Post by: denali on June 04, 2015, 12:21:36 PM
Washington’s wolf population, concentrated in the northeast corner, has reached critical mass, a milestone in a state where recovery standards are high and so are passions.
Washington has fewer wolves than Oregon and far fewer than Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. But Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife biologists say the population is poised to follow the same upward trajectory that other states saw.
But more wolves may mean more conflicts with the state’s $700 million-a-year cattle and sheep industries. While vocal environmentalists downplay the economic risks and hail the return of the gray wolf, ranchers — some whose families have worked the land since the 1800s — say the reintroduction of an apex predator threatens their way of life.
At the center of the controversy is the state’s Wolf Conservation and Management Plan. Conservation groups and livestock producers continue to spar over the plan, which guides wildlife managers and lays out recovery goals.
Adopted in 2011, Washington’s plan sets a higher bar for success than the objectives established for Idaho, Wyoming, Montana or Oregon. Until the goals are achieved, wolves will be a protected species throughout the state, no matter how many occupy northeast Washington.
House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Brian Blake represents the state’s southwest corner, far removed from wolf country. He agrees with those who say the plan calls for too many wolves over too large a territory.
The Aberdeen Democrat said a small percentage of Washingtonians are sacrificing for wolf recovery, and the current plan doesn’t provide relief.
“The original wolf plan was flawed,” Blake said. “It was a recipe for failure, and a failure is what we’re seeing.”
No progress documented
Federal recovery goals for the Rocky Mountain region were met seven years after wolves were released in central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park in 1995. In Oregon, state recovery goals were achieved last year, six years after the first wolf pack was documented in 2008.
Washington’s first wolf pack was discovered in 2008, too. It has nearly as many wolves as Oregon, but under the state’s wolf plan recovery is at least several years away and as much as a decade away, wildlife officials say. WDFW estimates wolves will be eligible to be taken off the state’s protected species list by 2021 — plus or minus three years. On paper, there’s been no progress in meeting recovery goals in three years.
The key difference between Washington’s wolf plan and the plans other states used is the minimum number of breeding pairs needed before wildlife managers can consider management measures, including hunting, to control how many wolves live in the state, and where.
A 17-member work group that developed Washington’s plan decided the state should have at least 15 breeding pairs, a number considered too low by two of three scientists who conducted a peer review. Nevertheless, it was more breeding pairs than required in other states.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the 1980s declared that Idaho, Montana and Wyoming each needed at least 10 breeding pairs before gray wolves would be eligible to be taken off the list of endangered species. But in neighboring Oregon, only four breeding pairs are required for recovery under that state’s plan.
Washington has counted five breeding pairs each year since 2011. During that time, the wolf population has almost doubled, from 35 to 68, and the number of packs has more than doubled, from 7 to 16.
“What does that tell you?” asked Washington Cattlemen’s Association Executive Vice President Jack Field. To him, it says counting breeding pairs is the wrong measurement.
“It’s got to be packs,” he said. “It’s simple and attainable.”
WDFW defines packs as two or more wolves traveling together in the winter.
However, the definition doesn’t address whether wolves are successfully establishing a family unit, said Tim Coleman, executive director of the pro-wolf Kettle Range Conservation Group. “Two animals is not really a pack,” he said.
When the wolf plan was written, dissenters in the work group, including Field, said 15 breeding pairs — 50 percent more than in states with fewer people and more wolf habitat — “defies common sense.” Washington has more than 7 million residents, while Oregon has 3.9 million and Idaho 1.6 million. The dissenters proposed eight breeding pairs.
To count as a breeding pair, a male and female must have at least two pups surviving to the end of the year. But that definition may be too narrow, critics say. In 2014, a Lookout pack male and female raised one pup in north-central Washington, an area ravaged by the largest wildfire in state history. A female in the Smackout pack raised four pups after a cougar killed her mate. In both cases, the pups didn’t count toward the recovery goals.
WDFW wolf policy lead Dave Ware said there may be more breeding pairs than the five found last year by biologists. “That’s what we were able to document. It doesn’t mean that’s what’s on the ground,” he said.
Veteran wolf manager Carter Niemeyer, who oversaw Idaho’s wolf recovery before retiring in 2006 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said he believes the state can support the number of breeding pairs called for in the wolf plan. “Fifteen breeding pairs doesn’t seem unrealistic to me,” he said.
Besides breeding pairs, Washington’s plan judges success by the number of wolves reproducing in each of three zones. Each zone must have at least four breeding pairs for at least three consecutive years.
There are four pairs in Eastern Washington, one in the North Cascades and none in the South Cascades.
Ware said wolves likely are more widely distributed than the count shows.
More wolf sightings
Although the agency has not documented any wolves in the South Cascades, wolf sightings there are constant and credible, he said. A recent WDFW wolf presentation included a photo of a wolf in a field in Klickitat County in south-central Washington.
Wolves may even be crossing the Cascade Range. A wolf was seen in late April standing on Interstate 90 in eastern King County. By the time state wildlife managers arrived, the 2-year-old female had been hit and killed by a truck. She was the first known wild gray wolf west of the Cascades in decades.
Grant County rancher Bill Sieverkropp, president of the state cattlemen’s association, said he hasn’t seen any wolves in his section of Central Washington, but there’s talk.
“You always hear rumors,” he said. “I imagine when the population grows, eventually we will see some come through our area.”
Klickitat County rancher Neil Kayser says he’s skeptical wolves have ventured down to where he is in south-central Washington, not far from the Columbia River and Oregon, which lies south of it. His cousin and fellow rancher, Keith Kreps, says he hasn’t seen any signs either and isn’t worried about lone wolves passing through. But he says he’s heard of reliable sightings and thinks wolves will come and packs will form.
“We are going to have them eventually. You can almost guarantee it’s going to happen,” he said. “We think the cat (cougar) problem is bad. This will be bad.”
Blake, the state legislator, said he believes wolves have made their way to the timbered wilderness of the South Cascades.
“We know there are wolves down there,” he said. “That is dense, difficult ground for biologists to operate in to quantify wolves, and that’s going to be a huge hurdle.”
In the North Cascades, Niemeyer took up residence in a tent in mid-May to help Washington State University graduate students find wolves to collar in Okanogan County. By late May, they were still looking, without luck.
“I guess I’m skeptical wolves will spread in Washington like prairie fire. I really don’t buy that,” he said.
Idaho counted 14 wolves before the Canadian imports were released 20 years ago. The count rose steadily and peaked at 856 in 2009, the first year a state-sponsored wolf hunt was allowed.
Niemeyer cautions against assuming Washington will see the same unrelenting growth as Idaho did. Too many factors, such as the deaths of breeding females, could delay recovery, he said.
Still, Niemeyer said wolves will disperse. “There’s no doubt. It’s just a slow, gradual process. They will get there. Wolves are tough, resilient and prolific,” he said.
A WDFW consultant, Francine Madden, recently interviewed more than 90 ranchers, environmentalists, biologists, legislators and others interested in Washington’s wolves and found, unsurprisingly, strong feelings.
She also noted that her interview subjects were aware that most Washingtonians were “only mildly interested” in wolf recovery.
The deeply involved minority has presented the mildly interested majority with two competing narratives.
One narrative says reintroducing a wily apex predator has burdened northeast Washington residents. Wolves are entrenched in the region, and livestock losses are mounting. Yet, statewide recovery is long into the future. Therefore, wolves should be delisted in Eastern Washington and managed accordingly.
The other narrative asserts that wolves and ranchers can co-exist and that recovery is on track. Wolves are about to break out and blossom into a statewide and sustainable population. Don’t change a good plan that’s working.
Balancing act
The Legislature may yet produce a bill this year that seeks to balance those views.
House Bill 2107 would require WDFW to reconsider the wolf plan, but the legislation does not mandate any changes. WDFW would review several issues, including whether poaching penalties are high enough and under what circumstances the agency will kill wolves to protect livestock.
Washington wolves made up less than 4 percent of the 1,802 gray wolves counted in five Western states last year but accounted for almost 10 percent of the 312 sheep and cattle confirmed killed by wolves, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Washington wolves took at least two cows and 28 sheep, according to WDFW, though Stevens County rancher Dave Dashiell estimates he actually lost more than 300 animals to the Huckleberry pack.
A state lawmaker from northeast Washington, Rep. Joel Kretz, has more than once told his colleagues in Olympia that “social tolerance” for wolves is about gone in his district.
Northeast Washington ranchers and county commissioners this year delivered the same message in intense testimony at the Capitol in Olympia.
“We can’t afford to wait for the whole state to recover because there won’t be any of us left,” Dashiell told legislators.
Kretz has proposed relocating wolves to unoccupied areas to hasten statewide recovery, an option included in the state’s wolf plan. The option, though, looks highly unlikely. No legislator has volunteered to have his district host wolves.
So wolves must spread naturally and at their own pace.
Field, of the cattlemen’s association, said he believes recovery will come before WDFW’s projected date of 2021. “I’m going to put my money on the under,” he said.
The bet is based on expectations that wolves will multiply rapidly. It’s also based on the idea that WDFW may change how it measures recovery from breeding pairs to packs.
Field said he thinks recovery will occur before 2021 even if WDFW sticks with breeding pairs. “I’m going to be naively optimistic and say ‘Yes,’” he said.
Coleman, one of the environmentalists on WDFW’s wolf advisory group, agrees. “More than likely, yes, it will come earlier,” he said. “I think it will happen because the habitat is there.”
In the meantime, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service calls the wolf comeback in the West an “amazing success.” It’s considering taking gray wolves off the endangered species list entirely, including Central and Western Washington.
Blake said Washington errs by not considering the federal success good enough. The state’s wolves should be seen as the western edge of a thriving Rocky Mountain population, he said.
“Personally, I believe wolves are biologically recovered in Washington state today,” he said.
http://www.capitalpress.com/Washington/20150604/washingtons-wolf-experience-unlike-rest-of-the-west#.VXCAVeoGBig.facebook
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 04, 2015, 01:00:15 PM
Post by: AspenBud on June 04, 2015, 02:02:17 PM
One of the things I found interesting on the audio tape of the WAG meeting was them talking about WA's goals are different because the politics are different from ID, MT, and WY. As we all know, the realities are the same for the farmers and the communities that have to deal with these things, but because of our liberal population centers in King and Pierce, Clark, Spokane, Whitman, Whatcom Co's, etc , they don't matter. It appears to me from the small amount of the audio tape that I've listened to thus far (about two hours not including the team building hour), the state is considering the possibility that because our demographics are so different, they may never input a wolf season in WA. This is probably why non-hunting groups have been added to the WAG and so many pro-wolfers are on the commission. I'm very disturbed by what's taking place in our state and it's a precedence that will flow into our hunting seasons and affect the future of our game management drastically.
Fixed it for you.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 04, 2015, 02:08:16 PM
Post by: Curly on June 04, 2015, 02:12:34 PM
Anyway, the writing is on the wall. I need to start planning on retirement out of this state........and hunting states like WY and MT from now on. I am just about to write off WA as a lost cause for hunting. :(
Post by: AspenBud on June 04, 2015, 02:38:15 PM
Clark actually goes R usually. And, without King and Pierce Co.s, there would be virtually no liberals in the state.
It might go R in some things, but in others...Clark County is, actually has been, turning into Portland, OR north. Wolf support is state wide, particularly in major population centers.
Post by: jasnt on June 05, 2015, 06:37:01 AM
You would be hard pressed to find anyone in my area supporting wolvesClark actually goes R usually. And, without King and Pierce Co.s, there would be virtually no liberals in the state.
It might go R in some things, but in others...Clark County is, actually has been, turning into Portland, OR north. Wolf support is state wide, particularly in major population centers.
Post by: mfswallace on June 05, 2015, 06:50:08 AM
Post by: wolfbait on June 05, 2015, 06:59:33 AM
5 breeding pairs in 5 years, how can anyone say wdfw is being honest? :bash:
Since when has the wolf introduction ever been honest?
When you start breaking things down, comparing recoveries from other states, and looking at the numbers, it's easy to see WDFW are frauds with a spin for their wolves that just keeps on going.
WDF&Wolves
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 05, 2015, 07:16:34 AM
Post by: jasnt on June 05, 2015, 07:54:58 AM
Post by: KNOPHISH on June 05, 2015, 08:02:51 AM
Post by: WAPatriot on June 05, 2015, 08:14:20 AM
Post by: cooltimber on June 05, 2015, 08:25:58 AM
Thats just my opinion. The %%% liberals just swallow their own thought's brought on by other idiot's liberals..I tell u this I'm on match.com and meet this women that said I love to target shoot but I'm against the 2nd admentment.Is that stupid or did I miss something? I doubt it ! Thats their problem their brains don't know left from right and think that they make burger at safeway.
Post by: wolfbait on June 05, 2015, 08:52:10 AM
It's my opinion that the ranchers and residents of the most prolific wolf areas in WA were sold a false bill of goods. It's worse for them then we originally thought. Not only is the original management plan outrageous, but it appears possible now that WA has never really planned to list wolves as a game animal. When they talk about management, it now sounds like they're talking about non-lethal methods and/or about only agency-directed lethal control when absolutely necessary going forward (and "absolutely necessary" will be extremely subjective). To me, given the presence of anti-hunting and pro-wolf forces all over the Commission and in the WAG, it's becoming more possible that this is their path.
It's about time P-man ;).
If you look at how WDFW protect the cougars and bears which are not on the ESA, how could or would you expect wolf management to be any different?
According to WDFW wolves started coming into WA from Idaho in 2002, and here we are 13 years later with only Five BP's confirmed and sixty some wolves, WDFW's bogus count.
WDFW claim the wolves haven't impact the game herds, and yet each year there are less deer etc., how far will the herds have to drop before they are considered impacted? The Lolo elk herd comes to mind.
WDFW etc. are going to manage people, and with that bit of info., Unsworth is indeed the man for the job.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 05, 2015, 08:52:50 AM
Post by: bobcat on June 05, 2015, 08:58:55 AM
Post by: huntnphool on June 05, 2015, 09:01:46 AM
When wolves become extremely abundant throughout the state, there WILL be a hunting season for wolves. It may not be an official season, but it will exist I have no doubt.
What's that supposed to mean?
Post by: bobcat on June 05, 2015, 09:03:57 AM
When wolves become extremely abundant throughout the state, there WILL be a hunting season for wolves. It may not be an official season, but it will exist I have no doubt.
What's that supposed to mean?
Unofficial, year round open season, not listed in the hunting reg's.
Post by: Curly on June 05, 2015, 09:08:08 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 05, 2015, 09:10:41 AM
When wolves become extremely abundant throughout the state, there WILL be a hunting season for wolves. It may not be an official season, but it will exist I have no doubt.
Certainly, if a season doesn't appear, some will take management into their own hands. It's a shame that we even have to consider it. If things continue in this direction, I may have to move to another state. It's starting to feel like the writing's on the wall for hunting in WA. :dunno:
Post by: bobcat on June 05, 2015, 09:13:22 AM
Post by: huntnphool on June 05, 2015, 09:14:31 AM
When wolves become extremely abundant throughout the state, there WILL be a hunting season for wolves. It may not be an official season, but it will exist I have no doubt.
What's that supposed to mean?
Unofficial, year round open season, not listed in the hunting reg's.
1) In who's opinion? Who draws the line on how many wolves equates to "extremely abundant"? In a lot of people's opinions the numbers are already there.
2) In case you have not noticed, there already is a "unofficial" year round season.
3) You are one of those, on this site, that believe we need more wolves in this state, subtraction by addition remember? :bash:
Post by: huntnphool on June 05, 2015, 09:22:54 AM
When wolves become extremely abundant throughout the state, there WILL be a hunting season for wolves. It may not be an official season, but it will exist I have no doubt.It's starting to feel like the writing's on the wall for hunting in WA. :dunno:
It's too bad more of you didn't attend the proposal meetings or read through the proposal. Some of us copied and pasted the wording directly from the proposal to threads on this site, easily explaining exactly what they are doing. Now some are beginning to figure it out......the wording and direction outlined in the proposal was not put there by accident! It should have been crystal clear to every hunter in this state, what was going to happen! :twocents:
Post by: grundy53 on June 05, 2015, 09:34:44 AM
Post by: bobcat on June 05, 2015, 09:48:49 AM
When wolves become extremely abundant throughout the state, there WILL be a hunting season for wolves. It may not be an official season, but it will exist I have no doubt.
What's that supposed to mean?
Unofficial, year round open season, not listed in the hunting reg's.
1) In who's opinion? Who draws the line on how many wolves equates to "extremely abundant"? In a lot of people's opinions the numbers are already there.
2) In case you have not noticed, there already is a "unofficial" year round season.
3) You are one of those, on this site, that believe we need more wolves in this state, subtraction by addition remember? :bash:
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I "believe we need more wolves?" Where did you come up with that? My preference would be no wolves. But they're here, they're a native species, and they're protected by the ESA. I'm not sure what choice we have in whether we have wolves in the state or not. The wolves came here, and they're re-populating the state. It's still unknown how many we'll have and what parts of the state will have them and which parts will not.
I have no clue what "subtraction by addition" means. Next time can you write in plain English instead of riddles?
Post by: Curly on June 05, 2015, 09:50:10 AM
Post by: bearpaw on June 05, 2015, 10:42:30 AM
There could be room for the proposed number of wolves without much impact on our game herds if WDFW would trim the cougar population back to what it used to be and not allow the wolves to over populate. :twocents:
Post by: wolfbait on June 05, 2015, 11:58:41 AM
If cougar were managed better wolf predation wouldn't be so additive to current cougar predation. 1 cougar and 1 wolf eat about the same amount. Currently WA has roughly 4,000 cougar, that is double the cougar numbers that we had a few decades ago. Studies have shown that 1 cougar eats 25 to 50 deer per year, so 4,000 cougar are eating 100,000+ deer, elk, moose, sheep, goats, caribou per year.
There could be room for the proposed number of wolves without much impact on our game herds if WDFW would trim the cougar population back to what it used to be and not allow the wolves to over populate. :twocents:
I don't think managing cougars will be the answer, sure it would help some but look at the impact of wolves in Alaska, Canada etc. where controlled wolf hunts are needed to save some game herds.
As for the proposed wolf numbers, look at WDFW's efforts at confirming wolf packs/BP's, the Okanogan is a good example with WDFW claiming every wolf sighting is part of the lookout pack.
How do you estimate the proposed amount of wolves if you are counting BP's for delisting? WA could have a few thousand wolves at the rate WDFW is confirming BP's, one BP times two equals thirty wolves, plus how many more that are not counted because they are not a breeding pair??? How many wolves will WA actually have by the time WDFW does confirm 15 BP's?
How has WDFW been held accountable in the confirmation of BP's/wolf packs? Who will hold WDFW accountable in confirming the impact on the game herds?
70% Human Kill Needed to Reduce Wolf Population
Two months after the 2008-2012 F&G Wolf plan was adopted by the Commission, wolf preservationists petitioned Montana Judge Donald Molloy to halt the 2008 wolf hunt before it began FWS wolf expert Dr. David Mech responded in a written statement to the court: “...28- 50% of a wolf population must be killed by humans per year (on top of natural mortality) to even hold a wolf population stationery.”(emphasis added)
F&G Knew <20% Harvest Would Not Reduce Wolves
Idaho biologists were aware that five scientists conducting a six year study of sport hunting and trapping of wolves in Alaska’s Brooks Range recorded removal of only ~29% of the wolves each year in addition to all other causes of death. They also knew that the liberal hunting and trapping seasons with multiple bag limits did not even reduce the rate of wolf population increase.
In his testimony to the Court, Mech explained: “Every year, most wolf populations almost double in the spring through the birth of pups [Mech 1970]. For example in May 2008, there will not be 1,500 wolves, but
3,000! (Wolf population estimates are usually made in winter when animals are at their nadir [lowest number]. This approach serves to provide conservative estimates and further insure that management remains conservative).”
Read more@ http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2035%20July-Nov%202009.pdf
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 05, 2015, 01:02:38 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 05, 2015, 01:09:16 PM
Post by: Curly on June 05, 2015, 01:27:04 PM
The state wolf plan should have included methods of reducing wolf numbers when the time comes. It should have included hunting them as a game animal and trapping them, but then that would have gone against the beliefs of HSUS and dow.
Post by: mfswallace on June 05, 2015, 01:39:56 PM
Wolves weren't "brought on." They're a native species and the population just happens to be increasing right now. There was no plan for how to manage wolves because there were none, or so few that it didn't matter. It's going to take time for all of this to balance out, but it will, eventually. Give it some time, miracles won't happen overnight.
Oh no, you slipped up :yike:
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 05, 2015, 01:43:45 PM
Wolves weren't "brought on." They're a native species and the population just happens to be increasing right now. There was no plan for how to manage wolves because there were none, or so few that it didn't matter. It's going to take time for all of this to balance out, but it will, eventually. Give it some time, miracles won't happen overnight.
You're arguing semantics, which is ludicrous. They were exterminated from WA and 60 years later, other wolves were transplanted into neighboring states and allowed to populate WA. These are no more native to WA than I. Just because there were people in WA before doesn't mean that when I moved here in '89 I was a native. Like the wolves, I'm a transplant.
Post by: bobcat on June 05, 2015, 01:46:42 PM
Post by: Bob33 on June 05, 2015, 01:47:29 PM
Like the wolves, I'm a transplant.Should we blame WDFW for you too? ;)
Post by: AspenBud on June 05, 2015, 01:49:48 PM
If cougar were managed better wolf predation wouldn't be so additive to current cougar predation. 1 cougar and 1 wolf eat about the same amount. Currently WA has roughly 4,000 cougar, that is double the cougar numbers that we had a few decades ago. Studies have shown that 1 cougar eats 25 to 50 deer per year, so 4,000 cougar are eating 100,000+ deer, elk, moose,
What happens to cougars when wolves move into an area they have normally been in? There's a lot of talk about skinny and dying cats in those areas.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 05, 2015, 01:52:14 PM
Actually there were some wolves in this state in the late 80's and early 90's that did not come from the Idaho transplants.
Yes, those were native wolves. I wonder how they're doing???
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 05, 2015, 01:52:57 PM
Like the wolves, I'm a transplant.Should we blame WDFW for you too? ;)
I bet the WDFW would like to cast some blame somewhere for it! :tup:
Post by: bobcat on June 05, 2015, 01:53:16 PM
When wolves outnumber deer and elk, we will switch over to wolf hunting every year and deer/elk hunting will possibly be a once in a lifetime tag.
And the wolves will be forced to eat domestic livestock more often than wild game.
No worries, there will always be something to hunt in this state. :tup:
Post by: mfswallace on June 05, 2015, 02:00:34 PM
Here's where the "balance" will come in:
When wolves outnumber deer and elk, we will switch over to wolf hunting every year and deer/elk hunting will possibly be a once in a lifetime tag.
And the wolves will be forced to eat domestic livestock more often than wild game.
No worries, there will always be something to hunt in this state. :tup:
:puke:
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 05, 2015, 02:02:03 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 05, 2015, 02:04:50 PM
Does anyone really expect that legal wolf hunting will ever be allowed in this state? No way will it happen. The voter initiative process will be used to prevent wolf hunting just like it ended hounds and bear baiting (if wdfw would even allow hunting of wolves).Gotta figure out how much the tribes will want to keep the wolves under control. Some of the members that use hounds for cougs get goodies like meals, auto work, rifles and ammo for keeping cat numbers down and deer up in a couple areas. Imagine that if an initiative prevents state hunters, the tribes could work out deals with hunters/ranchers to do the management. Sucky way to have to go about it, but do what you can to keep your way of life.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 05, 2015, 02:35:36 PM
Does anyone really expect that legal wolf hunting will ever be allowed in this state? No way will it happen. The voter initiative process will be used to prevent wolf hunting just like it ended hounds and bear baiting (if wdfw would even allow hunting of wolves).Gotta figure out how much the tribes will want to keep the wolves under control. Some of the members that use hounds for cougs get goodies like meals, auto work, rifles and ammo for keeping cat numbers down and deer up in a couple areas. Imagine that if an initiative prevents state hunters, the tribes could work out deals with hunters/ranchers to do the management. Sucky way to have to go about it, but do what you can to keep your way of life.
The tribes will kill them on their tribal lands; already are I believe. That doesn't help the rest of the state very much. The wolves will learn to make themselves scarce there and go where they aren't hunted.
Post by: Bob33 on June 05, 2015, 02:53:51 PM
We mostly agree, Bobcat, except that I don't think there will be a wolf season. That's why I was a little surprised with your semantic deviation from the real topic. :dunno:I think there probably will be legalized hunting at some point, but it will be strictly limited and controlled. After all, there's money in them thar critters: "Quality wolf", "antlerless wolf", "wolf with disabilities", "master hunter wolf", ....
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 05, 2015, 02:58:49 PM
Post by: grundy53 on June 05, 2015, 04:07:52 PM
Here's where the "balance" will come in:Bobcat, why must you troll.... :chuckle: :chuckle:
When wolves outnumber deer and elk, we will switch over to wolf hunting every year and deer/elk hunting will possibly be a once in a lifetime tag.
And the wolves will be forced to eat domestic livestock more often than wild game.
No worries, there will always be something to hunt in this state. :tup:
Post by: wolfbait on June 05, 2015, 06:08:10 PM
The added “disclaimer” in the first article (implying that blaming wolves for declining prey populations reflects ignorance of the complexity of ecosystems) suggests that only academic wildlife biologists have the ability to manage wildlife. If that were true one might ask how the partnership of hunter conservationists and game wardens managed to restore North American wildlife populations from near extinction to unheard of abundance during the first half of the 20th Century.
Regardless of their academic credentials or alleged experience, if your wildlife managers refuse to admit that large carnivore populations must be carefully regulated in order to maintain healthy wild ungulate populations, don’t waste your time trying to reason with them. They either lack the wisdom to separate fact from fiction, or they are lying to you – and perhaps even to themselves.
Management Requires Controlling All Wildlife Numbers – Not Just Prey Species
In the first Science article, instead of concluding the obvious fact that uncontrolled wolves decimated the deer population and then, lacking alternate large prey, destroyed each other, the article blamed the inevitable result on the size of the island. Yet the same result (wolves driving prey into a “predator pit”) has been documented with wolves and moose for more than half a century on Isle Royale in Michigan and with wolves and deer on Vancouver Island in British Columbia since the 1970s.
In geographically “closed” ecosystems such as Coronation Island and Isle Royale, a single large carnivore species decimates its single wild ungulate prey and ultimately destroys itself, allowing the prey to repopulate over time. But in the vast majority of ecosystems such as Vancouver Island and Interior Alaska, where alternate prey species allow predators to survive after the primary prey is decimated, the primary prey may not recover without a dramatic reduction in predator numbers.
The importance of predator density and territory size varies with the abundance of prey species. Researchers in Alaska and Yukon Territory determined the minimum number of moose-per-wolf that allows sustainable populations of both species. Once the number of moose-per-wolf falls below that minimum, regardless of the reason, the number of wolves and possibly also bears must be reduced in order for the moose to recover.
That is the situation throughout much of Alaska today and it resulted from pandering to propagandists who were allowed to promote the myth that predators and their prey will seek and maintain a “natural” balance. In his 1993 article, “Wolves in the West,” Wildlife Ecologist Dr. Charles Kay illustrated how the presence of uncontrolled wolves cut hunter harvests by as much as 90% and how a slight increase in hunter harvest with wolves present can help prevent game species recovery for decades. Read More@ http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2035%20July-Nov%202009.pdf
Post by: grundy53 on June 05, 2015, 06:43:30 PM
Hopefully this...If cougar were managed better wolf predation wouldn't be so additive to current cougar predation. 1 cougar and 1 wolf eat about the same amount. Currently WA has roughly 4,000 cougar, that is double the cougar numbers that we had a few decades ago. Studies have shown that 1 cougar eats 25 to 50 deer per year, so 4,000 cougar are eating 100,000+ deer, elk, moose,
What happens to cougars when wolves move into an area they have normally been in? There's a lot of talk about skinny and dying cats in those areas.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F06%2F05%2Fa8ea08fea580e7d6c833959bdeb4e1d7.jpg&hash=44313e6ddc3f6040c58266c87928265fa3d4c505)
Post by: jasnt on June 05, 2015, 08:31:33 PM
:tup:Hopefully this...If cougar were managed better wolf predation wouldn't be so additive to current cougar predation. 1 cougar and 1 wolf eat about the same amount. Currently WA has roughly 4,000 cougar, that is double the cougar numbers that we had a few decades ago. Studies have shown that 1 cougar eats 25 to 50 deer per year, so 4,000 cougar are eating 100,000+ deer, elk, moose,
What happens to cougars when wolves move into an area they have normally been in? There's a lot of talk about skinny and dying cats in those areas.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F06%2F05%2Fa8ea08fea580e7d6c833959bdeb4e1d7.jpg&hash=44313e6ddc3f6040c58266c87928265fa3d4c505)
Post by: Roundhead on June 09, 2015, 09:06:52 PM
The wolf issue is a mask for two liberal agendas: a minor agenda and a major agenda.
The minor agenda being game management agencies are using wolves to deliberately cause chaos to the environment.
First, they claimed the lack of wolves are creating an "off-balance" to the environment.
And eventually the abundance of wolves are creating an adverse "off-balance" to the environment which will need additional management.
It is nothing but a job security for wildlife management agencies to create more jobs and bigger government.
The major agenda is gun control. Liberal thunking machines need new ammo against 2A.
They know that it will impossible to abolish the 2A but they can slowly acclimate gun owners to not use their guns and eventually the population will find it not necessary to buy any guns.
The slow sales in guns will force gun manufacturers to shut down.
And finally new laws and regulations can be introduced.
To get to these steps, the liberals are using wolves first as a protected species which put away any hunters who kill wolves.
Their second step is to work side by side with wildlife management to protect those prey species which are in decline from wolf predations.
They achieve their secondary goal by limiting hunting opportunities.
So with less hunting opportunities, new hunters are hesitant to buy guns for hunting.
The low rates in new hunters in conjunction with the aging population of existing hunters result in low gun sales and gun ownerships.
Post by: KFhunter on June 09, 2015, 09:12:41 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 09, 2015, 09:23:21 PM
1. Where does a lot of that money come from to fund them guvmint biologists?
2. What have gun (and ammo) sales been like the last several years? Keeping in mind wolves were reintroduced 20 years ago.
Carry on.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: Maverick26 on June 09, 2015, 11:23:28 PM
Post by: RadSav on June 10, 2015, 12:26:33 AM
Does the WDFW wolf plan address the fact that two of the three recovery zones are basically surrounded by a giant moat? I know some of the north cascade population is obviously going to come down naturally from Canada. But how does the plan adjust for the speed in which the NE zone must expand before enough wolves swim the moat and then breed to acceptable levels in the south cascades and to an extent the north cascades? When I think of Washington's Wolf Experience being Unlike the Rest of the West I have to believe that the Columbia River posses a challenge to the efficiency of balance and distribution of breeding pairs unmatched by other western states.
I haven't gotten myself to read the whole wolf plan, so I just don't know these answers. Thought I would try and cheat by asking here!
Post by: X-Force on June 10, 2015, 12:31:26 AM
Nothing came up :chuckle:
Post by: RadSav on June 10, 2015, 12:32:41 AM
Post by: Bob33 on June 10, 2015, 05:42:38 AM
Post by: mfswallace on June 10, 2015, 06:15:38 AM
Here is a stupid question that has been ringing around in my head;
I haven't gotten myself to read the whole wolf plan, so I just don't know these answers. Thought I would try and cheat by asking here!
You don't need to read all of the info presented on wolves, that's how idahohunter does it and he knows everything :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: idahohuntr on June 10, 2015, 07:19:39 AM
Could you please take your personal attacks elsewhere. Thanks.Here is a stupid question that has been ringing around in my head;
I haven't gotten myself to read the whole wolf plan, so I just don't know these answers. Thought I would try and cheat by asking here!
You don't need to read all of the info presented on wolves, that's how idahohunter does it and he knows everything :chuckle: :chuckle:
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: mfswallace on June 10, 2015, 11:36:10 AM
Here is a stupid question that has been ringing around in my head;
I haven't gotten myself to read the whole wolf plan, so I just don't know these answers. Thought I would try and cheat by asking here!
You don't need to read all of the info presented on wolves, that's how idahohunter does it and he knows everything :chuckle: :chuckle:
Could you please take your personal attacks elsewhere. Thanks.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
No attack, it's more of a humorous interpretation of fact as admitted by you. Sorry if it hit home but you did criticize a Ph.D. and admit to not reading his article. I realize you are newly indoctrinated into the world of biology and "wildlife" managers but I believe Dr. Charles Kay has a vast amount of real world experience and a lot of in the "arena" years on you so when you show your lack of true understanding and hypocrisy as related to your signature I find it funny!!
Sent from my middle finger using hunt and pecktype
Post by: mountainman on June 10, 2015, 01:13:08 PM
:yeah:Here is a stupid question that has been ringing around in my head;
I haven't gotten myself to read the whole wolf plan, so I just don't know these answers. Thought I would try and cheat by asking here!
You don't need to read all of the info presented on wolves, that's how idahohunter does it and he knows everything :chuckle: :chuckle:
Could you please take your personal attacks elsewhere. Thanks.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
No attack, it's more of a humorous interpretation of fact as admitted by you. Sorry if it hit home but you did criticize a Ph.D. and admit to not reading his article. I realize you are newly indoctrinated into the world of biology and "wildlife" managers but I believe Dr. Charles Kay has a vast amount of real world experience and a lot of in the "arena" years on you so when you show your lack of true understanding and hypocrisy as related to your signature I find it funny!!
Sent from my middle finger using hunt and pecktype
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 10, 2015, 01:30:05 PM
Post by: mfswallace on June 10, 2015, 05:00:50 PM
Here is a stupid question that has been ringing around in my head;
I haven't gotten myself to read the whole wolf plan, so I just don't know these answers. Thought I would try and cheat by asking here!
You don't need to read all of the info presented on wolves, that's how idahohunter does it and he knows everything :chuckle: :chuckle:
Could you please take your personal attacks elsewhere. Thanks.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
No attack, it's more of a humorous interpretation of fact as admitted by you. Sorry if it hit home but you did criticize a Ph.D. and admit to not reading his article. I realize you are newly indoctrinated into the world of biology and "wildlife" managers but I believe Dr. Charles Kay has a vast amount of real world experience and a lot of in the "arena" years on you so when you show your lack of true understanding and hypocrisy as related to your signature I find it funny!!
Sent from my middle finger using hunt and pecktype
I wish I could find it funny :dunno: I'm really think he is a lib just trolling us. There is no way a person that is a sportsman and has done any research could possibly show so much ignorance on the subject.
I think wolfbait found some info that's pertinent to your insight---
Wolves are not all over Utah, Colorado and other southern states because of rancher mandated killing? :chuckle:
Wyoming "stuck to its guns" in classifying wolves as a predator so they can be shot on sight unlike Idaho and Montana which 'caved'? :chuckle:
Maybe there was something useful in the article, but I stopped reading after 2 paragraphs when it became clear that the author was clueless about wolves and wolf management in the West.
Busted! Paid Government Shill Exposes The Whole Operation!
Sent from my middle finger using hunt and pecktype
Post by: jasnt on June 10, 2015, 07:12:29 PM
:yeah:Here is a stupid question that has been ringing around in my head;
I haven't gotten myself to read the whole wolf plan, so I just don't know these answers. Thought I would try and cheat by asking here!
You don't need to read all of the info presented on wolves, that's how idahohunter does it and he knows everything :chuckle: :chuckle:
Could you please take your personal attacks elsewhere. Thanks.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
No attack, it's more of a humorous interpretation of fact as admitted by you. Sorry if it hit home but you did criticize a Ph.D. and admit to not reading his article. I realize you are newly indoctrinated into the world of biology and "wildlife" managers but I believe Dr. Charles Kay has a vast amount of real world experience and a lot of in the "arena" years on you so when you show your lack of true understanding and hypocrisy as related to your signature I find it funny!!
Sent from my middle finger using hunt and pecktype
I wish I could find it funny :dunno: I'm really think he is a lib just trolling us. There is no way a person that is a sportsman and has done any research could possibly show so much ignorance on the subject.
I think wolfbait found some info that's pertinent to your insight---Wolves are not all over Utah, Colorado and other southern states because of rancher mandated killing? :chuckle:
Wyoming "stuck to its guns" in classifying wolves as a predator so they can be shot on sight unlike Idaho and Montana which 'caved'? :chuckle:
Maybe there was something useful in the article, but I stopped reading after 2 paragraphs when it became clear that the author was clueless about wolves and wolf management in the West.
Busted! Paid Government Shill Exposes The Whole Operation!
Makes me wonder how many trolls we have here!
Post by: idahohuntr on June 10, 2015, 07:38:09 PM
I thought we were well past the "he must not be a hunter" crap. I guess not.
Post by: jasnt on June 10, 2015, 08:36:56 PM
Post by: Bob33 on June 10, 2015, 08:42:10 PM
No one said in this thread that your not a hunter?it's been implied.
"I'm really think he is a lib just trolling us. There is no way a person that is a sportsman and has done any research could possibly show so much ignorance on the subject."
Knock it off.
Post by: jasnt on June 10, 2015, 09:23:06 PM
Here is a stupid question that has been ringing around in my head;you bring up a very interesting point! And to answer you question no it does not. The wolf plan is only half a plan really and needs revised badly!
Does the WDFW wolf plan address the fact that two of the three recovery zones are basically surrounded by a giant moat? I know some of the north cascade population is obviously going to come down naturally from Canada. But how does the plan adjust for the speed in which the NE zone must expand before enough wolves swim the moat and then breed to acceptable levels in the south cascades and to an extent the north cascades? When I think of Washington's Wolf Experience being Unlike the Rest of the West I have to believe that the Columbia River posses a challenge to the efficiency of balance and distribution of breeding pairs unmatched by other western states.
I haven't gotten myself to read the whole wolf plan, so I just don't know these answers. Thought I would try and cheat by asking here!
Post by: Duckslayer89 on August 04, 2015, 02:27:41 AM
Here's where the "balance" will come in:That actually made me feel good reading that. When all the buffalo are gone, we will hunt mice, because we are hunters
When wolves outnumber deer and elk, we will switch over to wolf hunting every year and deer/elk hunting will possibly be a once in a lifetime tag.
And the wolves will be forced to eat domestic livestock more often than wild game.
No worries, there will always be something to hunt in this state. :tup:
Post by: KFhunter on August 09, 2015, 09:01:39 PM
I'm certainly not advocating that we partake in illegal activities and I won't. But, we need to stay on our elected officials about this. Make sure they know what's been going on and how the Wildlife Commission and WDFW have been transforming over the years.
Quote
Certainly, if a season doesn't appear, some will take management into their own hands. It's a shame that we even have to consider it. If things continue in this direction, I may have to move to another state. It's starting to feel like the writing's on the wall for hunting in WA. :dunno:
evolving your position?