Post by: jasnt on March 14, 2016, 04:18:54 PM
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/
March 14, 2016
Contact: Donny Martorello, (360) 902-2515
Bruce Botka, (360) 902-2262
Washington wolf population continues to grow
OLYMPIA – Washington state’s wolf population continued to grow last year and added at least four new packs, according to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (WDFW) annual survey. By the end of 2015, the state was home to at least 90 wolves, 18 packs, and eight breeding pairs.
The recently completed survey shows the minimum number of wolves grew by 32 percent last year, despite the deaths of at least seven wolves from various causes. Since 2008, when WDFW documented just one pack and five wolves, the population has increased by an average of 36 percent per year.
“Wolf populations in Washington are steadily increasing, just as we’ve seen in the upper Midwest and Rocky Mountain states,” said WDFW Director Jim Unsworth. “This increase – and the wolves’ concentration in northeast Washington – underscores the importance of collaboration between our department, livestock producers, and local residents to prevent conflict between wolves and domestic animals.”
Donny Martorello, WDFW wolf policy lead, said the new Beaver Creek, Loup Loup, Skookum, and Stranger packs were confirmed in Ferry, Okanogan, Pend Oreille, and Stevens counties, respectively.
However, researchers found no evidence of the previously documented Wenatchee Pack, and the Diamond Pack shifted its activity to Idaho and is no longer included in Washington state totals.
Martorello said the minimum number of breeding pairs in Washington increased from five to eight – the first increase since 2011.
WDFW conducted the research using aerial surveys, remote cameras, wolf tracks, and signals from 22 radio-collared wolves from 13 different packs. Twelve wolves were fitted with radio collars during the year, while one pup was marked and released without a collar due to its small size.
Despite their growing numbers, wolves were involved in fewer conflicts with livestock than in 2014. Martorello said the department determined wolves from four packs were responsible for killing a total of seven cattle and injuring one guard dog.
Three of the seven wolves that died in 2015 were killed legally by hunters on the reservation of the Spokane Tribe of Indians, which authorized the harvest up to six wolves per year by tribal members. The four other deaths included one wolf killed in a collision with a vehicle, one shot in self-defense by a property owner, and one that died during an attempt to capture it. One wolf’s cause of death is unknown.
Unsworth said WDFW took several steps in 2015 to expand public involvement in wolf conservation and management. He said the most important actions were doubling the size of the department’s Wolf Advisory Group to 18 members, and initiating a “conflict transformation” process to improve working relationships among the members and the groups they represent and the department.
Martorello said WDFW will continue to emphasize the importance of preventive actions to minimize wolf attacks on livestock and domestic animals. For example, WDFW wildlife conflict specialists are available to work with residents of communities where wolves are present.
WDFW has also adopted a “range rider” program to provide an increased human presence in grazing areas. WDFW continues to offer cost-sharing agreements for ranchers through a program designed to help them reduce their expenses for preventive measures.
Gray wolves, all but eliminated from western states in the last century, are protected under Washington law throughout the state and under federal law in the western two-thirds of the state.
Because of the difficulty of confirming the presence of every single wolf, survey results are expressed in terms of the minimum number of individuals, packs, and breeding pairs. The state Wolf Conservation and Management Plan defines a pack as two or more wolves traveling together in winter and a successful breeding pair as an adult male and female with at least two pups that survive to the end of the calendar year.
Under the state management plan, wolves can be removed from the state endangered species list once 15 successful breeding pairs are documented for three consecutive years among the three designated wolf-recovery regions.
WDFW’s complete wolf survey for 2015 will be available by the end of March on the department’s website: (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/).
Persons with disabilities who need to receive this information in an alternative format or who need reasonable accommodations to participate in WDFW-sponsored public meetings or other activities may contact Dolores Noyes by phone (360-902-2349), TTY (360-902-2207), or email (dolores.noyes@dfw.wa.gov). For more information, see http://wdfw.wa.gov/accessibility/reasonable_request.html.
Post by: wolfbait on March 14, 2016, 08:00:49 PM
WDFW said they started seeing wolves come into WA in 2002, and now 14 years later WDFW still can't seem to confirm enough wolves to delist.
Post by: jasnt on March 14, 2016, 08:32:02 PM
Lets see now, the USFWS dumped wolves in the Yellowstone and Idaho between 1995-96, 7 to 8 years later in 2002 all three states were eligible for delisting.pretty disheartening isn't it!
WDFW said they started seeing wolves come into WA in 2002, and now 14 years later WDFW still can't seem to confirm enough wolves to delist.
Post by: REHJWA on March 14, 2016, 08:34:48 PM
Minimums...... What a way to run things.....
Post by: mfswallace on March 14, 2016, 08:45:26 PM
Post by: steen on March 14, 2016, 08:50:30 PM
"Because of the difficulty of confirming the presence of every single wolf, survey results are expressed in terms of the minimum number of individuals, packs, and breeding pairs. The state Wolf Conservation and Management Plan defines a pack as two or more wolves traveling together in winter and a successful breeding pair as an adult male and female with at least two pups that survive to the end of the calendar year."It's kinda like rats, if you see one you know there are 10 more you don't see!
Minimums...... What a way to run things.....
Post by: Eric M on March 14, 2016, 09:17:48 PM
Post by: jasnt on March 14, 2016, 09:29:34 PM
My favorite double speak was hearing WDFW a few years back saying they couldn't confirm the pack in Huckleberry area and then putting trail cam video of the pups from there on their YouTube page.:yeah: :bash:
Post by: splitshot on March 14, 2016, 10:21:40 PM
Post by: Duckslayer89 on March 14, 2016, 10:43:28 PM
Post by: Elkrunner on March 15, 2016, 08:00:38 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 15, 2016, 08:13:20 AM
Can one of the mods please comment on the postings advocating poaching and SSS? Thanks.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 15, 2016, 10:01:27 AM
What illegal activites. I am not advocating anything illegal I don't know what you are implying. Look at what I wrote.
Piano please tell me how you feel about wolves? Also how's that Unsworth kool aid taste?
Who said I was responding to your comment? I wasn't.
And, you don't know me. I guarantee Unsworth has received way more complaints from me about the wolf plan and other topics than from you. You might temper your comments until you know what about and to whom your talking. Ignorance is not your friend. I have opposed the outrageous wolf plan since way before it was passed and have attended multiple meetings and hearings in that regard before, during, and after its passing. So, don't talk to me about Koolaid. When the directions read "this side toward the enemy", make sure you have it pointed in the right direction.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 15, 2016, 10:23:05 AM
The point of my first post on this thread was about the wishes of the owner of this site to present hunting to the general public as an ethical and a needed tool for the management of our wildlife resources. If the general non-hunting public (which represents almost 97% of our population), sees us as unethical and lawless, then we lose our privileges one by one. We won't have much of a voice if we don't have a stake in the game.
Post by: wolfbait on March 15, 2016, 11:04:42 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 15, 2016, 11:14:20 AM
Here s where you and I differ. Hunters aren't going anywhere we are established. If the liberal government said tomorrow hunting is outlawed I say FU at least I don't need to buy tag now. This is as long as there is a need for us hunters aka lots of animals. With the introduction of Wolves to take out our place as apex predators and managers of the herds we as hunters will become the true endangered species. It's the wolf plan. Slowly but surely.
I'm unwilling to lose my gun rights over a poaching charge or multiple charges. You may be, but I would suggest that would be a lose/lose situation. It would be far better to maintain public support for hunting to begin with. And, we can do that with the right communication.
I moved from the east coast back in '89. States like NJ, CT, RI, MA have so many liberals who know so little about game management that the hunters have lost their privileges in many places. Deer hunting, bear hunting, any trapping are out, sometimes statewide. The other problem there (and here), is that hunters don't know how to communicate to save their privileges. When you're 3.5% of the population and you treat the other 96.5% with contempt, you lose. When you're able to enlighten the ignorant with facts and do it in an approachable manner, you can maintain your rights. Knowing the facts about the North American Conservation Model and why the F&W departments use hunters to help keep wildlife healthy and abundant, and being able to present those facts and statistics in a non-threatening way will make it so you don't have to make the decision to poach down the road, possibly leading to the loss of your gun rights. We can have our cake and eat it too. We just need to learn how to put the frosting on it. Hunters are guilty of alienating the general public and there's no need for it when 80% of the general public understand the value of hunting when it's explained to them.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 15, 2016, 11:42:27 AM
The white collar approach is a slow death by a 1000 cuts. Blue collar approach gets it done. And the white collar approach gets stronger and stronger the less animals there are to hunt and thus less hunters/supporters.
Also your % are way off its not actual hunters versus antis it's more people who support/ aren't against hunting versus antis.
In the east coast hunting is comeing back in full swing deer numbers have exploded and people are getting killed from them in car accidents. The deer are a pain in the ass to more people than antis. So hunting will prevail.
In which state can't you hunt in east coast.
My statistics are dead on and are a matter of record. In WA, less than 4% of the population hunts. Over 96% of our population doesn't hunt in WA. In a blue state like this, if you think the "blue collar approach" works, you haven't been paying attention to gun legislation and the wolf program that received large support. It doesn't work. You're not going to muscle liberals into your way of thinking. The Bill Gates and Hanauers of this state will have their way with you and your hunting privileges. I wish it were not so, but it is. Antis are now 8% of our population, more than twice the number of hunters. The others can be swayed by either group. Who do you think they'll listen to when you draw the hard line and the antis hold their hands and cry with them? I'm not saying we need to compromise - quite the opposite. I'm saying we need to learn how to talk to non-hunters in a non-aggressive approach with factual information.
In NJ and CT, they've banned black bear bunting, even though the bear populations are burgeoning. Several townships in NJ, CT, RI, and MA have banned whitetail deer hunting and now have population problems and tick problems. Their answer in some of those towns is birth control, idea presented by the HSUS and PETA, and accepted by the liberal populations of ignorant people.
Post by: JLS on March 15, 2016, 11:55:01 AM
The white collar approach is a slow death by a 1000 cuts. Blue collar approach gets it done. And the white collar approach gets stronger and stronger the less animals there are to hunt and thus less hunters/supporters.
Also your % are way off its not actual hunters versus antis it's more people who support/ aren't against hunting versus antis.
In the east coast hunting is comeing back in full swing deer numbers have exploded and people are getting killed from them in car accidents. The deer are a pain in the ass to more people than antis. So hunting will prevail.
In which state can't you hunt in east coast.
If you think you are going to strongarm your hunting philosophy on the non-hunters of this state then I would suggest you really haven't been paying attention to the ballot box management dynamics over the last 20 years.
Do you really think that you are going to compete with Paul Allen in regards to initiative advertising and propaganda and win? If you do, you might have watched Red Dawn one too many times.
The FU approach is not only illegal in many instances, but will also serve to hasten the demise of hunters.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 15, 2016, 11:55:29 AM
Post by: JLS on March 15, 2016, 12:13:13 PM
The white collar approach is a slow death by a 1000 cuts. Blue collar approach gets it done. And the white collar approach gets stronger and stronger the less animals there are to hunt and thus less hunters/supporters.
Also your % are way off its not actual hunters versus antis it's more people who support/ aren't against hunting versus antis.
In the east coast hunting is comeing back in full swing deer numbers have exploded and people are getting killed from them in car accidents. The deer are a pain in the ass to more people than antis. So hunting will prevail.
In which state can't you hunt in east coast.
If you think you are going to strongarm your hunting philosophy on the non-hunters of this state then I would suggest you really haven't been paying attention to the ballot box management dynamics over the last 20 years.
Do you really think that you are going to compete with Paul Allen in regards to initiative advertising and propaganda and win? If you do, you might have watched Red Dawn one too many times.
The FU approach is not only illegal in many instances, but will also serve to hasten the demise of hunters.
Hell no, no way we can compete with those guys. That's the reason why SSS is nesissary. Maybe illegal but morally is it wrong we are under attack by liberals who want to destroy the hunting that we currently have in Washington. There plan is in place and it is working sit back and watch it happen, try and fight it in the courts. The white collar approach isn't working.
Your SSS approach only lends credibility to their campaigns, and really does nothing appreciable or positive for the overall future of hunting. Every time a hunter is caught utilizing the SSS method it turns more and more non-hunters against us. It's pretty hard to argue my stance as a conservationist when I utilize and promote illegal methods such as "magic meatballs", and espouse the merits of shooting animals that are protected under state and/or federal law. If I can't promote myself as a conservationist, how can I ever expect a non-hunter to support me as part of conservation efforts? I really don't expect you to get this, but I keep hoping at some point you will.
Post by: Magnum_Willys on March 15, 2016, 12:27:56 PM
:mgun: :mgun: :mgun: :mgun:
Post by: jasnt on March 15, 2016, 12:35:28 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 15, 2016, 12:38:07 PM
Unless I remember incorrectly, the owner of this site had either requested that illegal actions or the intent thereof not be posted, or had outright banned them. As I recall there were two reasons for this. 1. It leaves him in a bad position between the law and his members, and 2. Hunters are not the only ones viewing this site. Anti-hunters love to point out the illegal activities and the attitudes which justify them.
Can one of the mods please comment on the postings advocating poaching and SSS? Thanks.
The forum's official position regarding illegal activities: http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,78064.0.html
Numerous courts have ruled that individuals are responsible for their own comments. I'm not really concerned about individuals making statements about their own thoughts and beliefs as long as it's not done in the context that H-W endorses illegal activity.
Post by: bearpaw on March 15, 2016, 12:48:22 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 15, 2016, 01:15:30 PM
It's more along the line of a 10th Amendment assertion - the state over the feds. It'd be nice to have some politicians who understand and acknowledge the depth of this problem for the people who live with it. But it's a moot point. As bearpaw mentioned, our governor has no such intestinal fortitude and even if he did, he sides with the HSUS and DOW. Wolves before man. He's a moron.It would never happen with our current governor, but I would personally support a position similar to what Idaho's Governor Otter took, preventing Idaho wardens from providing info to the USFWS to prosecute individuals for killing wolves. I would also fully support any sheriff or county commissioner candidate who promised to try and open his county up to responsible predator management!
So your position is that, law enforcement should ignore or abet illegal activity?
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 15, 2016, 01:20:31 PM
The other problem there (and here), is that hunters don't know how to communicate to save their privileges. When you're 3.5% of the population and you treat the other 96.5% with contempt, you lose. When you're able to enlighten the ignorant with facts and do it in an approachable manner, you can maintain your rights. Knowing the facts about the North American Conservation Model and why the F&W departments use hunters to help keep wildlife healthy and abundant, and being able to present those facts and statistics in a non-threatening way will make it so you don't have to make the decision to poach down the road, possibly leading to the loss of your gun rights.
You think the Steven's County Cattleman's Association is doing a good job of that?? They're a joke up here....more cowboy hats than cows and the State Cattlemen have even distanced themselves from that group.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 15, 2016, 01:27:55 PM
Meanwhile I just got a letter from The Idaho Dept of Fish and Game looking for a license renewal.
In the letter it stated that "61,200 deer were harvested in 2014, the most in Idaho since 1992and the hunter success rate overall was 40%." And "20,700 elk were taken in 2014, the most since 2005 and hunter success rate overall was 24%.
"We have every reason to believe that 2015 harvest numbers will be just as strong. As our crews conduct winter population surveys and forecasts, we are excited about what we are seeing in the hills streams for this upcoming season."
So much for a predator pit.
This would seem to support the action taken by the governor to ignore the feds, as stated by Bearpaw. And let's not forget, Sitka, ungulate management is only one problem. How are the ranchers doing and what were their losses? How many pets were taken? Hunting dogs? How's the ungulate population in Lolo where a majority of the pack exist? Oh, that's right. They're down more than 60%.
Post by: bearpaw on March 15, 2016, 01:48:03 PM
It would never happen with our current governor, but I would personally support a position similar to what Idaho's Governor Otter took, preventing Idaho wardens from providing info to the USFWS to prosecute individuals for killing wolves. I would also fully support any sheriff or county commissioner candidate who promised to try and open his county up to responsible predator management!
So your position is that, law enforcement should ignore or abet illegal activity?
State of WA seems out of touch with hunters, ranchers, and rural residents. My personal position, I would strongly support any county that creates their own hunting regulations! Local control by local government! Exactly as I strongly supported Governor Otter. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on March 15, 2016, 01:58:54 PM
Meanwhile I just got a letter from The Idaho Dept of Fish and Game looking for a license renewal.
In the letter it stated that "61,200 deer were harvested in 2014, the most in Idaho since 1992and the hunter success rate overall was 40%." And "20,700 elk were taken in 2014, the most since 2005 and hunter success rate overall was 24%.
"We have every reason to believe that 2015 harvest numbers will be just as strong. As our crews conduct winter population surveys and forecasts, we are excited about what we are seeing in the hills streams for this upcoming season."
So much for a predator pit.
This would seem to support the action taken by the governor to ignore the feds, as stated by Bearpaw. And let's not forget, Sitka, ungulate management is only one problem. How are the ranchers doing and what were their losses? How many pets were taken? Hunting dogs? How's the ungulate population in Lolo where a majority of the pack exist? Oh, that's right. They're down more than 60%.
No matter how you look at it, Idaho has more wolves than Washington by magnitudes. What Washington doesn't have is the habitat Idaho does. This proves that wolves aren't the end of hunting. It also proves that where habitat and weather are good, game populations ca still thrive with predators in the picture. As for the Lolo, habitat seems to be the issue there, compounded possibly by predators. But a good fire or major logging could cure that.
I'm still waiting for that outbreak of Hytidad that was predicted to devastate Idaho.
CORRECTION: That depends on where you are talking.
Currently NE WA has more wolves than most areas in Idaho. We spend months in the woods in both states we know how these areas compare, verses someone relying on inept inaccurate data from an agency that calls wolves coyotes and denies wolf reports! I've had WDFW do that with wolves I reported! :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on March 15, 2016, 02:01:41 PM
Post by: Magnum_Willys on March 15, 2016, 02:10:20 PM
[/quote]
Why on earth would you want there to be more wolves here. By the time that happens NE Washington isn't gonna have an elk left. Later the liberals will probably blame it on hunters cause most of the NE is any elk. Also what makes you think they will stick to there word on the wolf plan. Do you honestly think you will be able to buy a wolf tag and still be able to buy an elk over the counter.
[/quote]
YES in 2 to 3 years there should be enough wolves to open up hunting in WA and you should see a population decline within a couple years after that as is happening in many parts of Idaho. The sooner we get to the status quo the better - until then we are guaranteed just to see a growing wolf population.
Post by: bearpaw on March 15, 2016, 02:11:02 PM
I'm still waiting for that outbreak of Hytidad that was predicted to devastate Idaho.
:yike: Sick! I hope it doesn't happen! As requested by the people of Idaho, IDFG finally published warnings about Hytadid Disease, for people to be careful handling wolves. That coupled with reductions in wolf populations will hopefully prevent widespread infection. But make no mistake, there have been a couple residents infected and it's ugly when it happens!
FACT: Over 60% of wolves tested in Idaho and Montana carry the worm that infects humans!
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 15, 2016, 02:18:17 PM
Meanwhile I just got a letter from The Idaho Dept of Fish and Game looking for a license renewal.
In the letter it stated that "61,200 deer were harvested in 2014, the most in Idaho since 1992and the hunter success rate overall was 40%." And "20,700 elk were taken in 2014, the most since 2005 and hunter success rate overall was 24%.
"We have every reason to believe that 2015 harvest numbers will be just as strong. As our crews conduct winter population surveys and forecasts, we are excited about what we are seeing in the hills streams for this upcoming season."
So much for a predator pit.
This would seem to support the action taken by the governor to ignore the feds, as stated by Bearpaw. And let's not forget, Sitka, ungulate management is only one problem. How are the ranchers doing and what were their losses? How many pets were taken? Hunting dogs? How's the ungulate population in Lolo where a majority of the pack exist? Oh, that's right. They're down more than 60%.
No matter how you look at it, Idaho has more wolves than Washington by magnitudes. What Washington doesn't have is the habitat Idaho does. This proves that wolves aren't the end of hunting. It also proves that where habitat and weather are good, game populations ca still thrive with predators in the picture. As for the Lolo, habitat seems to be the issue there, compounded possibly by predators. But a good fire or major logging could cure that.
I'm still waiting for that outbreak of Hytidad that was predicted to devastate Idaho.
By your comments, you seem to illustrate the point that WA can't handle as many wolves as Idaho because of our lack of habitat, yet our outrageous wolf plan is more aggressive. We have a higher concentration of wolves in NE WA than almost anywhere in ID. We need to start managing wolves here but the governor is the love child of animal rights wackos. There's no method to the madness in the WA wolf plan.
Post by: bearpaw on March 15, 2016, 02:21:03 PM
The other problem there (and here), is that hunters don't know how to communicate to save their privileges. When you're 3.5% of the population and you treat the other 96.5% with contempt, you lose. When you're able to enlighten the ignorant with facts and do it in an approachable manner, you can maintain your rights. Knowing the facts about the North American Conservation Model and why the F&W departments use hunters to help keep wildlife healthy and abundant, and being able to present those facts and statistics in a non-threatening way will make it so you don't have to make the decision to poach down the road, possibly leading to the loss of your gun rights.
You think the Steven's County Cattleman's Association is doing a good job of that?? They're a joke up here....more cowboy hats than cows and the State Cattlemen have even distanced themselves from that group.
We certainly have much different opinions. Some of the Stevens County Cattlemen are my friends. These are the cattlemen who are losing livestock, of course cattlemen finishing off steers in a feedlot in areas where there are no wolves would have a much different opinion. :twocents:
Post by: Bango skank on March 15, 2016, 02:22:45 PM
Since Idaho started actively managing wolves, 5 per hunter and I think 3 per trapper, double cougar tags and double bear tags in many areas, wildlife is bouncing back fast in areras where wolves are being removed! All we expect is honest management in WA!
But here we cant even get a 2nd bear tag or august 1st opener like the west side has. Go figure.
Post by: bearpaw on March 15, 2016, 02:24:56 PM
Meanwhile I just got a letter from The Idaho Dept of Fish and Game looking for a license renewal.
In the letter it stated that "61,200 deer were harvested in 2014, the most in Idaho since 1992and the hunter success rate overall was 40%." And "20,700 elk were taken in 2014, the most since 2005 and hunter success rate overall was 24%.
"We have every reason to believe that 2015 harvest numbers will be just as strong. As our crews conduct winter population surveys and forecasts, we are excited about what we are seeing in the hills streams for this upcoming season."
So much for a predator pit.
This would seem to support the action taken by the governor to ignore the feds, as stated by Bearpaw. And let's not forget, Sitka, ungulate management is only one problem. How are the ranchers doing and what were their losses? How many pets were taken? Hunting dogs? How's the ungulate population in Lolo where a majority of the pack exist? Oh, that's right. They're down more than 60%.
No matter how you look at it, Idaho has more wolves than Washington by magnitudes. What Washington doesn't have is the habitat Idaho does. This proves that wolves aren't the end of hunting. It also proves that where habitat and weather are good, game populations ca still thrive with predators in the picture. As for the Lolo, habitat seems to be the issue there, compounded possibly by predators. But a good fire or major logging could cure that.
I'm still waiting for that outbreak of Hytidad that was predicted to devastate Idaho.
By your comments, you seem to illustrate the point that WA can't handle as many wolves as Idaho because of our lack of habitat, yet our outrageous wolf plan is more aggressive. We have a higher concentration of wolves in NE WA than almost anywhere in ID. We need to start managing wolves here but the governor is the love child of animal rights wackos. There's no method to the madness in the WA wolf plan.
:yeah: The highest human population and by far the highest number of wolves with the strictest requirements.
Post by: bearpaw on March 15, 2016, 02:38:58 PM
Since Idaho started actively managing wolves, 5 per hunter and I think 3 per trapper, double cougar tags and double bear tags in many areas, wildlife is bouncing back fast in areras where wolves are being removed! All we expect is honest management in WA!
But here we cant even get a 2nd bear tag or august 1st opener like the west side has. Go figure.
ANOTHER FACT:
I just had a conversation with IDFG last fall. With double bear tags in most units, hounds and bait legal, bear hunting open to harvest every month bear are out except July and August, bear are still above objective in many areas!
ANOTHER FACT:
Cougar hunting is open in most units Aug 30 to March 31. Two tags in many areas, hound hunting open Dec 1 to March 31. Some units have seasons open until June 30.
MORE IDAHO FACTS:
Per IDFG Regs: 5 wolf tags for hunters, 5 wolf tags for trappers. Most seasons open Aug 30 till March 31, many private land areas are open year around. Any hunter with a non-resident deer or elk tag can also use the tag on a bear, cougar, or wolf.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 15, 2016, 03:00:04 PM
The other problem there (and here), is that hunters don't know how to communicate to save their privileges. When you're 3.5% of the population and you treat the other 96.5% with contempt, you lose. When you're able to enlighten the ignorant with facts and do it in an approachable manner, you can maintain your rights. Knowing the facts about the North American Conservation Model and why the F&W departments use hunters to help keep wildlife healthy and abundant, and being able to present those facts and statistics in a non-threatening way will make it so you don't have to make the decision to poach down the road, possibly leading to the loss of your gun rights.
You think the Steven's County Cattleman's Association is doing a good job of that?? They're a joke up here....more cowboy hats than cows and the State Cattlemen have even distanced themselves from that group.
What the Stevens County Cattlemen do doesn't at all reflect on the hunting community. It reflects on the cattlemen, families who are losing their shirts. Why you bring them up for this comment I have no idea but it's a disjointed reference. It has nothing to do with the view of hunters in the public eye. Try again, wacoyote.
Post by: idahohuntr on March 15, 2016, 03:55:48 PM
Yea - lets have each county set their own hunting regulations, sell their own licenses, run their own good-ol-boy clubs...that would be a disaster far more damaging to hunter opportunity in this state than any level of predators that will ever exist here.It would never happen with our current governor, but I would personally support a position similar to what Idaho's Governor Otter took, preventing Idaho wardens from providing info to the USFWS to prosecute individuals for killing wolves. I would also fully support any sheriff or county commissioner candidate who promised to try and open his county up to responsible predator management!
So your position is that, law enforcement should ignore or abet illegal activity?
State of WA seems out of touch with hunters, ranchers, and rural residents. My personal position, I would strongly support any county that creates their own hunting regulations! Local control by local government! Exactly as I strongly supported Governor Otter. :twocents:
Post by: 2labs on March 15, 2016, 04:07:14 PM
Post by: RB on March 15, 2016, 04:09:47 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 15, 2016, 04:36:23 PM
Do ya think they would dispute a Mercer Island pack!The Bainbridge pack, the Widbey pack, the Orcas pack. I bet those would all go over well with the pro-wolf gang.
Post by: bearpaw on March 15, 2016, 07:19:49 PM
Yea - lets have each county set their own hunting regulations, sell their own licenses, run their own good-ol-boy clubs...that would be a disaster far more damaging to hunter opportunity in this state than any level of predators that will ever exist here.It would never happen with our current governor, but I would personally support a position similar to what Idaho's Governor Otter took, preventing Idaho wardens from providing info to the USFWS to prosecute individuals for killing wolves. I would also fully support any sheriff or county commissioner candidate who promised to try and open his county up to responsible predator management!
So your position is that, law enforcement should ignore or abet illegal activity?
State of WA seems out of touch with hunters, ranchers, and rural residents. My personal position, I would strongly support any county that creates their own hunting regulations! Local control by local government! Exactly as I strongly supported Governor Otter. :twocents:
Typical response I bet you love big government also
:chuckle: It's obvious what the status quo WDFW has gotten us!
Post by: Dan-o on March 15, 2016, 07:23:54 PM
Yea - lets have each county set their own hunting regulations, sell their own licenses, run their own good-ol-boy clubs...that would be a disaster far more damaging to hunter opportunity in this state than any level of predators that will ever exist here.It would never happen with our current governor, but I would personally support a position similar to what Idaho's Governor Otter took, preventing Idaho wardens from providing info to the USFWS to prosecute individuals for killing wolves. I would also fully support any sheriff or county commissioner candidate who promised to try and open his county up to responsible predator management!
So your position is that, law enforcement should ignore or abet illegal activity?
State of WA seems out of touch with hunters, ranchers, and rural residents. My personal position, I would strongly support any county that creates their own hunting regulations! Local control by local government! Exactly as I strongly supported Governor Otter. :twocents:
Typical response I bet you love big government also
:chuckle: It's obvious what the status quo WDFW has gotten us!
I agree that status quo WDFW hasn't gotten us the best possible result, but, Bearpaw, would you actually support county by county control?????
Why not township by township?
Why not private land owner by private land owner?
Post by: REHJWA on March 16, 2016, 01:00:12 AM
Private :bdid: ...all game including predator species should belong to the public....with public control....I would bet there are just as many liberals who have large land holdings as conservatives.....look how timber companies are running it already....sure I wish it were better but .....it could get worse too.
It may not be working in our favor but I'll take a Democracy over a Dictatorship any day.
What needs to happen in WDFW is what happen with the DOT and DOC directors , hold persons in critical positions accountable.... You only have to look at the "diversity" of the "Wolf Advisary Group" to see how predators rate in this state..
We need to find better ways to make our positions heard... :twocents:
Maybe a "Hunt Washington " predator advisory group to counter, highlight and recommended issues of concern to present to the WDFW....or better yet Senators and Representatives.
Post by: winshooter88 on March 16, 2016, 04:28:46 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 16, 2016, 05:54:32 AM
Post by: bearpaw on March 16, 2016, 07:16:46 AM
Yea - lets have each county set their own hunting regulations, sell their own licenses, run their own good-ol-boy clubs...that would be a disaster far more damaging to hunter opportunity in this state than any level of predators that will ever exist here.It would never happen with our current governor, but I would personally support a position similar to what Idaho's Governor Otter took, preventing Idaho wardens from providing info to the USFWS to prosecute individuals for killing wolves. I would also fully support any sheriff or county commissioner candidate who promised to try and open his county up to responsible predator management!
So your position is that, law enforcement should ignore or abet illegal activity?
State of WA seems out of touch with hunters, ranchers, and rural residents. My personal position, I would strongly support any county that creates their own hunting regulations! Local control by local government! Exactly as I strongly supported Governor Otter. :twocents:
Typical response I bet you love big government also
:chuckle: It's obvious what the status quo WDFW has gotten us!
I agree that status quo WDFW hasn't gotten us the best possible result, but, Bearpaw, would you actually support county by county control?????
Why not township by township?
Why not private land owner by private land owner?
I know our county commissioners and Sheriff, they are good people. The county commissioners have a county wildlife advisory board of which I am a member, I've sat in our meetings, I've seen the wisdom of our members. I know this advisory board would create much better management and hunting opportunities in Stevens County. The members of our advisory board have a vested interest in the outcome, it seems WDFW's interest is mostly monetary and pleasing the I-5 masses.
It's very much like education, do you think Washington DC makes better education policies for your local school or do you trust your local government and school board to make better decisions?
Post by: idahohuntr on March 16, 2016, 07:31:16 AM
Post by: Henrydog on March 16, 2016, 07:48:01 AM
Post by: jackelope on March 16, 2016, 07:53:31 AM
Yea - lets have each county set their own hunting regulations, sell their own licenses, run their own good-ol-boy clubs...that would be a disaster far more damaging to hunter opportunity in this state than any level of predators that will ever exist here.It would never happen with our current governor, but I would personally support a position similar to what Idaho's Governor Otter took, preventing Idaho wardens from providing info to the USFWS to prosecute individuals for killing wolves. I would also fully support any sheriff or county commissioner candidate who promised to try and open his county up to responsible predator management!
So your position is that, law enforcement should ignore or abet illegal activity?
State of WA seems out of touch with hunters, ranchers, and rural residents. My personal position, I would strongly support any county that creates their own hunting regulations! Local control by local government! Exactly as I strongly supported Governor Otter. :twocents:
Typical response I bet you love big government also
:chuckle: It's obvious what the status quo WDFW has gotten us!
I agree that status quo WDFW hasn't gotten us the best possible result, but, Bearpaw, would you actually support county by county control?????
Why not township by township?
Why not private land owner by private land owner?
I know our county commissioners and Sheriff, they are good people. The county commissioners have a county wildlife advisory board of which I am a member, I've sat in our meetings, I've seen the wisdom of our members. I know this advisory board would create much better management and hunting opportunities in Stevens County. The members of our advisory board have a vested interest in the outcome, it seems WDFW's interest is mostly monetary and pleasing the I-5 masses.
It's very much like education, do you think Washington DC makes better education policies for your local school or do you trust your local government and school board to make better decisions?
So your county would do a good job with it. Whose to say that all the other 38 counties in Washington would do a good job?
Post by: jackelope on March 16, 2016, 07:57:24 AM
I would like to see the remaining breeding pairs in King county. Just think of the great tourism it would create, you could ride the ducks then go see the wolves after spotting them from the space Needle! :chuckle:
This was recorded in King County ~5 months ago. Turn the volume all the way up.
Not a valid vimeo URL
Post by: bearpaw on March 16, 2016, 08:27:18 AM
According to our wolf plan, delisting cannot occur until WDFW has proven there are 15 breeding pairs with pups till the end of the year for three consecutive years, spread across all three wolf recovery zones, or 18 breeding pairs for at least three years. Then if WDFW does delist don't expect any meaningful management to reduce wolf populations for at least three years because WDFW will be afraid to manage. I doubt we see any attempt to delist for at least 6 to 10 years, and I doubt there will be any meaningful management for at lesat 9 to 13 years. WDFW simply is not efficient enough to expect results any sooner.
These minimum counts show at least 30% increase each year!
(there are probably many many more wolves than they have confirmed)
KNOWN WA COUNTS (showing at least 30% population increase annually)
2013......52 wolves, 13 packs, 5 breeding pairs
2014......68 wolves, 16 packs, 5 breeding pairs
2015......90 wolves, 18 packs, 8 breeding pairs
PROJECTED WA WOLF COUNTS (30% annual population increase)
2016......117 wolves, 23 packs, 10 breeding pairs
2017......152 wolves, 30 packs, 14 breeding pairs
2018......198 wolves, 40 packs, 18 breeding pairs
2019......257 wolves, 51 packs, 23 breeding pairs
2020......334 wolves, 66 packs, 30 breeding pairs
2021......434 wolves, 87 packs, 39 breeding pairs
2022......565 wolves, 113 packs, 50 breeding pairs
2023......734 wolves, 147 packs, 65 breeding pairs
2024......954 wolves, 191 packs, 85 breeding pairs
2025......1240 wolves, 248 packs, 110 breeding pairs
Graphs show historic wolf population growth in numerous states and in Yellowstone (YNP is only a small portion of Wyoming)
Post by: bearpaw on March 16, 2016, 08:44:08 AM
Post by: bearpaw on March 16, 2016, 09:22:49 AM
Post by: bearpaw on March 16, 2016, 09:27:20 AM
Yea - lets have each county set their own hunting regulations, sell their own licenses, run their own good-ol-boy clubs...that would be a disaster far more damaging to hunter opportunity in this state than any level of predators that will ever exist here.It would never happen with our current governor, but I would personally support a position similar to what Idaho's Governor Otter took, preventing Idaho wardens from providing info to the USFWS to prosecute individuals for killing wolves. I would also fully support any sheriff or county commissioner candidate who promised to try and open his county up to responsible predator management!
So your position is that, law enforcement should ignore or abet illegal activity?
State of WA seems out of touch with hunters, ranchers, and rural residents. My personal position, I would strongly support any county that creates their own hunting regulations! Local control by local government! Exactly as I strongly supported Governor Otter. :twocents:
Typical response I bet you love big government also
:chuckle: It's obvious what the status quo WDFW has gotten us!
I agree that status quo WDFW hasn't gotten us the best possible result, but, Bearpaw, would you actually support county by county control?????
Why not township by township?
Why not private land owner by private land owner?
I know our county commissioners and Sheriff, they are good people. The county commissioners have a county wildlife advisory board of which I am a member, I've sat in our meetings, I've seen the wisdom of our members. I know this advisory board would create much better management and hunting opportunities in Stevens County. The members of our advisory board have a vested interest in the outcome, it seems WDFW's interest is mostly monetary and pleasing the I-5 masses.
It's very much like education, do you think Washington DC makes better education policies for your local school or do you trust your local government and school board to make better decisions?
So your county would do a good job with it. Whose to say that all the other 38 counties in Washington would do a good job?
I don't know and I'm not concerned about all the other counties. Your county is your business, if you prefer to keep WDFW that is your business, I am advocating for my county. I would absolutely support Stevens County to opt out of state management!
If that happened in my county you would likely see deer more carefully managed, predators managed, trapping and hound hunting like there used to be!
Post by: wolfbait on March 16, 2016, 09:41:29 AM
Yea - lets have each county set their own hunting regulations, sell their own licenses, run their own good-ol-boy clubs...that would be a disaster far more damaging to hunter opportunity in this state than any level of predators that will ever exist here.It would never happen with our current governor, but I would personally support a position similar to what Idaho's Governor Otter took, preventing Idaho wardens from providing info to the USFWS to prosecute individuals for killing wolves. I would also fully support any sheriff or county commissioner candidate who promised to try and open his county up to responsible predator management!
So your position is that, law enforcement should ignore or abet illegal activity?
State of WA seems out of touch with hunters, ranchers, and rural residents. My personal position, I would strongly support any county that creates their own hunting regulations! Local control by local government! Exactly as I strongly supported Governor Otter. :twocents:
Typical response I bet you love big government also
:chuckle: It's obvious what the status quo WDFW has gotten us!
I agree that status quo WDFW hasn't gotten us the best possible result, but, Bearpaw, would you actually support county by county control?????
Why not township by township?
Why not private land owner by private land owner?
I know our county commissioners and Sheriff, they are good people. The county commissioners have a county wildlife advisory board of which I am a member, I've sat in our meetings, I've seen the wisdom of our members. I know this advisory board would create much better management and hunting opportunities in Stevens County. The members of our advisory board have a vested interest in the outcome, it seems WDFW's interest is mostly monetary and pleasing the I-5 masses.
It's very much like education, do you think Washington DC makes better education policies for your local school or do you trust your local government and school board to make better decisions?
So your county would do a good job with it. Whose to say that all the other 38 counties in Washington would do a good job?
I don't know and I'm not concerned about all the other counties. Your county is your business, if you prefer to keep WDFW that is your business, I am advocating for my county. I would absolutely support Stevens County to opt out of state management!
If that happened in my county you would likely see deer more carefully managed, predators managed, trapping and hound hunting like there used to be!
:tup:
Just like Idaho etc. I believe the locals will be forced to control the wolf population by any mean possible. Ranchers and livestock etc. owners have no faith that WDFW would do the right thing in protecting them from their wolf problems, but instead would make it a project where they lost more livestock waiting.
Not controlling wolves only make wolves and those in charge less popular, that's the road we are headed down.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 16, 2016, 09:50:57 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on March 16, 2016, 09:53:10 AM
Counties have no authority to manage wildlife. There will be no opting out. This WILL NEVER HAPPEN.Yea - lets have each county set their own hunting regulations, sell their own licenses, run their own good-ol-boy clubs...that would be a disaster far more damaging to hunter opportunity in this state than any level of predators that will ever exist here.It would never happen with our current governor, but I would personally support a position similar to what Idaho's Governor Otter took, preventing Idaho wardens from providing info to the USFWS to prosecute individuals for killing wolves. I would also fully support any sheriff or county commissioner candidate who promised to try and open his county up to responsible predator management!
So your position is that, law enforcement should ignore or abet illegal activity?
State of WA seems out of touch with hunters, ranchers, and rural residents. My personal position, I would strongly support any county that creates their own hunting regulations! Local control by local government! Exactly as I strongly supported Governor Otter. :twocents:
Typical response I bet you love big government also
:chuckle: It's obvious what the status quo WDFW has gotten us!
I agree that status quo WDFW hasn't gotten us the best possible result, but, Bearpaw, would you actually support county by county control?????
Why not township by township?
Why not private land owner by private land owner?
I know our county commissioners and Sheriff, they are good people. The county commissioners have a county wildlife advisory board of which I am a member, I've sat in our meetings, I've seen the wisdom of our members. I know this advisory board would create much better management and hunting opportunities in Stevens County. The members of our advisory board have a vested interest in the outcome, it seems WDFW's interest is mostly monetary and pleasing the I-5 masses.
It's very much like education, do you think Washington DC makes better education policies for your local school or do you trust your local government and school board to make better decisions?
So your county would do a good job with it. Whose to say that all the other 38 counties in Washington would do a good job?
I don't know and I'm not concerned about all the other counties. Your county is your business, if you prefer to keep WDFW that is your business, I am advocating for my county. I would absolutely support Stevens County to opt out of state management!
If that happened in my county you would likely see deer more carefully managed, predators managed, trapping and hound hunting like there used to be!
But just for the heck of it - think of some possible outcomes. Many western Washington counties ban all hunting - they have very liberal elected officials who are anti hunting. So - all those folks now have to head east to the remaining open counties - overwhelming your little county. Since your local slick talking politicians want to get re-elected they do the next sensible thing and severely restrict or stop all non-county residents from hunting in their county because it upsets their voters. So your county by county management just screwed a huge number of hunters in this state.
Just one small example of how short sighted this idea is. In general, I do not support the further politicization of wildlife management, even if I support/agree with the views of those in political power at the time.
Post by: Bango skank on March 16, 2016, 09:54:38 AM
I do think counties should have some kind of 'override' of WDFW in special cases, especially for predators like wolves and cougars. Those are the ones that not only affect wildlife, but also livestock, pets and public safety. Coyotes have aggressive management available and it keeps them in check for localized problems. But would be nice to have a county be able to authorize a hound season for cats or a wolf cull or even cull of overpopulated deer in residential areas, and not have to fight WDFW (CNW/HSUS/PETA).
Sure yotes have year round season and night hunting but that can only accomplish so much. In order to really effectively control their population youd need to do some real heavy trapping, and as far as i know there is no effective yote trapping method that is legal here
Post by: emac on March 16, 2016, 09:55:29 AM
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Post by: wolfbait on March 16, 2016, 09:59:02 AM
Next year, the year after, the year after that, and so forth, we should expect the wolf population to grow by roughly 30% each year.
According to our wolf plan, delisting cannot occur until WDFW has proven there are 15 breeding pairs with pups till the end of the year for three consecutive years, spread across all three wolf recovery zones, or 18 breeding pairs for at least three years. Then if WDFW does delist don't expect any meaningful management to reduce wolf populations for at least three years because WDFW will be afraid to manage. I doubt we see any attempt to delist for at least 6 to 10 years, and I doubt there will be any meaningful management for at lesat 9 to 13 years. WDFW simply is not efficient enough to expect results any sooner.
These minimum counts show at least 30% increase each year!
(there are probably many many more wolves than they have confirmed)
KNOWN WA COUNTS (showing at least 30% population increase annually)
2013......52 wolves, 13 packs, 5 breeding pairs
2014......68 wolves, 16 packs, 5 breeding pairs
2015......90 wolves, 18 packs, 8 breeding pairs
PROJECTED WA WOLF COUNTS (30% annual population increase)
2016......117 wolves, 23 packs, 10 breeding pairs
2017......152 wolves, 30 packs, 14 breeding pairs
2018......198 wolves, 40 packs, 18 breeding pairs
2019......257 wolves, 51 packs, 23 breeding pairs
2020......334 wolves, 66 packs, 30 breeding pairs
2021......434 wolves, 87 packs, 39 breeding pairs
2022......565 wolves, 113 packs, 50 breeding pairs
2023......734 wolves, 147 packs, 65 breeding pairs
2024......954 wolves, 191 packs, 85 breeding pairs
2025......1240 wolves, 248 packs, 110 breeding pairs
Graphs show historic wolf population growth in numerous states and in Yellowstone (YNP is only a small portion of Wyoming)
“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*. This approach serves to provide conservative estimates and further insure that management remains conservative).”
“70% Kill Needed to Reduce Wolf Population”
Mech continued, “As indicated above, 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.
Read more @ http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No.28%20May%202008%20FWS%20Biologist%20Says%20Wolf%20Numbers%20Underestimated%20Mech%20Says%203,000%20Wolves%20Exist%20in%20ID,%20MT%20&%20WY.pdf
Post by: bearpaw on March 16, 2016, 10:14:27 AM
Yea - lets have each county set their own hunting regulations, sell their own licenses, run their own good-ol-boy clubs...that would be a disaster far more damaging to hunter opportunity in this state than any level of predators that will ever exist here.It would never happen with our current governor, but I would personally support a position similar to what Idaho's Governor Otter took, preventing Idaho wardens from providing info to the USFWS to prosecute individuals for killing wolves. I would also fully support any sheriff or county commissioner candidate who promised to try and open his county up to responsible predator management!
So your position is that, law enforcement should ignore or abet illegal activity?
State of WA seems out of touch with hunters, ranchers, and rural residents. My personal position, I would strongly support any county that creates their own hunting regulations! Local control by local government! Exactly as I strongly supported Governor Otter. :twocents:
Typical response I bet you love big government also
:chuckle: It's obvious what the status quo WDFW has gotten us!
I agree that status quo WDFW hasn't gotten us the best possible result, but, Bearpaw, would you actually support county by county control?????
Why not township by township?
Why not private land owner by private land owner?
I know our county commissioners and Sheriff, they are good people. The county commissioners have a county wildlife advisory board of which I am a member, I've sat in our meetings, I've seen the wisdom of our members. I know this advisory board would create much better management and hunting opportunities in Stevens County. The members of our advisory board have a vested interest in the outcome, it seems WDFW's interest is mostly monetary and pleasing the I-5 masses.
It's very much like education, do you think Washington DC makes better education policies for your local school or do you trust your local government and school board to make better decisions?
So your county would do a good job with it. Whose to say that all the other 38 counties in Washington would do a good job?
I don't know and I'm not concerned about all the other counties. Your county is your business, if you prefer to keep WDFW that is your business, I am advocating for my county. I would absolutely support Stevens County to opt out of state management!
If that happened in my county you would likely see deer more carefully managed, predators managed, trapping and hound hunting like there used to be!
I know that sounds insensitive to hunters in the pugetropolis counties and it's not meant to sound that way. I don't know what the answer is for hunters in highly populated western counties. Even if you could somehow escape WDFW management you will get the same or worse management from county government. But just because there is likely no possible good outcome for hunters in highly populated western WA counties does not mean it should be that way in every county of the state.
Post by: bearpaw on March 16, 2016, 10:16:19 AM
Next year, the year after, the year after that, and so forth, we should expect the wolf population to grow by roughly 30% each year.
According to our wolf plan, delisting cannot occur until WDFW has proven there are 15 breeding pairs with pups till the end of the year for three consecutive years, spread across all three wolf recovery zones, or 18 breeding pairs for at least three years. Then if WDFW does delist don't expect any meaningful management to reduce wolf populations for at least three years because WDFW will be afraid to manage. I doubt we see any attempt to delist for at least 6 to 10 years, and I doubt there will be any meaningful management for at lesat 9 to 13 years. WDFW simply is not efficient enough to expect results any sooner.
These minimum counts show at least 30% increase each year!
(there are probably many many more wolves than they have confirmed)
KNOWN WA COUNTS (showing at least 30% population increase annually)
2013......52 wolves, 13 packs, 5 breeding pairs
2014......68 wolves, 16 packs, 5 breeding pairs
2015......90 wolves, 18 packs, 8 breeding pairs
PROJECTED WA WOLF COUNTS (30% annual population increase)
2016......117 wolves, 23 packs, 10 breeding pairs
2017......152 wolves, 30 packs, 14 breeding pairs
2018......198 wolves, 40 packs, 18 breeding pairs
2019......257 wolves, 51 packs, 23 breeding pairs
2020......334 wolves, 66 packs, 30 breeding pairs
2021......434 wolves, 87 packs, 39 breeding pairs
2022......565 wolves, 113 packs, 50 breeding pairs
2023......734 wolves, 147 packs, 65 breeding pairs
2024......954 wolves, 191 packs, 85 breeding pairs
2025......1240 wolves, 248 packs, 110 breeding pairs
Graphs show historic wolf population growth in numerous states and in Yellowstone (YNP is only a small portion of Wyoming)
“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*. This approach serves to provide conservative estimates and further insure that management remains conservative).”
“70% Kill Needed to Reduce Wolf Population”
Mech continued, “As indicated above, 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.
Read more @ http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No.28%20May%202008%20FWS%20Biologist%20Says%20Wolf%20Numbers%20Underestimated%20Mech%20Says%203,000%20Wolves%20Exist%20in%20ID,%20MT%20&%20WY.pdf
:yeah: definitely agree
Post by: Dan-o on March 16, 2016, 11:54:24 AM
What if I lived in a county that said no wolves...... and the 6 counties surrounding me voted for minimum of 15 breeding pairs per county?????
My no-wolf county would be overrun with wolves!!!!
Post by: Dan-o on March 16, 2016, 11:56:20 AM
And as quickly as I can eradicate them, they import more.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 16, 2016, 11:57:22 AM
I'd be worried about county control.
What if I lived in a county that said no wolves...... and the 6 counties surrounding me voted for minimum of 15 breeding pairs per county?????
My no-wolf county would be overrun with wolves!!!!
That would seem unlikely in NE WA.
Post by: bearpaw on March 16, 2016, 12:16:52 PM
In my nightmare scenario, they all import HUGE mega-wolves from the far north.
And as quickly as I can eradicate them, they import more.
That's sort of how we feel here in the NE! :dunno:
Post by: bigtex on March 16, 2016, 12:20:46 PM
It would never happen with our current governor, but I would personally support a position similar to what Idaho's Governor Otter took, preventing Idaho wardens from providing info to the USFWS to prosecute individuals for killing wolves. I would also fully support any sheriff or county commissioner candidate who promised to try and open his county up to responsible predator management!Well for your USFWS statement that wouldn't apply to the eastern third of the state since USFWS has no authority over wolves in that part of the state since wolves have been delisted. And it's not as if USFWS doesn't handle cases on their own, there are tons of USFWS cases being investigated that states don't know about. USFWS busted a bear gall bladder smuggler a couple years ago, WDFW had no clue about the investigation. But vice versa, states work cases that could go federal but don't notify the feds.
And as far as the political positions that's all they are. People in politics say things to get them elected. There hasn't been a bill in WA in the past 10 years that would give counties some type of predator control, why? Because numerous laws say that's a state responsibility, and it's respected. If there were rumblings of a change there would at least be a test bill. Yet we have bills that would allow your dog to be buried in your casket.
I love it when a Sheriff questions a natural resource related issue yet they do nothing to protect natural resources. There are many county/city LE agencies that actually prohibit their officers from enforcing fish and wildlife laws. Why? Because in the opinion of that agency they're are bigger things to worry about. But hey if I was running for Sheriff in NE WA I would say I hate wolves too :twocents:
Post by: jackelope on March 16, 2016, 02:24:17 PM
Yea - lets have each county set their own hunting regulations, sell their own licenses, run their own good-ol-boy clubs...that would be a disaster far more damaging to hunter opportunity in this state than any level of predators that will ever exist here.It would never happen with our current governor, but I would personally support a position similar to what Idaho's Governor Otter took, preventing Idaho wardens from providing info to the USFWS to prosecute individuals for killing wolves. I would also fully support any sheriff or county commissioner candidate who promised to try and open his county up to responsible predator management!
So your position is that, law enforcement should ignore or abet illegal activity?
State of WA seems out of touch with hunters, ranchers, and rural residents. My personal position, I would strongly support any county that creates their own hunting regulations! Local control by local government! Exactly as I strongly supported Governor Otter. :twocents:
Typical response I bet you love big government also
:chuckle: It's obvious what the status quo WDFW has gotten us!
I agree that status quo WDFW hasn't gotten us the best possible result, but, Bearpaw, would you actually support county by county control?????
Why not township by township?
Why not private land owner by private land owner?
I know our county commissioners and Sheriff, they are good people. The county commissioners have a county wildlife advisory board of which I am a member, I've sat in our meetings, I've seen the wisdom of our members. I know this advisory board would create much better management and hunting opportunities in Stevens County. The members of our advisory board have a vested interest in the outcome, it seems WDFW's interest is mostly monetary and pleasing the I-5 masses.
It's very much like education, do you think Washington DC makes better education policies for your local school or do you trust your local government and school board to make better decisions?
So your county would do a good job with it. Whose to say that all the other 38 counties in Washington would do a good job?
I don't know and I'm not concerned about all the other counties. Your county is your business, if you prefer to keep WDFW that is your business, I am advocating for my county. I would absolutely support Stevens County to opt out of state management!
If that happened in my county you would likely see deer more carefully managed, predators managed, trapping and hound hunting like there used to be!
I know that sounds insensitive to hunters in the pugetropolis counties and it's not meant to sound that way. I don't know what the answer is for hunters in highly populated western counties. Even if you could somehow escape WDFW management you will get the same or worse management from county government. But just because there is likely no possible good outcome for hunters in highly populated western WA counties does not mean it should be that way in every county of the state.
Seems odd to me that all you care about is the place your business is in.
What ever happened to Washington for Wildlife?
Post by: bearpaw on March 16, 2016, 02:44:14 PM
Since Idaho started actively managing wolves, 5 per hunter and I think 3 per trapper, double cougar tags and double bear tags in many areas, wildlife is bouncing back fast in areras where wolves are being removed! All we expect is honest management in WA!
But here we cant even get a 2nd bear tag or august 1st opener like the west side has. Go figure.
ANOTHER FACT:
I just had a conversation with IDFG last fall. With double bear tags in most units, hounds and bait legal, bear hunting open to harvest every month bear are out except July and August, bear are still above objective in many areas!
ANOTHER FACT:
Cougar hunting is open in most units Aug 30 to March 31. Two tags in many areas, hound hunting open Dec 1 to March 31. Some units have seasons open until June 30.
MORE IDAHO FACTS:
Per IDFG Regs: 5 wolf tags for hunters, 5 wolf tags for trappers. Most seasons open Aug 30 till March 31, many private land areas are open year around. Any hunter with a non-resident deer or elk tag can also use the tag on a bear, cougar, or wolf.
But the good news is, in spite of all that, deer and elk herds continue to grow.
Exactly, proof that we need more hunting of wolves, cougar, bear! :tup:
Post by: Special T on March 16, 2016, 03:01:50 PM
Yea - lets have each county set their own hunting regulations, sell their own licenses, run their own good-ol-boy clubs...that would be a disaster far more damaging to hunter opportunity in this state than any level of predators that will ever exist here.It would never happen with our current governor, but I would personally support a position similar to what Idaho's Governor Otter took, preventing Idaho wardens from providing info to the USFWS to prosecute individuals for killing wolves. I would also fully support any sheriff or county commissioner candidate who promised to try and open his county up to responsible predator management!
So your position is that, law enforcement should ignore or abet illegal activity?
State of WA seems out of touch with hunters, ranchers, and rural residents. My personal position, I would strongly support any county that creates their own hunting regulations! Local control by local government! Exactly as I strongly supported Governor Otter. :twocents:
Typical response I bet you love big government also
:chuckle: It's obvious what the status quo WDFW has gotten us!
I agree that status quo WDFW hasn't gotten us the best possible result, but, Bearpaw, would you actually support county by county control?????
Why not township by township?
Why not private land owner by private land owner?
I know our county commissioners and Sheriff, they are good people. The county commissioners have a county wildlife advisory board of which I am a member, I've sat in our meetings, I've seen the wisdom of our members. I know this advisory board would create much better management and hunting opportunities in Stevens County. The members of our advisory board have a vested interest in the outcome, it seems WDFW's interest is mostly monetary and pleasing the I-5 masses.
It's very much like education, do you think Washington DC makes better education policies for your local school or do you trust your local government and school board to make better decisions?
So your county would do a good job with it. Whose to say that all the other 38 counties in Washington would do a good job?
I don't know and I'm not concerned about all the other counties. Your county is your business, if you prefer to keep WDFW that is your business, I am advocating for my county. I would absolutely support Stevens County to opt out of state management!
If that happened in my county you would likely see deer more carefully managed, predators managed, trapping and hound hunting like there used to be!
I know that sounds insensitive to hunters in the pugetropolis counties and it's not meant to sound that way. I don't know what the answer is for hunters in highly populated western counties. Even if you could somehow escape WDFW management you will get the same or worse management from county government. But just because there is likely no possible good outcome for hunters in highly populated western WA counties does not mean it should be that way in every county of the state.
Seems odd to me that all you care about is the place your business is in.
What ever happened to Washington for Wildlife?
It would seem to me that the people in the NE are doing a better job of banding together because they have more in common with each other than we do on the west side. IMO there will be no real changes that benifit hunters until there is a republican,a dn hopefully a hunter in the Governors mansion. Everything else is wasted effort. :twocents:
Post by: jackelope on March 16, 2016, 03:07:18 PM
Yea - lets have each county set their own hunting regulations, sell their own licenses, run their own good-ol-boy clubs...that would be a disaster far more damaging to hunter opportunity in this state than any level of predators that will ever exist here.It would never happen with our current governor, but I would personally support a position similar to what Idaho's Governor Otter took, preventing Idaho wardens from providing info to the USFWS to prosecute individuals for killing wolves. I would also fully support any sheriff or county commissioner candidate who promised to try and open his county up to responsible predator management!
So your position is that, law enforcement should ignore or abet illegal activity?
State of WA seems out of touch with hunters, ranchers, and rural residents. My personal position, I would strongly support any county that creates their own hunting regulations! Local control by local government! Exactly as I strongly supported Governor Otter. :twocents:
Typical response I bet you love big government also
:chuckle: It's obvious what the status quo WDFW has gotten us!
I agree that status quo WDFW hasn't gotten us the best possible result, but, Bearpaw, would you actually support county by county control?????
Why not township by township?
Why not private land owner by private land owner?
I know our county commissioners and Sheriff, they are good people. The county commissioners have a county wildlife advisory board of which I am a member, I've sat in our meetings, I've seen the wisdom of our members. I know this advisory board would create much better management and hunting opportunities in Stevens County. The members of our advisory board have a vested interest in the outcome, it seems WDFW's interest is mostly monetary and pleasing the I-5 masses.
It's very much like education, do you think Washington DC makes better education policies for your local school or do you trust your local government and school board to make better decisions?
So your county would do a good job with it. Whose to say that all the other 38 counties in Washington would do a good job?
I don't know and I'm not concerned about all the other counties. Your county is your business, if you prefer to keep WDFW that is your business, I am advocating for my county. I would absolutely support Stevens County to opt out of state management!
If that happened in my county you would likely see deer more carefully managed, predators managed, trapping and hound hunting like there used to be!
I know that sounds insensitive to hunters in the pugetropolis counties and it's not meant to sound that way. I don't know what the answer is for hunters in highly populated western counties. Even if you could somehow escape WDFW management you will get the same or worse management from county government. But just because there is likely no possible good outcome for hunters in highly populated western WA counties does not mean it should be that way in every county of the state.
Seems odd to me that all you care about is the place your business is in.
What ever happened to Washington for Wildlife?
It would seem to me that the people in the NE are doing a better job of banding together because they have more in common with each other than we do on the west side. IMO there will be no real changes that benifit hunters until there is a republican,a dn hopefully a hunter in the Governors mansion. Everything else is wasted effort. :twocents:
I wouldn't disagree with that, but that doesn't make it right either. For a guy that hunts all over the state as lots of hunters in this state do, how would this be of benefit to the average Washington state hunter?
Sure, if you live and hunt in the same area and never leave that part of the state, I can see how that would benefit you...but... that's not the case for lots of hunters.
Post by: bearpaw on March 16, 2016, 04:46:51 PM
Yea - lets have each county set their own hunting regulations, sell their own licenses, run their own good-ol-boy clubs...that would be a disaster far more damaging to hunter opportunity in this state than any level of predators that will ever exist here.It would never happen with our current governor, but I would personally support a position similar to what Idaho's Governor Otter took, preventing Idaho wardens from providing info to the USFWS to prosecute individuals for killing wolves. I would also fully support any sheriff or county commissioner candidate who promised to try and open his county up to responsible predator management!
So your position is that, law enforcement should ignore or abet illegal activity?
State of WA seems out of touch with hunters, ranchers, and rural residents. My personal position, I would strongly support any county that creates their own hunting regulations! Local control by local government! Exactly as I strongly supported Governor Otter. :twocents:
Typical response I bet you love big government also
:chuckle: It's obvious what the status quo WDFW has gotten us!
I agree that status quo WDFW hasn't gotten us the best possible result, but, Bearpaw, would you actually support county by county control?????
Why not township by township?
Why not private land owner by private land owner?
I know our county commissioners and Sheriff, they are good people. The county commissioners have a county wildlife advisory board of which I am a member, I've sat in our meetings, I've seen the wisdom of our members. I know this advisory board would create much better management and hunting opportunities in Stevens County. The members of our advisory board have a vested interest in the outcome, it seems WDFW's interest is mostly monetary and pleasing the I-5 masses.
It's very much like education, do you think Washington DC makes better education policies for your local school or do you trust your local government and school board to make better decisions?
So your county would do a good job with it. Whose to say that all the other 38 counties in Washington would do a good job?
I don't know and I'm not concerned about all the other counties. Your county is your business, if you prefer to keep WDFW that is your business, I am advocating for my county. I would absolutely support Stevens County to opt out of state management!
If that happened in my county you would likely see deer more carefully managed, predators managed, trapping and hound hunting like there used to be!
I know that sounds insensitive to hunters in the pugetropolis counties and it's not meant to sound that way. I don't know what the answer is for hunters in highly populated western counties. Even if you could somehow escape WDFW management you will get the same or worse management from county government. But just because there is likely no possible good outcome for hunters in highly populated western WA counties does not mean it should be that way in every county of the state.
Seems odd to me that all you care about is the place your business is in.
What ever happened to Washington for Wildlife?
Quote
Seems odd to me that all you care about is the place your business is in.Actually my business operates in four states and I offer hunts in numerous Washington counties. My residence is in Stevens County, that is where I was born, I spend considerable time here, that is where I vote, I think I can make the most difference here, that is where I'm the most involved. But, I do many things with my time.
I spend a fair amount of time on this site.
Last month I met with IDFG and local business leaders in Pocatello, Idaho to discuss ways to increase funding for IDFG which has been making budget cuts that impact hunters and fishers across the state. Hatchery production has been reduced 15%, I suggested ideas to increase funding and hatchery production. Please note, my business is primarily a hunting business.
In 2014 I served on Governor Inslee's Recreation and Parks Task force. We held meetings across the state and then met with the governor and provided input regarding ways to improve recreation opportunities across the state and fund state parks in Washington. I made sure hunting was always mentioned in our meetings and NE Washington certainly was not the focus of the task force.
Today the Washington Conservation Commission toured the Colville Fish Hatchery, while the students led the tours, I met with city and county officials regarding ecology issues on the hatchery grounds and the proposal to move the Stevens County Conservation District office to the hatchery grounds.
Quote
What ever happened to Washington for Wildlife?I'm not sure what this has to do with this discussion but I will answer your question.
Not as much has happened with WFW as I would have liked but we are doing good things. We have a small group of active members facilitating the continuing existence of the Colville Fish Hatchery and Learning Center. After facilitating the purchase of the hatchery from WDFW by Stevens County we then leased the property and hatchery from the county with a 20 year lease term, in that time we will pay WDFW for the hatchery with fish raised by the students while learning and gaining school credits. One of the accomplishments I'm happiest with is that we have students furthering their education for a career in fisheries science.
Please use the following links to see more:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,98741.75.html
https://www.facebook.com/ColvilleFishHatchery/
Post by: bigtex on March 16, 2016, 04:49:19 PM
:yeah:Counties have no authority to manage wildlife. There will be no opting out. This WILL NEVER HAPPEN.I don't know and I'm not concerned about all the other counties. Your county is your business, if you prefer to keep WDFW that is your business, I am advocating for my county. I would absolutely support Stevens County to opt out of state management!So your county would do a good job with it. Whose to say that all the other 38 counties in Washington would do a good job?I know our county commissioners and Sheriff, they are good people. The county commissioners have a county wildlife advisory board of which I am a member, I've sat in our meetings, I've seen the wisdom of our members. I know this advisory board would create much better management and hunting opportunities in Stevens County. The members of our advisory board have a vested interest in the outcome, it seems WDFW's interest is mostly monetary and pleasing the I-5 masses.I agree that status quo WDFW hasn't gotten us the best possible result, but, Bearpaw, would you actually support county by county control?????:chuckle: It's obvious what the status quo WDFW has gotten us!Typical response I bet you love big government alsoYea - lets have each county set their own hunting regulations, sell their own licenses, run their own good-ol-boy clubs...that would be a disaster far more damaging to hunter opportunity in this state than any level of predators that will ever exist here.State of WA seems out of touch with hunters, ranchers, and rural residents. My personal position, I would strongly support any county that creates their own hunting regulations! Local control by local government! Exactly as I strongly supported Governor Otter. :twocents:It would never happen with our current governor, but I would personally support a position similar to what Idaho's Governor Otter took, preventing Idaho wardens from providing info to the USFWS to prosecute individuals for killing wolves. I would also fully support any sheriff or county commissioner candidate who promised to try and open his county up to responsible predator management!So your position is that, law enforcement should ignore or abet illegal activity?
Why not township by township?
Why not private land owner by private land owner?
It's very much like education, do you think Washington DC makes better education policies for your local school or do you trust your local government and school board to make better decisions?
If that happened in my county you would likely see deer more carefully managed, predators managed, trapping and hound hunting like there used to be!
But just for the heck of it - think of some possible outcomes. Many western Washington counties ban all hunting - they have very liberal elected officials who are anti hunting. So - all those folks now have to head east to the remaining open counties - overwhelming your little county. Since your local slick talking politicians want to get re-elected they do the next sensible thing and severely restrict or stop all non-county residents from hunting in their county because it upsets their voters. So your county by county management just screwed a huge number of hunters in this state.
Just one small example of how short sighted this idea is. In general, I do not support the further politicization of wildlife management, even if I support/agree with the views of those in political power at the time.
So I would assume we would then need county hunting/fishing licenses?? Oh damn I just crossed the county line, well I guess I need to buy a different license...
I guess each county would have to have their own county fish and wildlife officers, biologists, etc.. Where is the money for that going to come from? Let us not forget that just 28% of WDFWs funding comes from license/tag sales.
There is a reason why fish and wildlife is managed by the state in EVERY state.
I have no problem with counties wanting to become involved, similar to what I posted with how each county in California has a county fish and game board which are advisory boards to the CA Fish & Game Commission. But the overall management needs to be at the state. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on March 16, 2016, 05:00:18 PM
Yea - lets have each county set their own hunting regulations, sell their own licenses, run their own good-ol-boy clubs...that would be a disaster far more damaging to hunter opportunity in this state than any level of predators that will ever exist here.It would never happen with our current governor, but I would personally support a position similar to what Idaho's Governor Otter took, preventing Idaho wardens from providing info to the USFWS to prosecute individuals for killing wolves. I would also fully support any sheriff or county commissioner candidate who promised to try and open his county up to responsible predator management!
So your position is that, law enforcement should ignore or abet illegal activity?
State of WA seems out of touch with hunters, ranchers, and rural residents. My personal position, I would strongly support any county that creates their own hunting regulations! Local control by local government! Exactly as I strongly supported Governor Otter. :twocents:
Typical response I bet you love big government also
:chuckle: It's obvious what the status quo WDFW has gotten us!
I agree that status quo WDFW hasn't gotten us the best possible result, but, Bearpaw, would you actually support county by county control?????
Why not township by township?
Why not private land owner by private land owner?
I know our county commissioners and Sheriff, they are good people. The county commissioners have a county wildlife advisory board of which I am a member, I've sat in our meetings, I've seen the wisdom of our members. I know this advisory board would create much better management and hunting opportunities in Stevens County. The members of our advisory board have a vested interest in the outcome, it seems WDFW's interest is mostly monetary and pleasing the I-5 masses.
It's very much like education, do you think Washington DC makes better education policies for your local school or do you trust your local government and school board to make better decisions?
So your county would do a good job with it. Whose to say that all the other 38 counties in Washington would do a good job?
I don't know and I'm not concerned about all the other counties. Your county is your business, if you prefer to keep WDFW that is your business, I am advocating for my county. I would absolutely support Stevens County to opt out of state management!
If that happened in my county you would likely see deer more carefully managed, predators managed, trapping and hound hunting like there used to be!
I know that sounds insensitive to hunters in the pugetropolis counties and it's not meant to sound that way. I don't know what the answer is for hunters in highly populated western counties. Even if you could somehow escape WDFW management you will get the same or worse management from county government. But just because there is likely no possible good outcome for hunters in highly populated western WA counties does not mean it should be that way in every county of the state.
Seems odd to me that all you care about is the place your business is in.
What ever happened to Washington for Wildlife?
It would seem to me that the people in the NE are doing a better job of banding together because they have more in common with each other than we do on the west side. IMO there will be no real changes that benifit hunters until there is a republican,a dn hopefully a hunter in the Governors mansion. Everything else is wasted effort. :twocents:
I wouldn't disagree with that, but that doesn't make it right either. For a guy that hunts all over the state as lots of hunters in this state do, how would this be of benefit to the average Washington state hunter?
Sure, if you live and hunt in the same area and never leave that part of the state, I can see how that would benefit you...but... that's not the case for lots of hunters.
If there were more opportunities for land use such as possible riding atv's on established roads, logging and predator management that results in better quality deer and elk hunting, opportunities to hunt wolves, opportunities to hound hunt for bear and cougar, how is that a negative?
Post by: bearpaw on March 16, 2016, 05:23:34 PM
Quote
So I would assume we would then need county hunting/fishing licenses?? Oh damn I just crossed the county line, well I guess I need to buy a different license...
I guess each county would have to have their own county fish and wildlife officers, biologists, etc.. Where is the money for that going to come from? Let us not forget that just 28% of WDFWs funding comes from license/tag sales.
There is a reason why fish and wildlife is managed by the state in EVERY state.
I have no problem with counties wanting to become involved, similar to what I posted with how each county in California has a county fish and game board which are advisory boards to the CA Fish & Game Commission. But the overall management needs to be at the state. :twocents:
We've offered to share our wolves with the west side but the west side legislators want to keep wolves in eastern WA and out of their own backyards. Of course county management would probably never happen, but due to the lack of consideration of Eastern WA input by the state there are certainly people considering other management options. :twocents:
I certainly would not be opposed meaningful input into reasonable management by the state in eastern WA, but I doubt that happens either! :twocents:
Post by: bigtex on March 16, 2016, 05:31:43 PM
If there were more opportunities for land use such as possible riding atv's on established roads, logging and predator management that results in better quality deer and elk hunting, opportunities to hunt wolves, opportunities to hound hunt for bear and cougar, how is that a negative?Your statement covers so many different topics then just fish and wildlife, at least as it is currently managed.
-ATVs not a WDFW area of responsibility. ATV laws are found in the traffic code, the only time WDFW is involved is the regulation of ATVs on WDFW lands. And actually WA law has changed over the past couple years allowing more paved county roads to be open to ATV use. But this is up to the county.
-Logging, again not WDFW. Logging is managed by the landowner whether it be DNR, USFS, or a private landowner. Unless your saying counties should take control of DNR lands??
-Hound hunting, first off the state law prohibiting hound hunting would have to be changed. WDFW has had a hard enough time getting legislative support for the pubic safety cougar removal program
-Wolf hunting. Let us not forget that the USFWS can come in at anytime and list wolves under the ESA again. Lets say your idea of county wildlife management happened. If after a couple years the wolf population in say Ferry and Stevens counties are decimated why would USFWS not come in and list the wolf under the ESA?? ESA listings can be statewide, or even as small as a county.
Post by: bearpaw on March 16, 2016, 06:00:58 PM
Next year, the year after, the year after that, and so forth, we should expect the wolf population to grow by roughly 30% each year.
According to our wolf plan, delisting cannot occur until WDFW has proven there are 15 breeding pairs with pups till the end of the year for three consecutive years, spread across all three wolf recovery zones, or 18 breeding pairs for at least three years. Then if WDFW does delist don't expect any meaningful management to reduce wolf populations for at least three years because WDFW will be afraid to manage. I doubt we see any attempt to delist for at least 6 to 10 years, and I doubt there will be any meaningful management for at lesat 9 to 13 years. WDFW simply is not efficient enough to expect results any sooner.
These minimum counts show at least 30% increase each year!
(there are probably many many more wolves than they have confirmed)
KNOWN WA COUNTS (showing at least 30% population increase annually)
2013......52 wolves, 13 packs, 5 breeding pairs
2014......68 wolves, 16 packs, 5 breeding pairs
2015......90 wolves, 18 packs, 8 breeding pairs
PROJECTED WA WOLF COUNTS (30% annual population increase)
2016......117 wolves, 23 packs, 10 breeding pairs
2017......152 wolves, 30 packs, 14 breeding pairs
2018......198 wolves, 40 packs, 18 breeding pairs
2019......257 wolves, 51 packs, 23 breeding pairs
2020......334 wolves, 66 packs, 30 breeding pairs
2021......434 wolves, 87 packs, 39 breeding pairs
2022......565 wolves, 113 packs, 50 breeding pairs
2023......734 wolves, 147 packs, 65 breeding pairs
2024......954 wolves, 191 packs, 85 breeding pairs
2025......1240 wolves, 248 packs, 110 breeding pairs
Graphs show historic wolf population growth in numerous states and in Yellowstone (YNP is only a small portion of Wyoming)
The average annual harvest of elk in WA is about 9,000, average anual harvest of deer is about 40,000.
A wolf needs 11 pounds of meet a day to sustain body weight. When we have 300 wolves in just a few years they will require 1,204,500 pounds of meat per year. If there is 400 pounds of edible flesh on an average elk or 125 pounds of edible flesh on an averge deer, that means it would take 3011 elk or 9,636 deer per year to feed 300 wolves.
If Washington has 900 wolves it will require 9,033 elk or 28,908 deer to feed them.
There are going to be impacts on big game herds and hunting opportunity unless wolves are managed. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on March 16, 2016, 06:14:06 PM
If there were more opportunities for land use such as possible riding atv's on established roads, logging and predator management that results in better quality deer and elk hunting, opportunities to hunt wolves, opportunities to hound hunt for bear and cougar, how is that a negative?Your statement covers so many different topics then just fish and wildlife, at least as it is currently managed.
-ATVs not a WDFW area of responsibility. ATV laws are found in the traffic code, the only time WDFW is involved is the regulation of ATVs on WDFW lands. And actually WA law has changed over the past couple years allowing more paved county roads to be open to ATV use. But this is up to the county.
-Logging, again not WDFW. Logging is managed by the landowner whether it be DNR, USFS, or a private landowner. Unless your saying counties should take control of DNR lands??
-Hound hunting, first off the state law prohibiting hound hunting would have to be changed. WDFW has had a hard enough time getting legislative support for the pubic safety cougar removal program
-Wolf hunting. Let us not forget that the USFWS can come in at anytime and list wolves under the ESA again. Lets say your idea of county wildlife management happened. If after a couple years the wolf population in say Ferry and Stevens counties are decimated why would USFWS not come in and list the wolf under the ESA?? ESA listings can be statewide, or even as small as a county.
:o Why would a county want to wipe out wolves and have them relisted. You are not even offering a good discussion with that comment!
Of course I understand some of your other points, perhaps the best answer is for the eastside to separate from the westside?
I certainly realize that likely will never happen so I'm back to hoping there can be more local control somehow.
To set your minds to rest, I've made an offer on another Idaho property, I may be moving to a state that better represents my values. You guys won't have to worry that I might advocate for local management in NE WA. :tup:
Post by: Magnum_Willys on March 16, 2016, 06:14:15 PM
52 weeks times 900 wolves = 46,800 ooops never mind.......... :yike:
Post by: bearpaw on March 16, 2016, 06:26:04 PM
http://www.yellowstonepark.com/gray-wolves-impact-elk/
Kill rates by wolves in winter are 22 ungulates per wolf per year – higher than the 12 ungulates per wolf rate predicted in the ESA.
22 elk x 900 wolves = 19,800 elk per year eaten
That is based on actual elk consumption in YNP.
Post by: bearpaw on March 16, 2016, 06:32:29 PM
Studies vary!
http://www.yellowstonepark.com/gray-wolves-impact-elk/
Kill rates by wolves in winter are 22 ungulates per wolf per year – higher than the 12 ungulates per wolf rate predicted in the ESA.
22 elk x 900 wolves = 19,800 elk per year eaten
That is based on actual elk consumption in YNP.
IMO we may never reach 900 wolves, there is a good chance herds and subsequently wolf populations will crash before WA gets to 900 wolves.
Post by: Bob33 on March 16, 2016, 07:10:16 PM
Studies vary!Not all 22 ungulates will be elk. I suspect that deer and livestock will make up a portion of their diets as well.
http://www.yellowstonepark.com/gray-wolves-impact-elk/
Kill rates by wolves in winter are 22 ungulates per wolf per year – higher than the 12 ungulates per wolf rate predicted in the ESA.
22 elk x 900 wolves = 19,800 elk per year eaten
That is based on actual elk consumption in YNP.
Post by: Wingin it on March 16, 2016, 08:38:09 PM
Post by: Bango skank on March 16, 2016, 08:46:20 PM
Studies vary!Not all 22 ungulates will be elk. I suspect that deer and livestock will make up a portion of their diets as well.
http://www.yellowstonepark.com/gray-wolves-impact-elk/
Kill rates by wolves in winter are 22 ungulates per wolf per year – higher than the 12 ungulates per wolf rate predicted in the ESA.
22 elk x 900 wolves = 19,800 elk per year eaten
That is based on actual elk consumption in YNP.
And moose. The profanity peak pack killed at least one moose recently that im aware of. A bull.
Post by: Ridgeratt on March 16, 2016, 08:57:47 PM
Post by: Bango skank on March 16, 2016, 09:06:41 PM
Isn't it a fact that they only kill the sick and weak animals? I think that's what I have been told.:pee:
Post by: buglebrush on March 16, 2016, 09:20:53 PM
Since Idaho started actively managing wolves, 5 per hunter and I think 3 per trapper, double cougar tags and double bear tags in many areas, wildlife is bouncing back fast in areras where wolves are being removed! All we expect is honest management in WA!
Exactly, and OTC spring bear, bear baiting, hound hunting, etc... Our little hunting group has personally accounted for 9 bears the last three springs. They were all shot out of the same elk calving area. Washington is managing for a future with no OTC hunting at all :twocents:
Post by: buglebrush on March 16, 2016, 09:22:29 PM
Isn't it a fact that they only kill the sick and weak animals? I think that's what I have been told.
You are being sarcastic.... Right? :yike:
Post by: KFhunter on March 16, 2016, 09:25:38 PM
Post by: jackelope on March 16, 2016, 10:04:23 PM
QuoteSo I would assume we would then need county hunting/fishing licenses?? Oh damn I just crossed the county line, well I guess I need to buy a different license...
I guess each county would have to have their own county fish and wildlife officers, biologists, etc.. Where is the money for that going to come from? Let us not forget that just 28% of WDFWs funding comes from license/tag sales.
There is a reason why fish and wildlife is managed by the state in EVERY state.
I have no problem with counties wanting to become involved, similar to what I posted with how each county in California has a county fish and game board which are advisory boards to the CA Fish & Game Commission. But the overall management needs to be at the state. :twocents:
We've offered to share our wolves with the west side but the west side legislators want to keep wolves in eastern WA and out of their own backyards. Of course county management would probably never happen, but due to the lack of consideration of Eastern WA input by the state there are certainly people considering other management options. :twocents:
I certainly would not be opposed meaningful input into reasonable management by the state in eastern WA, but I doubt that happens either! :twocents:
I don't think King County needs any help getting them here. They're here now. The audio I posted earlier in this thread.
The one hit on I90 outside North Bend confirmed to be a grey wolf by DNA test.
This one in Snoqualmie last year(may be the same one hit and killed on 90)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160317%2Fd73f526214e6283d78f19dd6f2861abd.jpg&hash=259df730d9354ce24575203902958e9fb360a063)
This is a track from a series of tracks a hiker saw on the Mt Si trail a week or 2 ago. The small track was the guy's adult Labrador retriever. If I can find the story again I'll post it here. No tracks on the way up and those big tracks on the way down and there were no other hikers on the trail at the time that they ran into. They hiked up at 3:15am for a sunrise summit. Fresh snow.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160317%2F759d11e3a3582ab94131be4a2d4d3743.jpg&hash=deb3dfaff1d3e343d8c84e1f71e66d47bb5d49b7)
Post by: RB on March 16, 2016, 11:03:54 PM
Post by: Special T on March 16, 2016, 11:54:33 PM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on March 17, 2016, 05:11:04 AM
Studies vary!Not all 22 ungulates will be elk. I suspect that deer and livestock will make up a portion of their diets as well.
http://www.yellowstonepark.com/gray-wolves-impact-elk/
Kill rates by wolves in winter are 22 ungulates per wolf per year – higher than the 12 ungulates per wolf rate predicted in the ESA.
22 elk x 900 wolves = 19,800 elk per year eaten
That is based on actual elk consumption in YNP.
And moose. The profanity peak pack killed at least one moose recently that im aware of. A bull.
They are very hard on moose, some of my favorite moose hunting areas in NE WA have been hit hard. We are changing our moose hunting strategy, our new strategy is based on avoiding areas with heavy wolf impacts.
QuoteSo I would assume we would then need county hunting/fishing licenses?? Oh damn I just crossed the county line, well I guess I need to buy a different license...
I guess each county would have to have their own county fish and wildlife officers, biologists, etc.. Where is the money for that going to come from? Let us not forget that just 28% of WDFWs funding comes from license/tag sales.
There is a reason why fish and wildlife is managed by the state in EVERY state.
I have no problem with counties wanting to become involved, similar to what I posted with how each county in California has a county fish and game board which are advisory boards to the CA Fish & Game Commission. But the overall management needs to be at the state. :twocents:
We've offered to share our wolves with the west side but the west side legislators want to keep wolves in eastern WA and out of their own backyards. Of course county management would probably never happen, but due to the lack of consideration of Eastern WA input by the state there are certainly people considering other management options. :twocents:
I certainly would not be opposed meaningful input into reasonable management by the state in eastern WA, but I doubt that happens either! :twocents:
I don't think King County needs any help getting them here. They're here now. The audio I posted earlier in this thread.
The one hit on I90 outside North Bend confirmed to be a grey wolf by DNA test.
This one in Snoqualmie last year(may be the same one hit and killed on 90)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160317%2Fd73f526214e6283d78f19dd6f2861abd.jpg&hash=259df730d9354ce24575203902958e9fb360a063)
This is a track from a series of tracks a hiker saw on the Mt Si trail a week or 2 ago. The small track was the guy's adult Labrador retriever. If I can find the story again I'll post it here. No tracks on the way up and those big tracks on the way down and there were no other hikers on the trail at the time that they ran into. They hiked up at 3:15am for a sunrise summit. Fresh snow.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160317%2F759d11e3a3582ab94131be4a2d4d3743.jpg&hash=deb3dfaff1d3e343d8c84e1f71e66d47bb5d49b7)
Yes, I know wolves are moving westward, as wolf numbers increase many people will understand why I worked so hard to get a better wolf plan in WA. I really think the west side elk will be hit hard in the future. Given the political climate in WA I just don't have much hope for management here in WA anytime soon unless there is a big change in politics which is unlikely. I've pretty much moved on in life to try and put my time into efforts where I can make a difference. Even if we get wolf management many years from now, it will be very hard to control wolves in Western WA. Meanwhile, with the recent blue tongue die off, growing wolf populations, a huge coyote and cougar population, and WDFW's refusal to manage predators the NE might be looking at a predator pit scenario for some time. There are still deer here but hunter harvest is going to drop. We have reduced our hunting schedule by 50% on all our properties for this coming fall in WA to try and maintain a good success ratio. I hope the deer can recover, but with all these predators IMO it's going to be tougher than after any previous deer decline we've had in my lifetime. The last whitetail recovery took nearly twice as long as it should have, IMO mainly due to predators and liberal WDFW seasons, I could see the next recovery taking even longer, if a recovery even happens. Hopefully I'm wrong! :twocents:
In Idaho things are very good, predators are being hunted and trapped, many herds that had suffered great losses from unhunted wolves are now rebounding nicely because wolf populations are being reduced. I am transitioning more and more into Idaho as that state has a much brighter future for hunting.
Sorry I don't have a more cheerful outlook for WA. :sry:
Post by: bearpaw on March 17, 2016, 05:15:23 AM
Studies vary!Not all 22 ungulates will be elk. I suspect that deer and livestock will make up a portion of their diets as well.
http://www.yellowstonepark.com/gray-wolves-impact-elk/
Kill rates by wolves in winter are 22 ungulates per wolf per year – higher than the 12 ungulates per wolf rate predicted in the ESA.
22 elk x 900 wolves = 19,800 elk per year eaten
That is based on actual elk consumption in YNP.
:yeah: Exactly, and moose are taking a hit already in several areas.
Post by: 4fletch on March 17, 2016, 09:01:40 AM
Post by: bigtex on March 17, 2016, 10:33:41 AM
When the state sees they are loosing revenues from hunters not buying licenses then they will address the issue.And that's not happening. I just checked the current fiscal reports for the wildlife fund for revenue simply from hunting and fishing license fees, they are exceeding their projections for this point by nearly $300,000 for the current budget.
For the 2013-15 budget WDFW exceeded their license revenue projection by $5.5 Million.
A lot of people say they will quit hunting and fishing to decrease funds to WDFW, but in reality WDFW is bringing in more revenue from licenses then they projected.
Now before some of you ask "why if WDFW exceeds license revenue projection do they ask for increased fees?" The reason is because every budget year the legislature is sending less general tax money to WDFW. The legislature is slowly making WDFW a user funded agency rather than a tax funded agency. Who is the biggest funding source for WDFW?? The federal government.
Post by: Special T on March 17, 2016, 10:46:47 AM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk
Post by: KFhunter on March 17, 2016, 10:49:49 AM
Used to see cow's with calves, not anymore. Seen a lot of wolf poo
Post by: bigtex on March 17, 2016, 11:08:20 AM
Big tex th e fact that we provide more $ every year makes me mad they treat us like redheaded step children.Well when you look at the grand scheme of things hunting/fishing license fees is still a small part of the WDFW budget. Just 28% of WDFW's budget comes from the wildlife account. License/hunting fees make up only about 70% of the wildlife account, the remaining 30% in the wildlife account comes from other sources.
So when you do the rough math, hunting/fishing license fees make up only about 20% of WDFW's funding.
Post by: Special T on March 17, 2016, 11:12:18 AM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on March 17, 2016, 11:30:29 AM
When you add the pitman roberts funds and dingle johnson funds those numbers arnt right. Im sure you will correctme if im wrong but arnt the dispersal of those funds tied to lic sales?If you look at the funding source that isn't in the fund allocated to WDFW from the wildlife account. That is a portion of the federal funding to WDFW. WA gets about $20M from Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson which accounts to about 17% of the federal funding to WDFW (WDFW gets about $113M from federal sources). The Pittman/Dingell funding allocation is based on a formula of overall state land size, state population, and finally license purchases. And of course you can always say that non-hunters pay into the Pittman-Robertson account by non-hunters purchasing, firearms, ammo, etc.
So even if you add WDFW license revenue plus Pittman & Dingell you are still looking at just over a third of WDFW's budget comes from fees somehow associated with hunting and fishing. WDFW gets nearly 4x the amount in state taxes (general fund) then they do from Pittman & Dingell.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 17, 2016, 11:48:20 AM
When you add the pitman roberts funds and dingle johnson funds those numbers arnt right. Im sure you will correctme if im wrong but arnt the dispersal of those funds tied to lic sales?If you look at the funding source that isn't in the fund allocated to WDFW from the wildlife account. That is a portion of the federal funding to WDFW. WA gets about $20M from Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson which accounts to about 17% of the federal funding to WDFW (WDFW gets about $113M from federal sources). The Pittman/Dingell funding allocation is based on a formula of overall state land size, state population, and finally license purchases. And of course you can always say that non-hunters pay into the Pittman-Robertson account by non-hunters purchasing, firearms, ammo, etc.
So even if you add WDFW license revenue plus Pittman & Dingell you are still looking at just over a third of WDFW's budget comes from fees somehow associated with hunting and fishing. WDFW gets nearly 4x the amount in state taxes (general fund) then they do from Pittman & Dingell.
So they erred in the Hunter Ed handbook by saying that about 50% of their funding comes from hunters and fishers license and tag purchases?
Post by: bearpaw on March 17, 2016, 11:49:31 AM
When you add the pitman roberts funds and dingle johnson funds those numbers arnt right. Im sure you will correctme if im wrong but arnt the dispersal of those funds tied to lic sales?If you look at the funding source that isn't in the fund allocated to WDFW from the wildlife account. That is a portion of the federal funding to WDFW. WA gets about $20M from Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson which accounts to about 17% of the federal funding to WDFW (WDFW gets about $113M from federal sources). The Pittman/Dingell funding allocation is based on a formula of overall state land size, state population, and finally license purchases. And of course you can always say that non-hunters pay into the Pittman-Robertson account by non-hunters purchasing, firearms, ammo, etc.
So even if you add WDFW license revenue plus Pittman & Dingell you are still looking at just over a third of WDFW's budget comes from fees somehow associated with hunting and fishing. WDFW gets nearly 4x the amount in state taxes (general fund) then they do from Pittman & Dingell.
:yeah: That is a problem in WA, WDFW is not dependent enough on license sales.
Post by: bigtex on March 17, 2016, 11:50:21 AM
Definitely, unless they were talking simply funding in the wildlife account.So they erred in the Hunter Ed handbook by saying that about 50% of their funding comes from hunters and fishers license and tag purchases?When you add the pitman roberts funds and dingle johnson funds those numbers arnt right. Im sure you will correctme if im wrong but arnt the dispersal of those funds tied to lic sales?If you look at the funding source that isn't in the fund allocated to WDFW from the wildlife account. That is a portion of the federal funding to WDFW. WA gets about $20M from Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson which accounts to about 17% of the federal funding to WDFW (WDFW gets about $113M from federal sources). The Pittman/Dingell funding allocation is based on a formula of overall state land size, state population, and finally license purchases. And of course you can always say that non-hunters pay into the Pittman-Robertson account by non-hunters purchasing, firearms, ammo, etc.
So even if you add WDFW license revenue plus Pittman & Dingell you are still looking at just over a third of WDFW's budget comes from fees somehow associated with hunting and fishing. WDFW gets nearly 4x the amount in state taxes (general fund) then they do from Pittman & Dingell.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 17, 2016, 11:52:38 AM
so if they are exceeding projections, what was the survey just sent out about--how hunters/fishermen would like their additional fees/price hikes...phased in or all up front.When the state sees they are loosing revenues from hunters not buying licenses then they will address the issue.And that's not happening. I just checked the current fiscal reports for the wildlife fund for revenue simply from hunting and fishing license fees, they are exceeding their projections for this point by nearly $300,000 for the current budget.
For the 2013-15 budget WDFW exceeded their license revenue projection by $5.5 Million.
A lot of people say they will quit hunting and fishing to decrease funds to WDFW, but in reality WDFW is bringing in more revenue from licenses then they projected.
Now before some of you ask "why if WDFW exceeds license revenue projection do they ask for increased fees?" The reason is because every budget year the legislature is sending less general tax money to WDFW. The legislature is slowly making WDFW a user funded agency rather than a tax funded agency. Who is the biggest funding source for WDFW?? The federal government.
Post by: bigtex on March 17, 2016, 11:59:47 AM
Overall state tax funding given to WDFW will continue to decline meaning hunters/fishermen will have to make up for that loss. One of the big reasons is the McCleary Decision which said WA needs to put more $ into education. The legislature is sucking money out of agencies and putting it towards education.so if they are exceeding projections, what was the survey just sent out about--how hunters/fishermen would like their additional fees/price hikes...phased in or all up front.When the state sees they are loosing revenues from hunters not buying licenses then they will address the issue.And that's not happening. I just checked the current fiscal reports for the wildlife fund for revenue simply from hunting and fishing license fees, they are exceeding their projections for this point by nearly $300,000 for the current budget.
For the 2013-15 budget WDFW exceeded their license revenue projection by $5.5 Million.
A lot of people say they will quit hunting and fishing to decrease funds to WDFW, but in reality WDFW is bringing in more revenue from licenses then they projected.
Now before some of you ask "why if WDFW exceeds license revenue projection do they ask for increased fees?" The reason is because every budget year the legislature is sending less general tax money to WDFW. The legislature is slowly making WDFW a user funded agency rather than a tax funded agency. Who is the biggest funding source for WDFW?? The federal government.
Like I also said, the wildlife account has several different funding sources including license fees, some small specific taxes, discover pass, etc. While currently WDFW is exceeding estimates in the license fees category, they aren't meeting estimates in the discover pass, commercial fishing privilege tax, motor vehicle license fee, etc.
Post by: bigtex on March 17, 2016, 12:04:45 PM
The few states that have their DFW solely or largely funded by license fees tend to be smaller, less populated, and a smaller number of manageable species. Idaho is largely funded by fees, obviously am incredibly smaller population base but also less species to manage (no saltwater species, commercial fisheries, etc). Even Idaho's agency is pitifully funded and as a result their employees have low salaries and turnover is high. Hunting/fishing fees make up about 40% of Idaho Fish & Game's budget.:yeah: That is a problem in WA, WDFW is not dependent enough on license sales.When you add the pitman roberts funds and dingle johnson funds those numbers arnt right. Im sure you will correctme if im wrong but arnt the dispersal of those funds tied to lic sales?If you look at the funding source that isn't in the fund allocated to WDFW from the wildlife account. That is a portion of the federal funding to WDFW. WA gets about $20M from Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson which accounts to about 17% of the federal funding to WDFW (WDFW gets about $113M from federal sources). The Pittman/Dingell funding allocation is based on a formula of overall state land size, state population, and finally license purchases. And of course you can always say that non-hunters pay into the Pittman-Robertson account by non-hunters purchasing, firearms, ammo, etc.
So even if you add WDFW license revenue plus Pittman & Dingell you are still looking at just over a third of WDFW's budget comes from fees somehow associated with hunting and fishing. WDFW gets nearly 4x the amount in state taxes (general fund) then they do from Pittman & Dingell.
Would I like WDFW to be more funded by license fees so that hunter/fisherman had a bigger voice? Sure, but I also don't want to pay for a $200 fishing license just so I can say I have a bigger voice in the dept.
Post by: bearpaw on March 17, 2016, 12:23:49 PM
Combination - Sportsman's Package $ 124.25
RESIDENTS ONLY - The Sportsman's Package includes all rights and privileges associated with a Resident Adult Combination License plus tags for deer, elk, bear, mountain lion, wolf, turkey, salmon and steelhead. Archery and muzzleloader are validated on the license. Receipts will be given if tags are unavailable at time of purchase.
What does all that cost in WA?
Fishing, Salmon, Steelhead, Big game, Small Game, Deer, Elk, Bear, Mountain Lion, Wolf, Turkey, Archery & Muzzleloader seasons too. Just a multi season tag for one specie in WA costs more. Washington residents pay more and we have less say in wildlife! Just sayin!
Idaho is proposing a slight $1 to $6 dollar increase with a price lock so that if you buy a license every you keep the same old price!
https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/licenses/pricelock/PriceLockProposal.pdf
Post by: jasnt on March 17, 2016, 12:33:59 PM
I did a good bit of snowmobiling in moose country, seen a good amount of moose and not one calf with a cow. Not one. Also every moose track I came across was large and heavy, full grown.i will second that. I've seen 3 calves in the last 4 years. One had been eaten another couldn't have been a week old.
Used to see cow's with calves, not anymore. Seen a lot of wolf poo
Post by: Utah on March 17, 2016, 04:51:51 PM
Umm, bu{cough}{cough}it. OMG lol what a joke.
Post by: buckfvr on March 17, 2016, 05:01:03 PM
Post by: wolfbait on March 17, 2016, 09:23:36 PM
Loup Loup pack, one of newest identified, has at least 6 wolves
http://methowvalleynews.com/2016/03/16/statewide-survey-finds-four-new-wolf-packs-more-breeding-pairs/
Post by: wolfbait on March 25, 2016, 03:45:04 PM
http://www.saveelk.com/facts/
Post by: REHJWA on March 25, 2016, 07:01:17 PM
WDFW claim they first started seeing wolves "migrating" into WA in 2002, now 14 years later WDFW claim there are only 90 wolves. Compare the chart below at the 14 year mark with WDFW's claim.If I look at your chart for MT from 1985- 1998 then 90 seems to be right in line???
http://www.saveelk.com/facts/
Looking at WY and Idaho they start tracking them in 1995 but there population is already above 75....
What am I missing?
Post by: wolfbait on March 25, 2016, 10:52:45 PM
WDFW claim they first started seeing wolves "migrating" into WA in 2002, now 14 years later WDFW claim there are only 90 wolves. Compare the chart below at the 14 year mark with WDFW's claim.If I look at your chart for MT from 1985- 1998 then 90 seems to be right in line???
http://www.saveelk.com/facts/
Looking at WY and Idaho they start tracking them in 1995 but there population is already above 75....
What am I missing?
Wolves were introduced into the Yellowstone and Idaho in 1995-96, By 2002, "7 years" later all three states were eligible for delisting, WA at 14 years later only has 90 wolves???
If we go back before 2002 when WDFW claim they started seeing the first wolves moving into WA, how many wolves did WA already have?
In Washington, Feds Opt For Wolf Introduction Over Recovery http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/
Post by: REHJWA on March 26, 2016, 09:08:18 AM
ID and WY has fewer people, more open areas and from what I gather on this web site better game.....makes sense their numbers would grow faster? :dunno:
In WA the major areas for growth seem to be the more remote mountionous areas....and WA is considerably more populated and smaller....
Yes 90 is the Minimum which is a crock, and until they get hunters on board I bet the shooters will never allow the population to reach "target" numbers for delisting.
Post by: wolfbait on March 26, 2016, 09:30:40 AM
Still based on you #s and the state's claim of 2002 MT#s are in line with WA numbers.... Correct?
ID and WY has fewer people, more open areas and from what I gather on this web site better game.....makes sense their numbers would grow faster? :dunno:
In WA the major areas for growth seem to be the more remote mountionous areas....and WA is considerably more populated and smaller....
Yes 90 is the Minimum which is a crock, and until they get hunters on board I bet the shooters will never allow the population to reach "target" numbers for delisting.
Starting out in 1995 or 96 to 2009 would be 14-15 years, MT had 600 wolves. As stated above WDFW claimed wolves started "migrating" into WA in 2002, now 14 years later WA has 90 wolves.
In WA the only wolves that have been confirmed except for one (lookout pack), were confirmed for livestock kills> it's very hard to say where wolves are multiplying, if they have to kill livestock in order to be confirmed.
You could have open season on wolves today, and WA would still be above delisting numbers. :twocents:
Post by: AKBowman on March 27, 2016, 10:12:13 PM
I would like to see the remaining breeding pairs in King county. Just think of the great tourism it would create, you could ride the ducks then go see the wolves after spotting them from the space Needle! :chuckle:
This was recorded in King County ~5 months ago. Turn the volume all the way up.
Not a valid vimeo URL
What part of King County?
Post by: CAMPMEAT on April 04, 2016, 01:48:24 PM
Post by: nwwanderer on April 05, 2016, 07:59:09 AM
Keep at it Bearpaw, you are not alone.
Post by: bearpaw on April 07, 2016, 08:18:35 AM
WDFW claim they first started seeing wolves "migrating" into WA in 2002, now 14 years later WDFW claim there are only 90 wolves. Compare the chart below at the 14 year mark with WDFW's claim.If I look at your chart for MT from 1985- 1998 then 90 seems to be right in line???
http://www.saveelk.com/facts/
Looking at WY and Idaho they start tracking them in 1995 but there population is already above 75....
What am I missing?
Wolves were introduced into the Yellowstone and Idaho in 1995-96, By 2002, "7 years" later all three states were eligible for delisting, WA at 14 years later only has 90 wolves???
If we go back before 2002 when WDFW claim they started seeing the first wolves moving into WA, how many wolves did WA already have?
In Washington, Feds Opt For Wolf Introduction Over Recovery http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/
Another bit of wolf trivia:
When this wolf recovery talk started the stated goal at that time was 100 wolves in each of three recovery states (MT, ID, WY). That was never the goal, it was only a lie/trick to get wolves started.
All three states exceeded that number and the number was raised, now there are more than 1900 wolves admitted in ID/MT/WY/WA/OR. In reality it could be double that number.
Post by: Naches Sportsman on April 07, 2016, 08:27:12 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 07, 2016, 08:28:55 AM
Post by: buglebrush on April 07, 2016, 09:02:57 AM
Post by: mfswallace on April 07, 2016, 09:04:44 AM
Since this is back to the top, I am going to make a prediction that wdfw will classify at least one breeding pair in Yakima County by 2020.
Very Bold :chuckle:
They are there NOW!!!! :bash:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on April 07, 2016, 09:28:18 AM
It's been said, but I will say it again. This is about eliminating OTC hunting. WDFW makes no effort to manage predators effectively. At least Idaho is making some effort to limit the damage. Until wdfw takes on the predator issue I have zero respect and trust in them.I would guess that in the lead up to going from OTC to permit, the wolves will lower the game density so much that the tree farms will see that they can make more money going to leases than individual permits. Then leases will grow in size and only be able to support a small number of hunters. So the wolves will drive the access problem even further.
Post by: LeviD1 on April 11, 2016, 10:26:22 PM
Post by: Duckslayer89 on April 11, 2016, 10:35:04 PM