat in eastern WA and OR.
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf (http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf)
DNA samples confirm gray wolves are back in Methow Valley By Joyce Campbell
Methow Valley News
July 24, 2008
DNA tests showed that the wolves originated from a population in the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada.
“This is a natural colonization,” said Fitkin. “The wolves are naturally immigrating.” http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley (http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley)
“DNA obtained from Lookout Pack wolves has shown they are descendents of wolves living in coastal British Columbia”, who lived separately from inland wolves for many generations, “Conservation Northwest” said in a press release. http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/ (http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/)
http://tomremington.com/2014/06/09/the-naturally-migrating-gi-wolves/ (http://tomremington.com/2014/06/09/the-naturally-migrating-gi-wolves/)
Post by: PA BEN on January 22, 2015, 06:06:25 AM
I agree with you Aspen. Wolves over on the westside are not going to be a driving force of any kind because the presence of wolves will still affect a very small number of (mostly rural) people.Using your logit only a small number of people on the west side will be affected by wolves and won’t be a driving force to get anything done. Well I’m here to tell you that a small rural part of Washington is the driving force to get something done about wolves. It wasn’t until our legislators got involved opened the State’s eyes about the problem. The west side legislators are voted into office just like ours and if they don’t represent the people they will be out. The driving force on the west side will be the voter, just like it is now for the pro-wolf voters. As long as the Westside voters can keep the States wolves in my back yard they can sit on their butts and do nothing. My recommendation to you Westside voters who want to keep the wolves out of your back yard should start calling your State rep.s to do something about the wolf plan. Right now the only eye opener for the Westside legislators is to impact their voter base.
Also, the scope of the impact of wolves is being exaggerated in some instances. I would swear there is not a child, pet, cow, or deer to be found in the entire NE corner of WA the way some folks talk because the wolves have "saurated" the area and killed everything.
Post by: bobcat on January 22, 2015, 07:49:51 AM
Post by: kentrek on January 22, 2015, 08:06:30 AM
If people were pro wolf, they would be in favor of wolves on the west side. No? :dunno:
I've talked to people that love that wolfs are back and hate the idea or hunting them but when asked about wolves in there back yard making mince meat of there horse the tone usually changes in the conversation
I don't think anybody truly wants to live with wolves, they are just so out of tune with nature they don't understand the implications of these pro wolf actions
Post by: bearpaw on January 22, 2015, 11:56:41 AM
Also, the scope of the impact of wolves is being exaggerated in some instances. I would swear there is not a child, pet, cow, or deer to be found in the entire NE corner of WA the way some folks talk because the wolves have "saurated" the area and killed everything.
Yes we do have wolves which are impacting certain areas in NE WA.
But I think your comment is a bit of an exaggeration.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 22, 2015, 12:15:15 PM
Post by: PA BEN on January 22, 2015, 12:24:27 PM
The wolf plan is not the deciding factor in whether wolves will be on the west side or not. The wolves will decide that. If they get here on their own and the habitat is such that they can survive, and multiply, then we'll have a wolf population over here. If not, then we won't. In my opinion, the wolf plan is irrelevant.The wolf plan is relevant, we will be over run by wolves before we can control them by hunting. The plan needs to be changed to support control in areas with high numbers of wolves. Not when they migrate to the rest of this state.
Post by: bobcat on January 22, 2015, 12:35:37 PM
The wolf plan is not the deciding factor in whether wolves will be on the west side or not. The wolves will decide that. If they get here on their own and the habitat is such that they can survive, and multiply, then we'll have a wolf population over here. If not, then we won't. In my opinion, the wolf plan is irrelevant.The wolf plan is relevant, we will be over run by wolves before we can control them by hunting. The plan needs to be changed to support control in areas with high numbers of wolves. Not when they migrate to the rest of this state.
The reason I don't agree with that is because I don't think hunting will have a significant effect on wolf populations.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 22, 2015, 12:43:24 PM
Well, depending on the season/quota it might not need to have a major effect on population if it can affect behavior. Animals can get conditioned to act a certain way by the way they are trained. Example: I see coyotes in the neighborhood and they will look at me and kind of go on their business, when I see coyotes out in the live fire areas they take off immediately and avoid at all costs. I don't know if the change in wolf behavior from hunting will yield any improvements, though.The wolf plan is not the deciding factor in whether wolves will be on the west side or not. The wolves will decide that. If they get here on their own and the habitat is such that they can survive, and multiply, then we'll have a wolf population over here. If not, then we won't. In my opinion, the wolf plan is irrelevant.The wolf plan is relevant, we will be over run by wolves before we can control them by hunting. The plan needs to be changed to support control in areas with high numbers of wolves. Not when they migrate to the rest of this state.
The reason I don't agree with that is because I don't think hunting will have a significant effect on wolf populations.
Post by: huntnphool on January 22, 2015, 12:50:58 PM
The wolf plan is not the deciding factor in whether wolves will be on the west side or not. The wolves will decide that. If they get here on their own and the habitat is such that they can survive, and multiply, then we'll have a wolf population over here. If not, then we won't. In my opinion, the wolf plan is irrelevant.The wolf plan is relevant, we will be over run by wolves before we can control them by hunting. The plan needs to be changed to support control in areas with high numbers of wolves. Not when they migrate to the rest of this state.
Only issue with this statement Pa Ben is evidence/testimony has shown that wolves can not be "controlled" by hunting, hunting is not a effective means to control them. ;)
Post by: idahohuntr on January 22, 2015, 05:07:39 PM
Please show me where I made a claim that many members want all wolves eliminated...because I have said no such thing. But what an interesting topic you bring up about inaccurate exaggeration of other peoples comments. Is it quite a bit different than accurate exaggerations of other peoples comments? :chuckle:Also, the scope of the impact of wolves is being exaggerated in some instances. I would swear there is not a child, pet, cow, or deer to be found in the entire NE corner of WA the way some folks talk because the wolves have "saurated" the area and killed everything.
Yes we do have wolves which are impacting certain areas in NE WA.
But I think your comment is a bit of an exaggeration.
Post by: PA BEN on January 23, 2015, 06:44:45 AM
The statement was made that the plan "is irrelevant". The State is following a flawed plan right now and are going to stick to it unless it is changed to manage wolves. Hunting is just one of many management tools that should be in a plan. phool you have seen first hand what wildlife/hunting is like in the 49 area. Over the last few years the wolves have moved into all of those you hunted for your Washington moose and they are making a foothold. Cottonwood just East of town has at least 3, 2 with collars not more than a mile or so from town. It's bye, bye moose and the small amount of elk will be gone. I had one hollowing above my house last February, the northern tip of the Huckleberry pack is not far to the south of my house. Yes we have a lot of skin in the game here. This "not in my backyard attitude has to stop" and the westsiders need to jump in and help. At the Colville wolf meeting Sen. Dansel said he was going to introduce legislation to allow counties to manage the wildlife in their own Counties and kick out WDFW. A lot of westsiders jumped in and side counties can't do that, the game animals belong to us all. I hear comments about turkey hunting and the amount of over the counter tags", "too many hens are being taken" so on and so on. Wolves will eat a turkey too. Everybody wants to come over and hunt whitetails, turkeys, moose, elk but no one wants to help in the fight. I applaud the young man who went to the westside wolf meeting and stood up for wildlife/hunting.The wolf plan is not the deciding factor in whether wolves will be on the west side or not. The wolves will decide that. If they get here on their own and the habitat is such that they can survive, and multiply, then we'll have a wolf population over here. If not, then we won't. In my opinion, the wolf plan is irrelevant.The wolf plan is relevant, we will be over run by wolves before we can control them by hunting. The plan needs to be changed to support control in areas with high numbers of wolves. Not when they migrate to the rest of this state.
Only issue with this statement Pa Ben is evidence/testimony has shown that wolves can not be "controlled" by hunting, hunting is not a effective means to control them. ;)
Post by: idahohuntr on January 23, 2015, 07:25:28 AM
Managing wildlife and hunting is expensive, challenging, and unappreciated. Individual county management is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard of...I assume it was another bill with no intention of actually passing?
The statement was made that the plan "is irrelevant". The State is following a flawed plan right now and are going to stick to it unless it is changed to manage wolves. Hunting is just one of many management tools that should be in a plan. phool you have seen first hand what wildlife/hunting is like in the 49 area. Over the last few years the wolves have moved into all of those you hunted for your Washington moose and they are making a foothold. Cottonwood just East of town has at least 3, 2 with collars not more than a mile or so from town. It's bye, bye moose and the small amount of elk will be gone. I had one hollowing above my house last February, the northern tip of the Huckleberry pack is not far to the south of my house. Yes we have a lot of skin in the game here. This "not in my backyard attitude has to stop" and the westsiders need to jump in and help. At the Colville wolf meeting Sen. Dansel said he was going to introduce legislation to allow counties to manage the wildlife in their own Counties and kick out WDFW. A lot of westsiders jumped in and side counties can't do that, the game animals belong to us all. I hear comments about turkey hunting and the amount of over the counter tags", "too many hens are being taken" so on and so on. Wolves will eat a turkey too. Everybody wants to come over and hunt whitetails, turkeys, moose, elk but no one wants to help in the fight. I applaud the young man who went to the westside wolf meeting and stood up for wildlife/hunting.The wolf plan is not the deciding factor in whether wolves will be on the west side or not. The wolves will decide that. If they get here on their own and the habitat is such that they can survive, and multiply, then we'll have a wolf population over here. If not, then we won't. In my opinion, the wolf plan is irrelevant.The wolf plan is relevant, we will be over run by wolves before we can control them by hunting. The plan needs to be changed to support control in areas with high numbers of wolves. Not when they migrate to the rest of this state.
Only issue with this statement Pa Ben is evidence/testimony has shown that wolves can not be "controlled" by hunting, hunting is not a effective means to control them. ;)
Post by: mfswallace on January 23, 2015, 07:52:55 AM
I know money is the driving force so finding ways to spend responsibly and generate more revenue to increase more accurate counts should be the focus :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on January 23, 2015, 10:44:24 AM
On the other hand it could backfire, they could be relocated, nothing could change, and then the argument of "easy for people without skin in the game" argument dies.
Careful what you wish for.
:chuckle: Where do some of these guys get their logic, what gamble? When wolves move in livestock/pets get eaten!
You're betting that people will run to the hills demanding an all out season over night once some wolves get relocated. Good luck with that.
Incorrect:
I have never made the highlighted statement, you are trying to put words in my mouth! :dunno:
Northeast Washington has howled about cougars since the hound ban and to date this state has not voted to lift it...and cougars are on boths sides of the mountains so the "skin in the game" argument holds little weight with people.
Misleading Comment:
Actually the legislature implemented a 5 year public safety cougar season as a result of rural cougar attacks.
I just think you guys underestimate peoples' tolerance for predators this side of the mountains.
Post by: bearpaw on January 23, 2015, 12:49:56 PM
KFH, Bearpaw, Ridgerat and anyone else, as hunters why do you want more wolves in this state? This is completely illogical to me. :dunno:
I think you are misunderstanding some comments. I can't speak for the others but I don't think any one of us wants more wolves in WA, I am suggesting that the wolves already existing in WA be spread across all three wolf zones rather than wolves being left unmanaged in NE WA for an undetermined amount of time. If the wolf plan was changed whereby management in the NE wasn't determined by how soon wolves move into all the other zones I wouldn't have this concern at all. But the plan is written so that management in the NE is dependent on wolves being established in all three wolf zones. The only chance we have for management in the NE is for at least 3 BP's to be raising pups in each of the three wolf zones for 3 consecutive years.
Post by: Woodchuck on January 23, 2015, 12:59:50 PM
Post by: jasnt on January 23, 2015, 01:01:47 PM
Post by: kentrek on January 23, 2015, 01:14:09 PM
I really do feel bad for the north east and it would be some sweet karma to have the "seatle" pack chomp some puppy dogs infront of the wolf luvers but still doesn't make it the rite thing to do
I know this is just to open some eyes so hopefully it does just that and the north east gets some help
Post by: wolfbait on January 23, 2015, 02:02:26 PM
Whole I appreciate everything you do for hunting bearpaw I definitely disagree with this idea.....i feel you shouldnt rearrange nature to work around a law...get the law fixed with out messing up our side of the state
I really do feel bad for the north east and it would be some sweet karma to have the "seatle" pack chomp some puppy dogs infront of the wolf luvers but still doesn't make it the rite thing to do
I know this is just to open some eyes so hopefully it does just that and the north east gets some help
"i feel you shouldnt rearrange nature to work around a law"
IDFG Continues to Deny It Violated Idaho Law
To counteract a false claim by Idaho Fish and Game Commissioner Randy Budge that certain hunters who testify are not telling the truth about the Department’s role in transplanting Canadian wolves into Idaho, Outdoorsman Bulletin No. 38 published documents proving IDFG violated Idaho Code Sec. 36-715(2) by:
(a) illegally signing a document which officially approved the FWS wolf plan;
(b) illegally signing a permit authorizing FWS to introduce up to 75 Canadian wolves into Idaho.
I suggested it was time for them to admit the truth about how we got where we are, put it behind them, and get on with the business of restoring our billion dollar wildlife resource. Instead, a May 13, 2010 Lewiston Tribune article stated, “Department Director Cal Groen said the document was signed to make sure any wolves placed in Idaho were done so under an experimental and nonessential population status.”
As Chief of the IDFG Natural Resource Policy Bureau, Groen knew FWS needed state approval of its plan to bring “Nonessential Experimental” Canadian wolves into Idaho in order to appear to comply with 50 CFR 17 and the intent of Congress. He also knew Idaho Law
prohibited IDFG from signing the agreements – yet they did it anyway.
But instead of admitting they violated Idaho law in order to get Canadian wolves into Idaho as I suggested, Groen had a “Wolf Reintroduction/Recovery Timeline” placed on the website the last week in May which conceals their illegal actions. It claims the Permit was simply “a courtesy in accordance with state law and the Idaho wolf management plan currently being drafted by IDFG.” and truthfully admits the full Commission formally approved introduction of the wolves by FWS two months later
If Groen’s statement to the Tribune is an admission that we would not have many wolves in Idaho today if the documents allowing FWS to transplant them had not been signed, he admitted the truth about the controversial documents for a change.
But his willingness to continue to mislead the public with a carefully crafted document distorting the truth does not excuse the fact that Fish and Game’s violation of State Law then to serve its private agenda, is now costing Idaho citizens up to $24 million each year just in lost revenue from elk hunters. Unfortunately, that cost represents just the tip of the iceberg to Idaho Citizens. Read More @ http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%2039%20May%202010-IDFG%20Continues%20to%20Deny.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%2039%20May%202010-IDFG%20Continues%20to%20Deny.pdf)
KFH, Bearpaw, Ridgerat and anyone else, as hunters why do you want more wolves in this state? This is completely illogical to me. :dunno:
I think you are misunderstanding some comments. I can't speak for the others but I don't think any one of us wants more wolves in WA, I am suggesting that the wolves already existing in WA be spread across all three wolf zones rather than wolves being left unmanaged in NE WA for an undetermined amount of time. If the wolf plan was changed whereby management in the NE wasn't determined by how soon wolves move into all the other zones I wouldn't have this concern at all. But the plan is written so that management in the NE is dependent on wolves being established in all three wolf zones. The only chance we have for management in the NE is for at least 3 BP's to be raising pups in each of the three wolf zones for 3 consecutive years.
I agree 100% with Bearpaw, If WDFW refuse to confirm wolf packs that are already on the west side, then make them collar and move some BP's from the east side.
Post by: bearpaw on January 23, 2015, 02:21:41 PM
Whole I appreciate everything you do for hunting bearpaw I definitely disagree with this idea.....i feel you shouldnt rearrange nature to work around a law...get the law fixed with out messing up our side of the state
I really do feel bad for the north east and it would be some sweet karma to have the "seatle" pack chomp some puppy dogs infront of the wolf luvers but still doesn't make it the rite thing to do
I know this is just to open some eyes so hopefully it does just that and the north east gets some help
I understand completely! :tup: :sry:
Post by: huntnphool on January 23, 2015, 03:36:03 PM
KFH, Bearpaw, Ridgerat and anyone else, as hunters why do you want more wolves in this state? This is completely illogical to me. :dunno:
I think you are misunderstanding some comments. I can't speak for the others but I don't think any one of us wants more wolves in WA, I am suggesting that the wolves already existing in WA be spread across all three wolf zones rather than wolves being left unmanaged in NE WA for an undetermined amount of time. If the wolf plan was changed whereby management in the NE wasn't determined by how soon wolves move into all the other zones I wouldn't have this concern at all. But the plan is written so that management in the NE is dependent on wolves being established in all three wolf zones. The only chance we have for management in the NE is for at least 3 BP's to be raising pups in each of the three wolf zones for 3 consecutive years.
So you justify/support/advocate other areas being forced into wolf depredation because the NE has a issue? Yeah that's not self centered thinking at all, or as I posted before, "cutting off your nose to spite your face"
You don't want more wolves, but ARE advocating reaching the 15 BP target, yet fail to see this as one in the same? :bash:
You honestly don't believe transplanting opposite sex wolves, in other areas currently uninhabited with wolves, will result in increased wolf numbers? :DOH:
Post by: bearpaw on January 23, 2015, 04:05:05 PM
KFH, Bearpaw, Ridgerat and anyone else, as hunters why do you want more wolves in this state? This is completely illogical to me. :dunno:
I think you are misunderstanding some comments. I can't speak for the others but I don't think any one of us wants more wolves in WA, I am suggesting that the wolves already existing in WA be spread across all three wolf zones rather than wolves being left unmanaged in NE WA for an undetermined amount of time. If the wolf plan was changed whereby management in the NE wasn't determined by how soon wolves move into all the other zones I wouldn't have this concern at all. But the plan is written so that management in the NE is dependent on wolves being established in all three wolf zones. The only chance we have for management in the NE is for at least 3 BP's to be raising pups in each of the three wolf zones for 3 consecutive years.
So you justify/support/advocate other areas being forced into wolf depredation because the NE has a issue? Yeah that's not self centered thinking at all, or as I posted before, "cutting off your nose to spite your face"
You don't want more wolves, but ARE advocating reaching the 15 BP target, yet fail to see this as one in the same? :bash:
You honestly don't believe transplanting opposite sex wolves, in other areas currently uninhabited with wolves, will result in increased wolf numbers? :DOH:
If you can get a better plan implemented I am all for it. :tup:
But honestly I think those wolves are going to multiply no matter where they are at in the state which results in more wolves in WA no matter where they are located. Someone said WDFW has said there are many more wolves than the minimum number that they publish, I agree with that. If we spread those wolves that we already have in WA into all three wolf areas then we can delist and hopefully start more meaningful wolf management sooner which could result in fewer wolves statewide than if we let two wolf zones go unchecked and wait for the third zone.
As others have eluded, this isn't a law that is going anywhere quickly anyway, but it does keep the problems we are facing in the NE in the conversation and not forgotten. I'm just looking for a solution, it doesn't have to be this solution.
Post by: bearpaw on January 23, 2015, 04:10:08 PM
I know not all people in W WA share that prevailing attitude and I appreciate those who understand our situation in the NE.
:hello:
Post by: huntnphool on January 23, 2015, 04:13:42 PM
KFH, Bearpaw, Ridgerat and anyone else, as hunters why do you want more wolves in this state? This is completely illogical to me. :dunno:
I think you are misunderstanding some comments. I can't speak for the others but I don't think any one of us wants more wolves in WA, I am suggesting that the wolves already existing in WA be spread across all three wolf zones rather than wolves being left unmanaged in NE WA for an undetermined amount of time. If the wolf plan was changed whereby management in the NE wasn't determined by how soon wolves move into all the other zones I wouldn't have this concern at all. But the plan is written so that management in the NE is dependent on wolves being established in all three wolf zones. The only chance we have for management in the NE is for at least 3 BP's to be raising pups in each of the three wolf zones for 3 consecutive years.
So you justify/support/advocate other areas being forced into wolf depredation because the NE has a issue? Yeah that's not self centered thinking at all, or as I posted before, "cutting off your nose to spite your face"
You don't want more wolves, but ARE advocating reaching the 15 BP target, yet fail to see this as one in the same? :bash:
You honestly don't believe transplanting opposite sex wolves, in other areas currently uninhabited with wolves, will result in increased wolf numbers? :DOH:
If you can get a better plan implemented I am all for it. :tup:
But honestly I think those wolves are going to multiply no matter where they are at in the state which results in more wolves in WA no matter where they are located. Someone said WDFW has said there are many more wolves than the minimum number that they publish, I agree with that. If we spread those wolves that we already have in WA into all three wolf areas then we can delist and hopefully start more meaningful wolf management sooner which could result in fewer wolves statewide than if we let two wolf zones go unchecked and wait for the third zone.
As others have eluded, this isn't a law that is going anywhere quickly anyway, but it does keep the problems we are facing in the NE in the conversation and not forgotten. I'm just looking for a solution, it doesn't have to be this solution.
So you are advocating for more wolves?
You're basing all this on someone's theory that there are more wolves than WDFW are admitting to?
Post by: vandeman17 on January 23, 2015, 04:17:42 PM
KFH, Bearpaw, Ridgerat and anyone else, as hunters why do you want more wolves in this state? This is completely illogical to me. :dunno:
I think you are misunderstanding some comments. I can't speak for the others but I don't think any one of us wants more wolves in WA, I am suggesting that the wolves already existing in WA be spread across all three wolf zones rather than wolves being left unmanaged in NE WA for an undetermined amount of time. If the wolf plan was changed whereby management in the NE wasn't determined by how soon wolves move into all the other zones I wouldn't have this concern at all. But the plan is written so that management in the NE is dependent on wolves being established in all three wolf zones. The only chance we have for management in the NE is for at least 3 BP's to be raising pups in each of the three wolf zones for 3 consecutive years.
So you justify/support/advocate other areas being forced into wolf depredation because the NE has a issue? Yeah that's not self centered thinking at all, or as I posted before, "cutting off your nose to spite your face"
You don't want more wolves, but ARE advocating reaching the 15 BP target, yet fail to see this as one in the same? :bash:
You honestly don't believe transplanting opposite sex wolves, in other areas currently uninhabited with wolves, will result in increased wolf numbers? :DOH:
If you can get a better plan implemented I am all for it. :tup:
But honestly I think those wolves are going to multiply no matter where they are at in the state which results in more wolves in WA no matter where they are located. Someone said WDFW has said there are many more wolves than the minimum number that they publish, I agree with that. If we spread those wolves that we already have in WA into all three wolf areas then we can delist and hopefully start more meaningful wolf management sooner which could result in fewer wolves statewide than if we let two wolf zones go unchecked and wait for the third zone.
As others have eluded, this isn't a law that is going anywhere quickly anyway, but it does keep the problems we are facing in the NE in the conversation and not forgotten. I'm just looking for a solution, it doesn't have to be this solution.
So you are advocating for more wolves?
You're basing all this on someone's theory that there are more wolves than WDFW are admitting to?
I think he is wanting to spread the existing wolves out in all the areas required to have a certain amount of wolves in them so that they can be de-listed. Until all the zones have their "required" amount of breeding pairs then nothing will change. :twocents:
Post by: huntnphool on January 23, 2015, 04:21:17 PM
I would add that there is a sort of prevailing attitude in western WA that the wolves in the NE are not really a significant problem, if that is really true then it shouldn't be a problem with those folks to move some of the wolves to W WA?
I know not all people in W WA share that prevailing attitude and I appreciate those who understand our situation in the NE.
I understand the situation in the NE, but it's asinine to advocate the destruction of other herds simply out of spite because you are unhappy that it's happening in your area.
And you call yourself a outfitter and sportsman, you should be ashamed of this tit for tat attitude Dale, it's unbecoming. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 23, 2015, 04:24:15 PM
I would add that there is a sort of prevailing attitude in western WA that the wolves in the NE are not really a significant problem, if that is really true then it shouldn't be a problem with those folks to move some of the wolves to W WA?
I know not all people in W WA share that prevailing attitude and I appreciate those who understand our situation in the NE.
:hello:
I hate to see the wolves in my backyard, but I stand shoulder to shoulder with my friends from the NE and say bring 'em on. The sooner they're dispersed, the sooner everyone can start putting wolf rugs up on the wall.
Post by: bearpaw on January 23, 2015, 04:40:49 PM
I would add that there is a sort of prevailing attitude in western WA that the wolves in the NE are not really a significant problem, if that is really true then it shouldn't be a problem with those folks to move some of the wolves to W WA?
I know not all people in W WA share that prevailing attitude and I appreciate those who understand our situation in the NE.
I understand the situation in the NE, but it's asinine to advocate the destruction of other herds simply out of spite because you are unhappy that it's happening in your area.
And you call yourself a outfitter and sportsman, you should be ashamed of this tit for tat attitude Dale, it's unbecoming. :twocents:
I'm really really sorry but one way or another all three zones are going to get at least 3 or 4 BP's, whatever the plan calls for. It really doesn't matter if anything becomes of this legislation or not, it's going to happen, there are already some wolves in W WA, neither you nor I can stop this from happening. I can assure you that I am as upset if not more upset than you. If the table was turned I cannot say that I wouldn't feel the same as you, I understand your thoughts.
But, if we spread the 100-200 wolves that we have now so we can delist sooner, any planted wolves would have collars and would be monitored for reproduction, I don't think that is currently happening with the wolves that are already on the westside? So ultimately we may have fewer total wolves in the state if we moved a few wolves and monitored them in all zones. Just a thought to consider. I will say it again, I completely understand your opposition!
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 23, 2015, 04:56:17 PM
Post by: M_ray on January 23, 2015, 05:21:37 PM
KFH, Bearpaw, Ridgerat and anyone else, as hunters why do you want more wolves in this state? This is completely illogical to me. :dunno:
I think you are misunderstanding some comments. I can't speak for the others but I don't think any one of us wants more wolves in WA, I am suggesting that the wolves already existing in WA be spread across all three wolf zones rather than wolves being left unmanaged in NE WA for an undetermined amount of time. If the wolf plan was changed whereby management in the NE wasn't determined by how soon wolves move into all the other zones I wouldn't have this concern at all. But the plan is written so that management in the NE is dependent on wolves being established in all three wolf zones. The only chance we have for management in the NE is for at least 3 BP's to be raising pups in each of the three wolf zones for 3 consecutive years.
Quote
Quote from: bearpaw on Today at 04:10:08 PM
I would add that there is a sort of prevailing attitude in western WA that the wolves in the NE are not really a significant problem, if that is really true then it shouldn't be a problem with those folks to move some of the wolves to W WA?
I know not all people in W WA share that prevailing attitude and I appreciate those who understand our situation in the NE.
In order to reach thier 15 BP according to the management goal it is going to increase numbers whether they are in one area or the entire state, this doesn't compute to you? Its simple to me and I don't get how others are not seeing this? If it took 1000 to reach 12 it is going to take another 500 minimum to reach 15 that = MORE WOLVES!
I'm finding it a hard pill to swallow that in your position you would advocate 1) for anymore and 2) to wish that the entire state should suffer the same consequence that the NE has.
Personally I hope they never reach their goal and furthermore had they chose the west side in the first place I wouldn't wish the destruction on my worst neighbor. Those who make the comments that they should plant them on the west side don't understand that we will never be able to control the numbers because it is even more dense than the NE. So the answer to this problem is to ruin the whole state? are we so self centered that we want everyone to suffer because our area has suffered? And how is this the fault of Westsider's? West side hunters didn't decide where to put them in the first place :dunno: hell I've heard more west side opposition to wolves not being anywhere in the state period so how does this comment even make any sense??? :dunno: I have never heard a westsider say "Yeah plant them in the East" But I've heard plenty of Eastsiders say "plant them on the west" :bash:
Post by: JJB11B on January 23, 2015, 05:25:34 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 23, 2015, 06:34:23 PM
This will be a long battle and will almost certainly be decided by voter initiative...take a look at the banning guns in the legislature thread where many agree that just a few extremists can do great harm and maybe some of my critics can understand why I cringe when I hear sportsmen make outlandish claims about wolves and wolf conspiracies. Focusing on issues that are based on misinformation or distortions of accurate information are non-starters for non-hunting voters. We have no need to resort to repeating articles and points from fringe groups that publish stuff all the time about the various conspiracies, ineptness of game agencies, cover-ups etc. We have a several century track record of hunters funding and supporting wildlife conservation for the beneift of all wildlife, including predators as well as prey. We have wildlife management agencies that are capable of conserving all species of wildlife. Those are points that support lethal control of wolves that non-hunters need to hear.
Post by: mfswallace on January 23, 2015, 08:07:17 PM
One thing mentioned earlier worth repeating...de-listing does not mean hunting or other forms of lethal control starts the following day. Wolves are still federally listed in western Washington, so we actually need 2 "de-listings" to occur. Also, note that Idaho wolves were petitioned for delisting in 2002, it was not until 2009 that we were able to hunt them...then the hunting was shutdown and in 2011 we resumed. Keep in mind that was IDAHO!!! This is Washington.
This will be a long battle and will almost certainly be decided by voter initiative...take a look at the banning guns in the legislature thread where many agree that just a few extremists can do great harm and maybe some of my critics can understand why I cringe when I hear sportsmen make outlandish claims about wolves and wolf conspiracies. Focusing on issues that are based on misinformation or distortions of accurate information are non-starters for non-hunting voters. We have no need to resort to repeating articles and points from fringe groups that publish stuff all the time about the various conspiracies, ineptness of game agencies, cover-ups etc. We have a several century track record of hunters funding and supporting wildlife conservation for the beneift of all wildlife, including predators as well as prey. We have wildlife management agencies that are capable of conserving all species of wildlife. Those are points that support lethal control of wolves that non-hunters need to hear.
You have been told there a a few hundred wolves in Washington by senior wdfw biologists, yet the last official count they put on the website is 53 and that was over a year ago. You have explained this 53 is actual wolves they have documented but the fact that these senior wdfw bio' s know there are actually a few hundred sound like the people you describe in bold above. I want to believe someone but when both sides aren't giving the best information they can it's hard :dunno:
Post by: wolfbait on January 23, 2015, 08:28:48 PM
KFH, Bearpaw, Ridgerat and anyone else, as hunters why do you want more wolves in this state? This is completely illogical to me. :dunno:
I think you are misunderstanding some comments. I can't speak for the others but I don't think any one of us wants more wolves in WA, I am suggesting that the wolves already existing in WA be spread across all three wolf zones rather than wolves being left unmanaged in NE WA for an undetermined amount of time. If the wolf plan was changed whereby management in the NE wasn't determined by how soon wolves move into all the other zones I wouldn't have this concern at all. But the plan is written so that management in the NE is dependent on wolves being established in all three wolf zones. The only chance we have for management in the NE is for at least 3 BP's to be raising pups in each of the three wolf zones for 3 consecutive years.QuoteQuote from: bearpaw on Today at 04:10:08 PM
I would add that there is a sort of prevailing attitude in western WA that the wolves in the NE are not really a significant problem, if that is really true then it shouldn't be a problem with those folks to move some of the wolves to W WA?
I know not all people in W WA share that prevailing attitude and I appreciate those who understand our situation in the NE.
In order to reach thier 15 BP according to the management goal it is going to increase numbers whether they are in one area or the entire state, this doesn't compute to you? Its simple to me and I don't get how others are not seeing this? If it took 1000 to reach 12 it is going to take another 500 minimum to reach 15 that = MORE WOLVES!
I'm finding it a hard pill to swallow that in your position you would advocate 1) for anymore and 2) to wish that the entire state should suffer the same consequence that the NE has.
Personally I hope they never reach their goal and furthermore had they chose the west side in the first place I wouldn't wish the destruction on my worst neighbor. Those who make the comments that they should plant them on the west side don't understand that we will never be able to control the numbers because it is even more dense than the NE. So the answer to this problem is to ruin the whole state? are we so self centered that we want everyone to suffer because our area has suffered? And how is this the fault of Westsider's? West side hunters didn't decide where to put them in the first place :dunno: hell I've heard more west side opposition to wolves not being anywhere in the state period so how does this comment even make any sense??? :dunno: I have never heard a westsider say "Yeah plant them in the East" But I've heard plenty of Eastsiders say "plant them on the west" :bash:
In 2008 WDFW confirmed the first wolf pack in WA. M_ray do you know how many years people had been reporting wolves to WDFW before they finally had to confirm a pack? I know as early as 2003 wolves in Black pine basin were reported to WDFW. 2005-8, wolves from Bridge Creek to Gold Cr were being reported to WDFW. In fact I know a guy who actually gave a WDFW biologist wolf scat and hair, the biologist laughed it off saying he would put it with his sasquatch info..
It took several years before WDFW were finally forced to confirm a wolf pack, and that one wolf pack is the only one they will confirm, every wolf in the Okanogan is part of the Lookout pack.
The west side already has wolves, and like the east side, WDFW will not confirm a wolf pack until they are forced to do so. So while you are telling us how you don't want any wolves, WDFW are laughing their arse off.
If some bps were collared and relocated from the east side to the west side at least there would be documentation of these soon to be wolf packs with pups, as it is WDFW are just going to play the waiting game until they have to come out and confirm the "first wolf pack" in 70 years on the W-side, you folks are going to go through the same lying crap that the east side is going through.
A Wildlife commission that stacked the wolf working group with pro-wolfers and gave us the crappy wolf plan.
WDFW refusing to confirm wolf packs and breeding pairs unless forced to do so, do to livestock predation by wolves.
WDFW's condescending attitude at wolf meetings. Refusal to answer questions.
The public comment period when drafting our current wolf plan.
Refusal of cattlemen money to fund a WDFW trapper and bio ride along.
CNW sitting on the Commission.
WDFW repeatedly denying wolf depredation.
WDFW denying wolf even exist in an area.
WDFW forcing their own field officers to phone Olympia for permission to say "yes, a wolf killed this calf"
WDFW pulling authorization from local LE to determine wolf depredation.
WDFW's acceptance of monies from NGO's who support the wolf agenda but disallow monies from pro-management NGO's.
Maybe you trust that WDFW are honest and would confirm wolf packs on the W-side.
At any rate I don't think there is anyone that would wish these wolves on any part of WA. Some of us have gotten to witness their destruction of wildlife and WDFW BS lies when it come to confirming wolf killed livestock. What we would like to see is some honesty from WDFW.
Wolf pack could be coming to the area, but no one knows when
YAKIMA, Wash. — While the population of resident wolves in Washington state has been growing, with four new packs established over the past year, wildlife experts know the next logical place for a new pack could well be in the forested Cascade foothills west of Yakima.
But it isn’t there yet, say state wildlife experts.
“We’re continuing to keep our eyes on the area south of I-90 and west of Yakima,” said Scott Becker, wolf biologist with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. “It’s the next area that’s probably going to be populated by wolves at some point in the future.
“But we can’t predict when that’s going to be.”
One would think it’s already happening based on the frequency of anecdotal reports, rumors and sightings of animals that may be wolves — but probably aren’t.
“There’s lots of reports that come in west of Yakima, and a lot of them may turn out to be coyotes or, as in the case earlier this year, a Cascade fox or those types of things,” Becker said. “We haven’t been able to confirm anything. We’ve conducted surveys and there’s thousands of cameras out there as well, and we’ve got nothing solid.
“That doesn’t mean there’s nothing there.”
One thing that is there — and may be slowing wolf expansion into this part of the state — is an already plentiful population of cougars. The big cats, drawn to the same sort of ungulate prey that attracts wolves, have long been well-established on the Central Washington landscape, and are apparently willing to defend their territory against the region’s newest predator — or eat it.
Earlier this month, a cougar killed and partially devoured a radio-collared wolf north of Ellensburg, a year after another collared Washington wolf had been killed by a cougar. This month’s victim was a young male, almost 3 years old, that was believed to be dispersed from the Teanaway pack.
“A lone wolf doesn’t stand a chance against a lion,” Becker said. “A lion’s a pure predator. If you have a pack of wolves, that’s a different story — in that case, I think the lion’s going to run away. But (against) a single wolf, or even two, a lion would be able to hold its own in just about any situation.
“And (cougars killing wolves) may happen more than we know, because those two (fatalities) just happened to be wolves that had radio collars on. Whether that’s happened to uncollared wolves, we don’t know.”
The Teanaway Pack, based in the Teanaway area of western Kittitas County, north and northeast of Cle Elum, is one of 13 packs in the state, based on the WDFW’s annual survey released 10 days ago. While that number counts four new packs, though, the state has only verified five successful breeding pairs and the total number of individual wolves in the survey, 52, constitutes an increase of just one wolf over the previous year’s count.
Three of the four new packs were formed by wolves that split off from the Smackout Pack in northeast Washington, according to WDFW state carnivore specialist Donny Martorello. The fourth new pack, though, the Wenatchee pack, might already be gone or might actually consist of Teanaway pack wolves that are on what biologists are calling “a walkabout.”
Since this time in 2013, when there were multiple photos and sightings of two wolves traveling together — the minimum requirements for a pack, according the state wolf management plan plan — the only evidence of the wolves was two trail-cam photographs captured over this past winter by a landowner in the Pitcher Canyon area southeast of Wenatchee.
“That was the only evidence we’ve had of that pack,” said Dave Volsen, a Wenatchee-based WDFW wildlife biologist. “When they appeared (in early 2013), they met all the requirements to be called a pack, and they’re still what we refer to as the Wenatchee pack in that area.
“But in reality, packs sometimes persist or do not persist. Conditions can change and their range can change, based on changes in the prey base and things like that.”
It’s been relatively easy for state officials to keep apprised of wolf activities in the northeast part of the state, with its relatively high density of wolves and livestock. But of the state’s 20 reported attacks on pets and livestock by wolves last year, WDFW officials determined that wolves were actually only involved in four of those attacks, resulting in one calf being killed and three dogs injured.
Those numbers constituted a significant drop from depredation in 2012, when Washington wolves killed at least seven calves and one sheep and injured another six calves and two sheep. Most of those attacks were attributed to the Wedge Pack, and the WDFW killed seven pack members that year. Two wolves from the Wedge, though, were still traveling as a pack in the same area in 2013.
A 2-year-old female from another northeast Washington pack, the Smackout pack in Stevens County, was shot and killed early last month. The WDFW, with support from three non-profit organizations, is offering a reard of up to $22,500 to find the person or persons responsible for its death.
But while wolves in that part of the state remain at the center of an emotional maelstrom, Central Washington’s wolves have “been fairly well-behaved,” without a single 2013 lifestock or wolf report involving the Teanaway pack.
That hasn’t stopped reports from coming in that wolves are, well, everywhere.
“Those reports are constant,” said Yakima-based WDFW biologist Jeff Bernatowicz. “Even along the I-5 corridor over by Seattle, they’re constant. Everywhere in the state you get reports of wolves. People see things.
“And, really, wolves aren’t very reclusive. They’re actually pretty bold. They like to run roads, and they howl. If there’s a pack, you’re going to know it. And it’s not going to be one report here and there, it’s going to be numerous reports.”
As for the occasional report of a set of wolf tracks — or what appears to be wolf tracks — Bernatowicz said that doesn’t mean there’s a pack anywhere around.
“That could be a single wolf traveling through or on a walkabout from another pack,” he said. “One set of wolf tracks, that’s not a pack. And that wolf, if it is a wolf, the next day could be many miles away.”
And the removal of wolves from the state’s endangered species list could be years away. The management plan calls for documenting 15 successful breeding pairs for three consecutive years spread among three designated wolf-recovery regions, or 18 successful breeding pairs in one year for the whole state.
And five breeding pairs, the current official count, is a far cry from that.
http://www.yakimaherald.com/sports/outdoorandrecreation/2023875-8/wolf-pack-could-be-coming-to-the-area (http://www.yakimaherald.com/sports/outdoorandrecreation/2023875-8/wolf-pack-could-be-coming-to-the-area)
Post by: M_ray on January 23, 2015, 09:53:13 PM
Quote
QuotePosted by: wolfbait
« on: Today at 08:28:48 PM »
At any rate I don't think there is anyone that would wish these wolves on any part of WA. Some of us have gotten to witness their destruction of wildlife and WDFW BS lies when it come to confirming wolf killed livestock. What we would like to see is some honesty from WDFW.
Really? did you even read what I was responding to? maybe this will make more sense to you ...
Quote
Quote from: bearpaw on Today at 04:10:08 PM
I would add that there is a sort of prevailing attitude in western WA that the wolves in the NE are not really a significant problem, if that is really true then it shouldn't be a problem with those folks to move some of the wolves to W WA?
Hence my comments regarding the fact that I have never heard W Wa hunters say move wolves to E Wa but many times have heard E Wa guys say move them W???
Sorry you wasted your time but I didnt need the lesson on things that I didn't say, You talk as if because you live on the E side that you are the only ones that have to suffer from this and that general attitude is that we should have to share in your pain. We hunt those ares too and I have many boot tracks between lookout and the NE so you're not the only one that is impacted and not the only one that wants honesty from the WDFW so that we can agree on but I still don't see how that relates to my response to Bearpaw?
Post by: KFhunter on January 23, 2015, 10:13:04 PM
They prey on the weak and sick remember? Seems like a no brainer to get some of these wolves on the wetside to me.
My offer stands, I'll haul them on my dime with my stock trailer.
Post by: wolfbait on January 24, 2015, 12:25:04 AM
Wolbait, Thanks but I don't need the run down on stuff I allready know and that has nothing to do with my comments? Obviously my numbers are for the sake of argument. Bearpaw seems to be advocating relocation which equates to more and I oppose any more period whether it be westside or eastside IMO any more is to many!QuoteQuotePosted by: wolfbait
« on: Today at 08:28:48 PM »
At any rate I don't think there is anyone that would wish these wolves on any part of WA. Some of us have gotten to witness their destruction of wildlife and WDFW BS lies when it come to confirming wolf killed livestock. What we would like to see is some honesty from WDFW.
Really? did you even read what I was responding to? maybe this will make more sense to you ...QuoteQuote from: bearpaw on Today at 04:10:08 PM
I would add that there is a sort of prevailing attitude in western WA that the wolves in the NE are not really a significant problem, if that is really true then it shouldn't be a problem with those folks to move some of the wolves to W WA?
Hence my comments regarding the fact that I have never heard W Wa hunters say move wolves to E Wa but many times have heard E Wa guys say move them W???
Sorry you wasted your time but I didnt need the lesson on things that I didn't say, You talk as if because you live on the E side that you are the only ones that have to suffer from this and that general attitude is that we should have to share in your pain. We hunt those ares too and I have many boot tracks between lookout and the NE so you're not the only one that is impacted and not the only one that wants honesty from the WDFW so that we can agree on but I still don't see how that relates to my response to Bearpaw?
I don't feel I wasted my time M_ray, I think you fail to understand that whether the wolves stay on the E-side or were relocated to the W-side they would still be making pups in WA and killing wildlife and livestock.
I highly doubt WDFW would want to relocate wolves to the W-side with a paper trail following, they would just a soon play the waiting game with the wolves that are already there, same as they have and will continue to do on the E-side.
"Sorry you wasted your time but I didnt need the lesson on things that I didn't say, You talk as if because you live on the E side that you are the only ones that have to suffer from this and that general attitude is that we should have to share in your pain. We hunt those ares too and I have many boot tracks between lookout and the NE so you're not the only one that is impacted and not the only one that wants honesty from the WDFW so that we can agree on but I still don't see how that relates to my response to Bearpaw?"
How many cows have you lost so far to the wolves, have you had any wolves after your horses several nights in a row, have you had wolves kill deer within a hundred yards of your house, had them crap in your yard? How about your dog, have you had any problem with wolves coming on to your porch and trying to kill your dog? Have you had wolves kill your cow/cows and then have WDFW tell you wolves wouldn't kill cow/cows? Or blame everything but wolves for your loss? I don't think you have done all that much suffering, but you will in the future as wolves eat their way into veiw on the w-side.
Post by: M_ray on January 24, 2015, 01:44:43 AM
Post by: wolfbait on January 24, 2015, 02:29:30 AM
KFH, Bearpaw, Ridgerat and anyone else, as hunters why do you want more wolves in this state? This is completely illogical to me. :dunno:
I think you are misunderstanding some comments. I can't speak for the others but I don't think any one of us wants more wolves in WA, I am suggesting that the wolves already existing in WA be spread across all three wolf zones rather than wolves being left unmanaged in NE WA for an undetermined amount of time. If the wolf plan was changed whereby management in the NE wasn't determined by how soon wolves move into all the other zones I wouldn't have this concern at all. But the plan is written so that management in the NE is dependent on wolves being established in all three wolf zones. The only chance we have for management in the NE is for at least 3 BP's to be raising pups in each of the three wolf zones for 3 consecutive years.QuoteQuote from: bearpaw on Today at 04:10:08 PM
I would add that there is a sort of prevailing attitude in western WA that the wolves in the NE are not really a significant problem, if that is really true then it shouldn't be a problem with those folks to move some of the wolves to W WA?
I know not all people in W WA share that prevailing attitude and I appreciate those who understand our situation in the NE.
In order to reach thier 15 BP according to the management goal it is going to increase numbers whether they are in one area or the entire state, this doesn't compute to you? Its simple to me and I don't get how others are not seeing this? If it took 1000 to reach 12 it is going to take another 500 minimum to reach 15 that = MORE WOLVES!
I'm finding it a hard pill to swallow that in your position you would advocate 1) for anymore and 2) to wish that the entire state should suffer the same consequence that the NE has.
Personally I hope they never reach their goal and furthermore had they chose the west side in the first place I wouldn't wish the destruction on my worst neighbor. Those who make the comments that they should plant them on the west side don't understand that we will never be able to control the numbers because it is even more dense than the NE. So the answer to this problem is to ruin the whole state? are we so self centered that we want everyone to suffer because our area has suffered? And how is this the fault of Westsider's? West side hunters didn't decide where to put them in the first place :dunno: hell I've heard more west side opposition to wolves not being anywhere in the state period so how does this comment even make any sense??? :dunno: I have never heard a westsider say "Yeah plant them in the East" But I've heard plenty of Eastsiders say "plant them on the west" :bash:
Maybe Bearpaw can answer your question :dunno: Seems people on the west side would just a soon the east side put up with the wolves, they don't want nothing to do with them, which is understandable. Unfortunately that isn't the way the USFWS or WDFW planed for wolves in WA.
Post by: PA BEN on January 24, 2015, 06:04:47 AM
If the moose will go "bye bye", why is the population increasing to the point that wdfw is increasing tags 20% this year in NE wa?Did your people in the know at WDFW tell you that? I’ve been looking and haven’t found where the permits in 49 are going up by 20%. I said, and maybe you should read this real slow, ‘’the wolves are making a foothold in the 49 unit just East of Chewelah.’’ Soon the moose will go bye, bye. I don’t see the WDFW managing the wolves; I don’t see a lot of changes with tags and permits. Just ask anybody who hunts the units with the most wolves how the moose, elk and deer are doing. You yourself admitted you don’t hunt the NE of this State. This means you have no clue of what’s going on here, but you sure love to support the wolf with no facts, but you jump all over the hearsay. It has been pointed out several times here that the flawed wolf plan is what WDFW follows so that does make the plan relevant. You love to argue but I don’t hear any solutions coming from you. How many of you Westside’s are calling your legislators? Seems to me there is a lot of talk and a lot of people sitting on their hands. But until wolves are in your back yard will you stand up.
Managing wildlife and hunting is expensive, challenging, and unappreciated. Individual county management is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard of...I assume it was another bill with no intention of actually passing?The statement was made that the plan "is irrelevant". The State is following a flawed plan right now and are going to stick to it unless it is changed to manage wolves. Hunting is just one of many management tools that should be in a plan. phool you have seen first hand what wildlife/hunting is like in the 49 area. Over the last few years the wolves have moved into all of those you hunted for your Washington moose and they are making a foothold. Cottonwood just East of town has at least 3, 2 with collars not more than a mile or so from town. It's bye, bye moose and the small amount of elk will be gone. I had one hollowing above my house last February, the northern tip of the Huckleberry pack is not far to the south of my house. Yes we have a lot of skin in the game here. This "not in my backyard attitude has to stop" and the westsiders need to jump in and help. At the Colville wolf meeting Sen. Dansel said he was going to introduce legislation to allow counties to manage the wildlife in their own Counties and kick out WDFW. A lot of westsiders jumped in and side counties can't do that, the game animals belong to us all. I hear comments about turkey hunting and the amount of over the counter tags", "too many hens are being taken" so on and so on. Wolves will eat a turkey too. Everybody wants to come over and hunt whitetails, turkeys, moose, elk but no one wants to help in the fight. I applaud the young man who went to the westside wolf meeting and stood up for wildlife/hunting.The wolf plan is not the deciding factor in whether wolves will be on the west side or not. The wolves will decide that. If they get here on their own and the habitat is such that they can survive, and multiply, then we'll have a wolf population over here. If not, then we won't. In my opinion, the wolf plan is irrelevant.The wolf plan is relevant, we will be over run by wolves before we can control them by hunting. The plan needs to be changed to support control in areas with high numbers of wolves. Not when they migrate to the rest of this state.
Only issue with this statement Pa Ben is evidence/testimony has shown that wolves can not be "controlled" by hunting, hunting is not a effective means to control them. ;)
Everybody wants to come over and hunt whitetails, turkeys, moose, elk but no one wants to help in the fight. I applaud the young man who went to the Westside wolf meeting and stood up for wildlife/hunting.
See how you guys jump on the bandwagon when Counties managing the wildlife comes up. Just keep sitting on your hands and the wolves will be managing the wildlife for the State.
Post by: PA BEN on January 24, 2015, 06:25:09 AM
M-Ray don't take this wrong, I have the utmost respect for you and phool. I've hunted the NE corner for elk and I have hunted the West as well, and the NE corner is every bit as dense and steep as the westside. Getting back to the topic; I wouldn't want wolves in anyones back yard. My hope for this bill is to wake up the Westside. The quote from Japanese Naval Marshal General Isoroku Yamamoto, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."KFH, Bearpaw, Ridgerat and anyone else, as hunters why do you want more wolves in this state? This is completely illogical to me. :dunno:
I think you are misunderstanding some comments. I can't speak for the others but I don't think any one of us wants more wolves in WA, I am suggesting that the wolves already existing in WA be spread across all three wolf zones rather than wolves being left unmanaged in NE WA for an undetermined amount of time. If the wolf plan was changed whereby management in the NE wasn't determined by how soon wolves move into all the other zones I wouldn't have this concern at all. But the plan is written so that management in the NE is dependent on wolves being established in all three wolf zones. The only chance we have for management in the NE is for at least 3 BP's to be raising pups in each of the three wolf zones for 3 consecutive years.QuoteQuote from: bearpaw on Today at 04:10:08 PM
I would add that there is a sort of prevailing attitude in western WA that the wolves in the NE are not really a significant problem, if that is really true then it shouldn't be a problem with those folks to move some of the wolves to W WA?
I know not all people in W WA share that prevailing attitude and I appreciate those who understand our situation in the NE.
In order to reach thier 15 BP according to the management goal it is going to increase numbers whether they are in one area or the entire state, this doesn't compute to you? Its simple to me and I don't get how others are not seeing this? If it took 1000 to reach 12 it is going to take another 500 minimum to reach 15 that = MORE WOLVES!
I'm finding it a hard pill to swallow that in your position you would advocate 1) for anymore and 2) to wish that the entire state should suffer the same consequence that the NE has.
Personally I hope they never reach their goal and furthermore had they chose the west side in the first place I wouldn't wish the destruction on my worst neighbor. Those who make the comments that they should plant them on the west side don't understand that we will never be able to control the numbers because it is even more dense than the NE. So the answer to this problem is to ruin the whole state? are we so self centered that we want everyone to suffer because our area has suffered? And how is this the fault of Westsider's? West side hunters didn't decide where to put them in the first place :dunno: hell I've heard more west side opposition to wolves not being anywhere in the state period so how does this comment even make any sense??? :dunno: I have never heard a westsider say "Yeah plant them in the East" But I've heard plenty of Eastsiders say "plant them on the west" :bash:
Post by: mountainman on January 24, 2015, 09:52:42 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 24, 2015, 10:09:39 AM
KFH, Bearpaw, Ridgerat and anyone else, as hunters why do you want more wolves in this state? This is completely illogical to me. :dunno:
I think you are misunderstanding some comments. I can't speak for the others but I don't think any one of us wants more wolves in WA, I am suggesting that the wolves already existing in WA be spread across all three wolf zones rather than wolves being left unmanaged in NE WA for an undetermined amount of time. If the wolf plan was changed whereby management in the NE wasn't determined by how soon wolves move into all the other zones I wouldn't have this concern at all. But the plan is written so that management in the NE is dependent on wolves being established in all three wolf zones. The only chance we have for management in the NE is for at least 3 BP's to be raising pups in each of the three wolf zones for 3 consecutive years.
So you justify/support/advocate other areas being forced into wolf depredation because the NE has a issue? Yeah that's not self centered thinking at all, or as I posted before, "cutting off your nose to spite your face"
You don't want more wolves, but ARE advocating reaching the 15 BP target, yet fail to see this as one in the same? :bash:
You honestly don't believe transplanting opposite sex wolves, in other areas currently uninhabited with wolves, will result in increased wolf numbers? :DOH:
If you can get a better plan implemented I am all for it. :tup:
But honestly I think those wolves are going to multiply no matter where they are at in the state which results in more wolves in WA no matter where they are located. Someone said WDFW has said there are many more wolves than the minimum number that they publish, I agree with that. If we spread those wolves that we already have in WA into all three wolf areas then we can delist and hopefully start more meaningful wolf management sooner which could result in fewer wolves statewide than if we let two wolf zones go unchecked and wait for the third zone.
As others have eluded, this isn't a law that is going anywhere quickly anyway, but it does keep the problems we are facing in the NE in the conversation and not forgotten. I'm just looking for a solution, it doesn't have to be this solution.
So you are advocating for more wolves?
You're basing all this on someone's theory that there are more wolves than WDFW are admitting to?
To clarify again, I am not advocating for more wolves in WA, the legislation suggests moving existing WA wolves from wolf zone 1 or 2 to wolf zone 3. Why would I want more wolves? :dunno:
Apparently senior WDFW people have said we have more wolves than their claimed minimum number, I agree and think many forum members might also agree there are more wolves than the minimum claimed.
I think this legislation is a political move to draw attention and reality to the wolf issue. I explained how I thought relocation might actually result in fewer wolves in the end, but that is an unknown. I would like see the wolf plan modified so that wolves can be controlled in wolf zones 1 and 2 when they reach a certain number without dependency on how many wolves exist in wolf zone 3.
I realize that huntnphool, M_ray, and most west side hunters are not part of this majority in wolf zone 3 who want unlimited wolves in the NE and I'm sorry if this has been taken personal. NE WA has tried to get help from the majority without result, perhaps this legislation and likely future actions will eventually bring some reality to the thought process of the majority, if they think they have some skin in the game they may decide that wolves do need controlled.
If anyone has a better plan to get the majority to resolve these wolf problems please lay it out.
Post by: PA BEN on January 24, 2015, 10:30:16 AM
Trolls and drama queens..these wolf threads keep turning into predictable boredom... on to better things..
[/qutalkote]talk about drama :chuckle:
Post by: jasnt on January 24, 2015, 10:50:43 AM
Post by: jasnt on January 24, 2015, 11:07:52 AM
Post by: Ridgeratt on January 24, 2015, 03:15:13 PM
Post by: jasnt on January 24, 2015, 04:43:34 PM
Well to KF,Wolfbait,Jasnt,Pa Ben & Dale you guys have a monumental task ahead of you educating both sides. Good Lucksadly true. I still don't understand how anyone could possibly think they won't ever get to 15 BP's. :bash:
I wish I had the money,knowledge, and exp. to do it. I wish I could verify all these packs with video and gps and make it very public, show what is actually going on so people with a clue could see with their own eyes what's really going on
Post by: wolfbait on January 24, 2015, 09:33:12 PM
Well to KF,Wolfbait,Jasnt,Pa Ben & Dale you guys have a monumental task ahead of you educating both sides. Good Lucksadly true. I still don't understand how anyone could possibly think they won't ever get to 15 BP's. :bash:
I wish I had the money,knowledge, and exp. to do it. I wish I could verify all these packs with video and gps and make it very public, show what is actually going on so people with a clue could see with their own eyes what's really going on
WA passed the 15 bps along time ago, WDFW refuse to confirm. When you look at the wolf introduction into Idaho etc. starting in 1995-96>At a bare Minimum >In five years 1995-99 Idaho had 10 BP's @ 141 wolves and in 2000 they had 16 BP's with 192 wolves, 2003 was 30 BP's @ 368 wolves and in 2004 they had 44 BP's @ 454 wolves.
Now you look at WA, with wolves reported to WDFW from 2003 on, and ignored until 2008 when WDFW were forced to confirm a wolf pack in the Methow, thats 12 years worth of wolves, with WDFW claiming five wolves today.
Post by: PA BEN on January 25, 2015, 07:46:17 AM
While wolves remain endangered under state law, they are protected from killing and harassment. Once wolves are deemed recovered, they can be removed from state protection.
I'm sure glad this plan is irrelevant. By the time this so called plan works????? Well you do the math.
Post by: idaho guy on January 26, 2015, 01:13:17 PM
Post by: GameHunter1959 on February 05, 2015, 08:55:50 PM
They should just shoot off all the damn wolves and can this whole project.
Post by: mfswallace on February 05, 2015, 10:11:29 PM
This legislator Joel Kretz is a genius. You should all start a pac to elect him as governor! Ever since they introduced wolves in Idaho,Montana, Wyoming I always thought the best way to get the wolf under control was put wolves in the backyards of the ones who love them. No offense to seattle hunters & outdoorsmen but King county would be I think ground zero for wolf lovers. Yes they will thrive in a population center just like coyotes and I live out of town but not too far and we have had wolves in my neighbors pasture. Get behind this bill and then we can start pushing for transplant programs to southern California and maybe even central park in New York! I dont wish wolves on anyone but if we have to have them lets share the love and put them in the backyards of those who love them! I hate to say this but the best thing that can happen to states with wolves is for them to spread to every other state. Then everyone will see the wolf for what it is and we can get back to scientific predator management. If you include a wolf plan that mandates breeding plans in all zones it makes even more sense to do this. I agree that by the time wolves move their natuurally ne washington will be wiped out
I can't believe you did such a 180 on wolves :yike: you normally defend/advocate so reading this has me so flabbergasted I just don't know what else to say :llam:
Oh I thought you were the other idaho guy who knows so much about all the good things wolves do for ungulates :chuckle: :stirthepot: :chuckle:
Post by: elk247 on February 05, 2015, 11:09:23 PM
"Those that bemoan the plight of the poor Wolf should consider this. Reintroducing these Apex predators in my backyard is the same as if I introduced Jeffrey Dommer or John Wayne Gacey in yours and then placed them in a protected status."
Post by: jasnt on February 06, 2015, 12:34:50 AM
Couldn't have said it better my self!!!!!!!!
Post by: idaho guy on February 09, 2015, 10:42:38 AM
This legislator Joel Kretz is a genius. You should all start a pac to elect him as governor! Ever since they introduced wolves in Idaho,Montana, Wyoming I always thought the best way to get the wolf under control was put wolves in the backyards of the ones who love them. No offense to seattle hunters & outdoorsmen but King county would be I think ground zero for wolf lovers. Yes they will thrive in a population center just like coyotes and I live out of town but not too far and we have had wolves in my neighbors pasture. Get behind this bill and then we can start pushing for transplant programs to southern California and maybe even central park in New York! I dont wish wolves on anyone but if we have to have them lets share the love and put them in the backyards of those who love them! I hate to say this but the best thing that can happen to states with wolves is for them to spread to every other state. Then everyone will see the wolf for what it is and we can get back to scientific predator management. If you include a wolf plan that mandates breeding plans in all zones it makes even more sense to do this. I agree that by the time wolves move their natuurally ne washington will be wiped out
I can't believe you did such a 180 on wolves :yike: you normally defend/advocate so reading this has me so flabbergasted I just don't know what else to say :llam:
Oh I thought you were the other idaho guy who knows so much about all the good things wolves do for ungulates :chuckle: :stirthepot: :chuckle:
You confused me with Idaho hunter. I have argued with Idaho hunter a lot on here on wolf topics but it doesnt do any good he has convinced himself our main problem is habitiat! Which is weird since many units are below objectives for elk which is defined as not ENOUGH elk given the carrying capacity of the Habitat. I think he just likes to argues with bearpaw and wolfbait :chuckle:
Post by: wolfbait on February 09, 2015, 11:09:16 AM
This legislator Joel Kretz is a genius. You should all start a pac to elect him as governor! Ever since they introduced wolves in Idaho,Montana, Wyoming I always thought the best way to get the wolf under control was put wolves in the backyards of the ones who love them. No offense to seattle hunters & outdoorsmen but King county would be I think ground zero for wolf lovers. Yes they will thrive in a population center just like coyotes and I live out of town but not too far and we have had wolves in my neighbors pasture. Get behind this bill and then we can start pushing for transplant programs to southern California and maybe even central park in New York! I dont wish wolves on anyone but if we have to have them lets share the love and put them in the backyards of those who love them! I hate to say this but the best thing that can happen to states with wolves is for them to spread to every other state. Then everyone will see the wolf for what it is and we can get back to scientific predator management. If you include a wolf plan that mandates breeding plans in all zones it makes even more sense to do this. I agree that by the time wolves move their natuurally ne washington will be wiped out
I can't believe you did such a 180 on wolves :yike: you normally defend/advocate so reading this has me so flabbergasted I just don't know what else to say :llam:
Oh I thought you were the other idaho guy who knows so much about all the good things wolves do for ungulates :chuckle: :stirthepot: :chuckle:
You confused me with Idaho hunter. I have argued with Idaho hunter a lot on here on wolf topics but it doesnt do any good he has convinced himself our main problem is habitiat! Which is weird since many units are below objectives for elk which is defined as not ENOUGH elk given the carrying capacity of the Habitat. I think he just likes to argues with bearpaw and wolfbait :chuckle:
Idahohunter has come along way in the last year, you have to remember it's hard to reverse the teachings of the new age biologists. http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/files/elk%20plan/Jim_Peek_articles.pdf (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/files/elk%20plan/Jim_Peek_articles.pdf)
Idahohunter is probably checking on the caribou herd right now, maybe herding them into some better habitat from the air. Or perhaps studying the common sense biologist manual. :dunno:
At any rate I have seen a Huge behavioral change in I-h he's like a new person on W-H, I'm surprised the rest of you haven't noticed. :chuckle:
Post by: idaho guy on February 09, 2015, 11:27:45 AM
Post by: woodswalker on March 31, 2015, 12:24:12 PM
KFH, Bearpaw, Ridgerat and anyone else, as hunters why do you want more wolves in this state? This is completely illogical to me. :dunno:
Phool,
What is being proposed is to share the multitudinous benefits of wolf habitat with our city bretheren...I propose that the relocations be made in places near and dear to the city folk's hearts..where the howl of the wolf could be heard by the most folks....
Places like Discovery Park, Seward Park, Karkeek Park, St Edward State Park, Bridle Trails State Park, Seahurst Park, Maury and Vashon Islands, Point Defiance Park and Cougar Mountain Regional Wildlands Park. Just for starters.... Then when the benefits become more obvious, add in places like Sehome Hill Arboretum, Watershed Park Clarks Creek Park and the Washington Park Arboretum.
Just spreading the love!! :tup:
Post by: CAMPMEAT on April 04, 2015, 04:57:46 PM
Post by: M_ray on April 05, 2015, 04:55:39 PM
I'm 99% sure I have wolf poop on my ridge, 250 yards from my house......raise your hands, anybody on the westside of the state does, near Seattle. C'mon, raise your hands...anybody ?
And I'm 99% sure this this comment makes no sense :rolleyes: ... so whats your point?
Post by: CAMPMEAT on April 05, 2015, 07:02:04 PM
I'm 99% sure I have wolf poop on my ridge, 250 yards from my house......raise your hands, anybody on the westside of the state does, near Seattle. C'mon, raise your hands...anybody ?
And I'm 99% sure this this comment makes no sense :rolleyes: ... so whats your point?
" this this " makes no sense to me. Explain yours. The westside people who vote for our demise, need wolves in their backyard as well. Pretty simple if you ask me.
Post by: Ridgeratt on April 05, 2015, 07:16:16 PM
From what I hear the "Locals" still aren't talkin. :chuckle:
Post by: bobcat on April 05, 2015, 07:56:55 PM
I'm 99% sure I have wolf poop on my ridge, 250 yards from my house......raise your hands, anybody on the westside of the state does, near Seattle. C'mon, raise your hands...anybody ?
And I'm 99% sure this this comment makes no sense :rolleyes: ... so whats your point?
" this this " makes no sense to me. Explain yours. The westside people who vote for our demise, need wolves in their backyard as well. Pretty simple if you ask me.
Why? What's simple is that if the wolves want to be over here, they will get here on their own. They sure don't need our help. That's just plain ridiculous.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on April 05, 2015, 08:06:41 PM
I'm 99% sure I have wolf poop on my ridge, 250 yards from my house......raise your hands, anybody on the westside of the state does, near Seattle. C'mon, raise your hands...anybody ?
And I'm 99% sure this this comment makes no sense :rolleyes: ... so whats your point?
" this this " makes no sense to me. Explain yours. The westside people who vote for our demise, need wolves in their backyard as well. Pretty simple if you ask me.
Why? What's simple is that if the wolves want to be over here, they will get here on their own. They sure don't need our help. That's just plain ridiculous.
Robert,
The wolves didn't want to be here either. They just showed up with some help...and now everybody in government denies it, strange and ridiculous.
Campmeat
Post by: bobcat on April 05, 2015, 08:14:27 PM
I'm 99% sure I have wolf poop on my ridge, 250 yards from my house......raise your hands, anybody on the westside of the state does, near Seattle. C'mon, raise your hands...anybody ?
And I'm 99% sure this this comment makes no sense :rolleyes: ... so whats your point?
" this this " makes no sense to me. Explain yours. The westside people who vote for our demise, need wolves in their backyard as well. Pretty simple if you ask me.
Why? What's simple is that if the wolves want to be over here, they will get here on their own. They sure don't need our help. That's just plain ridiculous.
Robert,
The wolves didn't want to be here either. They just showed up with some help...and now everybody in government denies it, strange and ridiculous.
Campmeat
Wrong. The wolves in Washington obviously DID want to be here, since they came here on their own. The wolves that got help are the wolves in Idaho and Montana. Funny how people continue to get confused on that.
Again, for those who aren't aware, there never was a wolf re-introduction in Washington.
Post by: stevemiller on April 05, 2015, 08:18:27 PM
Post by: stevemiller on April 05, 2015, 08:20:35 PM
Post by: stevemiller on April 05, 2015, 08:22:55 PM
Post by: Ridgeratt on April 05, 2015, 08:25:27 PM
Wrong. The wolves in Washington obviously DID want to be here, since they came here on their own. The wolves that got help are the wolves in Idaho and Montana. Funny how people continue to get confused on that.
Again, for those who aren't aware, there never was a wolf re-introduction in Washington.
And you back this statement up with what documented proof?
Post by: bobcat on April 05, 2015, 08:29:07 PM
From the above link:
Quote
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.
Post by: Ridgeratt on April 05, 2015, 08:31:05 PM
Post by: stevemiller on April 05, 2015, 08:31:25 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on April 05, 2015, 08:35:58 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 05, 2015, 08:36:26 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 05, 2015, 08:37:37 PM
My insurance agent saw wolves in the back of a WDFW truck 2 years ago, in Republic Washington. She said the wolves heads were sticking out of boxes they were stuffed in.....
Sorry, I don't believe any if those stories. No pictures? It didn't happen.
Post by: idahohuntr on April 05, 2015, 08:39:28 PM
Now thats a reliable source!!! :chuckle:So WDFW is unreliable and many others say they are incompetent etc. However, they have managed to pull off an elaborate and illegal scheme transporting wolves and releasing them, and to this day not one former employee, staff member, legislator, member of the public, hunter, other government employee, the media OR anyone else for that matter has provided a single piece of evidence of this supposed illegal wolf transplant into WA state? Wow! I had no idea WDFW was so capable of pulling off such an elaborate scheme.
Sometimes the simplest explanation is the most logical...the wolves migrated to WA as their populations expanded rapidly in nearby states.
Post by: stevemiller on April 05, 2015, 08:53:26 PM
Post by: Ridgeratt on April 05, 2015, 08:54:18 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on April 05, 2015, 09:14:17 PM
Now thats a reliable source!!! :chuckle:So WDFW is unreliable and many others say they are incompetent etc. However, they have managed to pull off an elaborate and illegal scheme transporting wolves and releasing them, and to this day not one former employee, staff member, legislator, member of the public, hunter, other government employee, the media OR anyone else for that matter has provided a single piece of evidence of this supposed illegal wolf transplant into WA state? Wow! I had no idea WDFW was so capable of pulling off such an elaborate scheme.
Sometimes the simplest explanation is the most logical...the wolves migrated to WA as their populations expanded rapidly in nearby states.
ALL government agencies lie their asses off, that's a proven fact.....
Post by: idahohuntr on April 05, 2015, 09:23:44 PM
Ok :rolleyes:Now thats a reliable source!!! :chuckle:So WDFW is unreliable and many others say they are incompetent etc. However, they have managed to pull off an elaborate and illegal scheme transporting wolves and releasing them, and to this day not one former employee, staff member, legislator, member of the public, hunter, other government employee, the media OR anyone else for that matter has provided a single piece of evidence of this supposed illegal wolf transplant into WA state? Wow! I had no idea WDFW was so capable of pulling off such an elaborate scheme.
Sometimes the simplest explanation is the most logical...the wolves migrated to WA as their populations expanded rapidly in nearby states.
ALL government agencies lie their asses off, that's a proven fact.....
Post by: wolfbait on April 06, 2015, 09:47:25 AM
I'm 99% sure I have wolf poop on my ridge, 250 yards from my house......raise your hands, anybody on the westside of the state does, near Seattle. C'mon, raise your hands...anybody ?
And I'm 99% sure this this comment makes no sense :rolleyes: ... so whats your point?
" this this " makes no sense to me. Explain yours. The westside people who vote for our demise, need wolves in their backyard as well. Pretty simple if you ask me.
Why? What's simple is that if the wolves want to be over here, they will get here on their own. They sure don't need our help. That's just plain ridiculous.
Robert,
The wolves didn't want to be here either. They just showed up with some help...and now everybody in government denies it, strange and ridiculous.
Campmeat
Wrong. The wolves in Washington obviously DID want to be here, so the USFWS with WDFW's help, started dumping wolves in WA and called it migration, The wolves that got help are the wolves in Idaho and Montana. Funny how people continue to get confused on that.
Again, for those who aren't aware, there never was a wolf re-introduction in Washington.
Put some truth in there for ya Bobcat. :tup:
Where did Washington's wolves "migrate" from?
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northern Rocky Mountain Recovery Program Update
2008
Until 2008, no wild wolves had been confirmed west of the DPS boundary in Washington or Oregon. However, in July 2008, a wolf pack (2 adults and 6 pups) was discovered near Twisp, WA (just east of the North Cascades and west of the DPS boundary). Genetic testing showed these wolves did not originate from the NRM DPS; instead they apparently dispersed southward from the wolf population in southcentral British Columbia. Both adults were radio-collared and the pack is being monitored via radio telemetry by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. If this pack persists it will remain separated and distinct from the NRM DPS by the large expanse of unsuitable wolf habitat in eastern WA and OR.
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf (http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf)
DNA samples confirm gray wolves are back in Methow Valley By Joyce Campbell
Methow Valley News
July 24, 2008
DNA tests showed that the wolves originated from a population in the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada.
“This is a natural colonization,” said Fitkin. “The wolves are naturally immigrating." http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley (http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley)
Is there a difference between “southcentral British Columbia” and “northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada”?
Perhaps the USFWS and WDFW should have gotten their story straight as to where they were going to say the wolves came from? I guess they couldn’t say, we hauled them in from Idaho with horse trailers, it just wouldn’t fit the narrative of: (“This is a natural colonization,” said Fitkin. “The wolves are naturally immigrating.” )
“DNA obtained from Lookout Pack wolves has shown they are descendents of wolves living in coastal British Columbia”, who lived separately from inland wolves for many generations, “Conservation Northwest” said in a press release. http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/ (http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/)
http://tomremington.com/2014/06/09/the-naturally-migrating-gi-wolves/ (http://tomremington.com/2014/06/09/the-naturally-migrating-gi-wolves/)
Post by: M_ray on April 07, 2015, 04:15:37 PM
I'm 99% sure I have wolf poop on my ridge, 250 yards from my house......raise your hands, anybody on the westside of the state does, near Seattle. C'mon, raise your hands...anybody ?
And I'm 99% sure this this comment makes no sense :rolleyes: ... so whats your point?
" this this " makes no sense to me. Explain yours. The westside people who vote for our demise, need wolves in their backyard as well. Pretty simple if you ask me.
So predictable :chuckle:
Post by: AspenBud on April 08, 2015, 07:07:17 AM
The USFWS brought in the wolves, yes. But not to Washington. Wolves were already present in the state prior to the that anyway.
Save your breath Bobcat, this argument is a lot like this one...
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/mcmorris-rodgers-should-ask-hometown-folks-about-obamacare/ (http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/mcmorris-rodgers-should-ask-hometown-folks-about-obamacare/)
Even when the facts say otherwise people will believe what they want and push what they want if it serves their own self interest.
Post by: wolfbait on April 08, 2015, 09:09:57 AM
The USFWS brought in the wolves, yes. But not to Washington. Wolves were already present in the state prior to the that anyway.
Save your breath Bobcat, this argument is a lot like this one...
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/mcmorris-rodgers-should-ask-hometown-folks-about-obamacare/ (http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/mcmorris-rodgers-should-ask-hometown-folks-about-obamacare/)
Even when the facts say otherwise people will believe what they want and push what they want if it serves their own self interest.
Actually Bobcat, just like the decimation of the Lolo elk herd by wolves>not habitat, the illegal dumping of wolves by the USFWS and WDFW in Washington has become public knowledge.
The Real FWS Wolf Recovery Agenda
That agenda has been promoted in “Society for Conservation Biology” publications by federal biologists involved in wolf recovery since Canadian wolves were first transplanted. David Mech’s “The Challenge and Opportunity of Recovering Wolf Populations” appeared in the 1995 Volume. 9(2) issue of “Conservation Biology.”
In 2001, environmental groups, including The Nature Conservancy and the World Wildlife Fund, joined with the National Park Service in creating a more sophisticated magazine called “Conservation Magazine” designed to sell the wildlands/biodiversity agenda to academia. In 2004 FWS Wolf Team Leader Ed Bangs praised a BS thesis by a biology student concerning non- lethal wolf “control” (later published in Conservation) and announced he had hired her as a wolf “specialist”.
Wildlife biologists in all three recovery states knew about the numbers deception but only Wyoming G&F, under pressure from its Governor, attempted to hold FWS to the original de-listing criteria. IDFG Director Groen’s Jan. 14th News Release declared the Department’s intention only to “stabilize” (halt the dramatic annual increase in) existing wolf populations in Idaho.
Because IDFG estimates Idaho had a minimum population of 732 wolves in the fall of 2007 that means F&G intended to maintain a minimum of at least seven times as many wolves in Idaho as we were told would exist after recovery. But pretending that the biologists’ estimated minimum fall wolf population is near the actual wolf population is simply another deception misleading Idahoans and their elected officials as will be illustrated later in this article. Read More @ http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf)
Wolf impacts underestimated
According to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service grossly underestimated the impact of a reintroduced population of wolves.
• The wolf population in the Greater Yellowstone area in 2005 was at least 3.3 times the original environmental impact statement prediction for a recovered population.
• The number of breeding pairs of wolves in the GYA in 2005 was at least twice as high as the original EIS prediction and the number of breeding pairs in 2004 was at least 3.1 times the original EIS prediction.
• In 2005, the wolf population in Wyoming outside Yellowstone National Park exceeded the recovery criteria for the entire region and continues to increase rapidly.
• The estimated annual predation rate (22 ungulates per wolf) is 1.8 times the annual predation rate (12 ungulates per wolf) predicted in the EIS.
• The estimated number of ungulates taken by 325 wolves in a year (7,150) is six times higher than the original EIS prediction.
• The percent of the northern Yellowstone elk harvest during the 1980s currently taken by wolves (50 percent) is 6.3 times the original estimate of eight percent projected in the EIS.
• The actual decline in the northern Yellowstone elk herd (more than 50 percent) is 1.7 times the maximum decline originally forecast in the EIS.
• The actual decline in cow harvest in the northern Yellowstone elk herd (89 percent) is 3.3 times the decline originally forecast in the EIS.
• The actual decline in bull harvest in the northern Yellowstone elk herd is 75 percent, whereas the 1994 EIS predicted bull harvests would be “unaffected.”
• Since wolf introduction, average ratios of calf elk to cow elk have been greatly \depressed in the northern Yellowstone elk herd and in the Wyoming elk herds impacted by wolves. In the northern Yellowstone elk herd and in the Sunlight unit of the Clarks Fork herd, calf:cow rations have been suppressed to unprecedented levels below 15 calves per 100. The impact of wolves on calf recruitment was not addressed by the 1994 EIS.
WG&F stated: “Despite research findings in Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone Area, and monitoring evidence in Wyoming that indicate wolf predation is having an impact on ungulate populations that will reduce hunter opportunity if the current impact levels persist, the Service continues to rigidly deny wolf predation is a problem.”
The 1994 EIS predicted that presence of wolves would result in a 5-10 percent increase in annual visitation to Yellowstone National Park. On this basis, the EIS forecast wolves in the region would generate $20 million in revenue to the states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. WG&F reports that annual park visitation remained essentially unchanged after wolf introduction, and has decreased 2.6 percent since the wolf population reached recovery goals in 2000.
“ Since park visitation did not increase as originally forecast, the Service cannot legitimately conclude presence of wolves has had any appreciable effect on net tourism revenues,” WG&F stated.
WG&F stated: “Wolf presence can be ecologically compatible in the GYA only to the extent that the distribution and numbers of wolves are controlled and maintained at approximately the levels originally predicted by the 1994 EIS –100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs.” WG&F maintained that FWS “has a permanent, legal obligation to manage wolves at the levels on which the wolf recovery program was originally predicated, the levels described by the impact analysis in the 1994 EIS.”
http://www.pinedaleonline.com/wolf/wolfimpacts.htm (http://www.pinedaleonline.com/wolf/wolfimpacts.htm)
Stevensvill Montana Ranching & Agenda 21-How wolves are used as a tool
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SX4wpTSszFQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SX4wpTSszFQ)
Yellowstone is Dead
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYxGJB5dJxI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYxGJB5dJxI)
Post by: WAPatriot on April 08, 2015, 09:33:51 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on April 08, 2015, 10:16:19 AM
Actually Bobcat, just like the decimation of the Lolo elk herd by wolves>not habitat, the illegal dumping of wolves by the USFWS and WDFW in Washington has become public knowledge.No wolves have been released in WA by USFWS or WDFW. That's just a fact you are going to have to accept. :sry:
Post by: cardinalguns on April 08, 2015, 11:23:24 AM
Post by: Curly on April 08, 2015, 12:13:20 PM
Actually Bobcat, just like the decimation of the Lolo elk herd by wolves>not habitat, the illegal dumping of wolves by the USFWS and WDFW in Washington has become public knowledge.No wolves have been released in WA by USFWS or WDFW. That's just a fact you are going to have to accept. :sry:
:tinfoil:
Too many people it seems believe the government planted wolves in this state. No good facts have ever been provided to make me believe that WDFW or the feds dropped of some wolves here. Just seems much more likely that they came here on their own. Just look at OR7 I think he was/is called. They tracked that wolf all over Oregon and California for how long? Wolves can really cover some ground.
One question I still always wonder about though, is why the wolves that were known to exist here in the 80's and 90's didn't take off and start repopulating like the wolves of current times?
Post by: jasnt on April 08, 2015, 12:46:07 PM
That's one I'd love answered as well!!
Also why do they say the lookout pack was the first in 70 years :dunno:
Post by: mountainman on April 08, 2015, 01:30:36 PM
"One question I still always wonder about though, is why the wolves that were known to exist here in the 80's and 90's didn't take off and start repopulating like the wolves of current times? ":yeah:
That's one I'd love answered as well!!
Also why do they say the lookout pack was the first in 70 years :dunno:
Post by: idahohuntr on April 08, 2015, 10:47:53 PM
When populations are reduced to such low levels they often times become functionally extinct as reproduction and dispersal are severely limited or non-existent. Contrast that with a scenario where tons of wolves are transplanted to neighboring states that see substantial increases...and voila...wolves are pouring in from those source states. Probably many other complex factors at play as well.Actually Bobcat, just like the decimation of the Lolo elk herd by wolves>not habitat, the illegal dumping of wolves by the USFWS and WDFW in Washington has become public knowledge.No wolves have been released in WA by USFWS or WDFW. That's just a fact you are going to have to accept. :sry:
:tinfoil:
Too many people it seems believe the government planted wolves in this state. No good facts have ever been provided to make me believe that WDFW or the feds dropped of some wolves here. Just seems much more likely that they came here on their own. Just look at OR7 I think he was/is called. They tracked that wolf all over Oregon and California for how long? Wolves can really cover some ground.
One question I still always wonder about though, is why the wolves that were known to exist here in the 80's and 90's didn't take off and start repopulating like the wolves of current times?
Post by: jasnt on April 09, 2015, 05:20:15 AM
I call BS on this. We already know that when prey levels are high wild k9's reproduce at a much faster rate. Especially when k9's numbers are low, having much larger litters and a greater chance of dispersal.When populations are reduced to such low levels they often times become functionally extinct as reproduction and dispersal are severely limited or non-existent. Contrast that with a scenario where tons of wolves are transplanted to neighboring states that see substantial increases...and voila...wolves are pouring in from those source states. Probably many other complex factors at play as well.Actually Bobcat, just like the decimation of the Lolo elk herd by wolves>not habitat, the illegal dumping of wolves by the USFWS and WDFW in Washington has become public knowledge.No wolves have been released in WA by USFWS or WDFW. That's just a fact you are going to have to accept. :sry:
:tinfoil:
Too many people it seems believe the government planted wolves in this state. No good facts have ever been provided to make me believe that WDFW or the feds dropped of some wolves here. Just seems much more likely that they came here on their own. Just look at OR7 I think he was/is called. They tracked that wolf all over Oregon and California for how long? Wolves can really cover some ground.
One question I still always wonder about though, is why the wolves that were known to exist here in the 80's and 90's didn't take off and start repopulating like the wolves of current times?
Post by: CAMPMEAT on April 09, 2015, 08:12:47 AM
Post by: wolfbait on April 09, 2015, 08:31:15 AM
I call BS on this. We already know that when prey levels are high wild k9's reproduce at a much faster rate. Especially when k9's numbers are low, having much larger litters and a greater chance of dispersal.When populations are reduced to such low levels they often times become functionally extinct as reproduction and dispersal are severely limited or non-existent. Contrast that with a scenario where tons of wolves are transplanted to neighboring states that see substantial increases...and voila...wolves are pouring in from those source states. Probably many other complex factors at play as well.Actually Bobcat, just like the decimation of the Lolo elk herd by wolves>not habitat, the illegal dumping of wolves by the USFWS and WDFW in Washington has become public knowledge.No wolves have been released in WA by USFWS or WDFW. That's just a fact you are going to have to accept. :sry:
:tinfoil:
Too many people it seems believe the government planted wolves in this state. No good facts have ever been provided to make me believe that WDFW or the feds dropped of some wolves here. Just seems much more likely that they came here on their own. Just look at OR7 I think he was/is called. They tracked that wolf all over Oregon and California for how long? Wolves can really cover some ground.
One question I still always wonder about though, is why the wolves that were known to exist here in the 80's and 90's didn't take off and start repopulating like the wolves of current times?
I know ranchers that have lived here all of their lives and have told me they saw wolves here 40 years ago..
It's much easier to have an expanding wolf population if wolf pairs etc. are dumped around the state each year, WDFW know where their wolves should be. The declining game herds and wolf sightings should show them how their wolf increase is coming along.
Post by: rim_runner on April 10, 2015, 09:32:43 AM
"One question I still always wonder about though, is why the wolves that were known to exist here in the 80's and 90's didn't take off and start repopulating like the wolves of current times? "I wonder if the added monitoring and study of wolves in the north west has been a deterrence to homegrown wolf management actions
That's one I'd love answered as well!!
Also why do they say the lookout pack was the first in 70 years :dunno:
Post by: jasnt on April 10, 2015, 04:40:12 PM
Post by: GameHunter1959 on April 15, 2015, 09:59:45 PM
Its hard for me to believe that a wolf or pack of wolves would travel all the way across prime habitat and relocate themselves into the Toutle of all places. Those wolves in the Toutle were planted. IDC what anyone says.
Post by: idaho guy on April 15, 2015, 10:38:40 PM
"One question I still always wonder about though, is why the wolves that were known to exist here in the 80's and 90's didn't take off and start repopulating like the wolves of current times? "
That's one I'd love answered as well!!
Also why do they say the lookout pack was the first in 70 years :dunno:
[/quote. It is at least partly to do with the type of wolf transplanted to the west my understanding is we had the western grey wolf and we brought in the Canadian wolf which is much larger and efficient predator took this picture today placing my bear bait
Post by: idaho guy on April 15, 2015, 10:42:39 PM
Post by: TommyH on April 16, 2015, 05:45:33 AM
Post by: idaho guy on April 16, 2015, 08:33:07 PM
Post by: idaho guy on April 16, 2015, 08:35:11 PM
Post by: PA BEN on April 18, 2015, 06:51:29 AM
"One question I still always wonder about though, is why the wolves that were known to exist here in the 80's and 90's didn't take off and start repopulating like the wolves of current times? "I had heard that when the wolves were introduced they use Alpha wolves and thats why they took off so fast. :dunno:
That's one I'd love answered as well!!
Also why do they say the lookout pack was the first in 70 years :dunno:
[/quote. It is at least partly to do with the type of wolf transplanted to the west my understanding is we had the western grey wolf and we brought in the Canadian wolf which is much larger and efficient predator took this picture today placing my bear bait
Post by: jasnt on April 18, 2015, 10:06:45 PM
If that was the case than they are the first ever not first in 70 years :dunno:
Post by: bobcat on April 18, 2015, 10:40:18 PM
From the WDFW website:
Quote
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#14
Post by: WAPatriot on April 18, 2015, 10:45:31 PM
In early 90s the wolf they trapped was around 70 lbs that's typical of the size of the true native washington Wolves these new wolves get up to 200 lbs
Post by: mfswallace on April 18, 2015, 11:52:54 PM
Keep defending those that gave you a ram tag ??? :stirthepot: :stirthepot:
Post by: jasnt on April 19, 2015, 06:16:07 AM
Post by: rim_runner on April 19, 2015, 12:41:13 PM
Problem with that bobcat is they now consider all wolves to be cainious lupious. Pardon my spelling. With that kind of logic every wolf on earth is the same spits been that way for a long time. What you have is several sub-species of canis lupus.
Post by: idaho guy on April 21, 2015, 03:21:10 PM