Post by: huntnphool on February 15, 2017, 02:19:19 PM
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/
February 15, 2017
Contact: John Pierce, 360-902-2511
Study of wolves' effects on other wildlife
gets underway in eastern Washington
OLYMPIA -- The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the University of Washington (UW) have launched a collaborative study to determine how eight years of growth in the state's wolf population is affecting other wildlife species.
The study, scheduled to last at least five years, will assess the health of deer and elk herds in northeast Washington, where they support hunting and other recreational opportunities while providing prey for wolves and other predators.
"The experience in other western states shows that wolves and other predators may affect the size and behavior of deer and elk herds," said Eric Gardner, head of the WDFW Wildlife Program. "We want to take a closer look at the situation here in Washington state as our own wolf population continues to grow."
Researchers will also examine the response to wolves by other predators, especially cougars, said Gardner, noting that the study will dovetail with an ongoing research project on moose in northeast Washington.
As of June 2016, WDFW had confirmed the presence of 19 wolf packs and at least 90 wolves in Washington state – up from a single pack with five wolves in 2008. Most of the growth in the state's wolf population has occurred in northeastern Washington, where the new study is now underway.
In January, WDFW research scientists and field biologists began capturing deer, elk, and cougars and fitting them with radio-collars to monitor their movements. Capture techniques include trapping animals using bait, steering them into nets, and darting them from helicopters with immobilization drugs.
The goal is to keep 65 white-tailed deer, 50 elk, and 10 cougars collared in one study area that includes areas of Ferry, Stevens and Pend Oreille counties, said John Pierce, chief scientist for the WDFW Wildlife Program. In addition, researchers plan to collar 100 mule deer and 10 cougars in a second area in Okanogan County.
Some wolves are already radio-collared in those areas, but researchers want to maintain collars on at least two wolves in each pack within the study areas, Pierce said.
Pierce asks that hunters who take a collared deer or elk contact the department, so researchers can recover the collar.
UW students will join WDFW research scientists and field biologists to monitor radio-collared animals and track their movements, distribution, habitat use, diet, productivity and survival. Cougars will be monitored to learn about changes in social behavior, prey selection and predation rates in areas where wolves also occur.
"This study concentrates on multiple-use lands used by people for activities such as logging, livestock ranching and hunting," Pierce said. "In that way it differs from most other studies on the impact of wolves, which tend to be conducted in national parks and other protected areas."
Pierce said the principal investigators from WDFW and UW will periodically develop and publicly share progress reports about the study over the next five years.
Funding for the five-year study includes $400,000 from a 2015 state legislative appropriation, $450,000 in federal Pittman-Robertson funds and $150,000 of WDFW funds. The UW also secured nearly $900,000 in National Science Foundation grant funds for the project.
Map of study areas: http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/attach/feb1517b.jpg
Post by: bobcat on February 15, 2017, 02:21:34 PM
Post by: demontang on February 15, 2017, 02:21:42 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 15, 2017, 02:23:26 PM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,169473.0.html
moving this to the wolf section so it isn't buried and it's easier to look up in the future.
Post by: bobcat on February 15, 2017, 02:25:36 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 15, 2017, 02:29:27 PM
Looks like 1.9 million dollars is what they have to spend. I wonder, is it really worth it? Wouldn't it be better to spend that money on wildlife habitat restoration?
Before they can restore the wolf habitat, they must first know how much food the wolves will need within that habitat.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 15, 2017, 02:30:00 PM
I'm surprised they were able to come up with the money for this.Just increase licenses and fees.
Post by: bobcat on February 15, 2017, 02:37:35 PM
Looks like 1.9 million dollars is what they have to spend. I wonder, is it really worth it? Wouldn't it be better to spend that money on wildlife habitat restoration?
Before they can restore the wolf habitat, they must first know how much food the wolves will need within that habitat.
You'd think they'd be interested in restoring and/or improving mule deer habitat, since doing so would provide more deer for the wolves to eat.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 15, 2017, 02:38:43 PM
Looks like 1.9 million dollars is what they have to spend. I wonder, is it really worth it? Wouldn't it be better to spend that money on wildlife habitat restoration?
It's worth it if you can prop up your own position and say "See, we told you so!". This is going to be very lopsided.
Post by: huntnphool on February 15, 2017, 02:40:35 PM
Looks like 1.9 million dollars is what they have to spend. I wonder, is it really worth it? Wouldn't it be better to spend that money on wildlife habitat restoration?
Before they can restore the wolf habitat, they must first know how much food the wolves will need within that habitat.
You'd think they'd be interested in restoring and/or improving mule deer habitat, since doing so would provide more deer for the wolves to eat.
They don't need to though, there are plenty of mule deer to sustain a balanced wolf/prey natural order.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 15, 2017, 02:42:15 PM
Post by: Curly on February 15, 2017, 02:45:31 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 15, 2017, 02:46:13 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 15, 2017, 02:47:02 PM
Looks like 1.9 million dollars is what they have to spend. I wonder, is it really worth it? Wouldn't it be better to spend that money on wildlife habitat restoration?
Before they can restore the wolf habitat, they must first know how much food the wolves will need within that habitat.
You'd think they'd be interested in restoring and/or improving mule deer habitat, since doing so would provide more deer for the wolves to eat.
They don't need to though, there are plenty of mule deer to sustain a balanced wolf/prey natural order.
"Natural order" as in there aren't enough deer for us humans to hunt because the wolves' need to eat is more important than our need to hunt?
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 15, 2017, 02:47:22 PM
It will most likely be a complete and total waste of money.
OK, final offer. $1.7M.
:tup: I don't think they intend to do the survey by opening up their stomachs, Flound3rz. :chuckle:
Either way, I'm good. I can make up BS as good as the next guy.
Post by: Curly on February 15, 2017, 02:54:43 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 15, 2017, 03:20:35 PM
Post by: Practical Approach on February 15, 2017, 03:31:55 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 15, 2017, 04:01:18 PM
CorrectLooks like 1.9 million dollars is what they have to spend. I wonder, is it really worth it? Wouldn't it be better to spend that money on wildlife habitat restoration?
Before they can restore the wolf habitat, they must first know how much food the wolves will need within that habitat.
You'd think they'd be interested in restoring and/or improving mule deer habitat, since doing so would provide more deer for the wolves to eat.
They don't need to though, there are plenty of mule deer to sustain a balanced wolf/prey natural order.
"Natural order" as in there aren't enough deer for us humans to hunt because the wolves' need to eat is more important than our need to hunt?
Post by: Duckslayer89 on February 15, 2017, 04:20:19 PM
It will most likely be a complete and total waste of money.
OK, final offer. $1.7M.:tup: I don't think they intend to do the survey by opening up their stomachs, Flound3rz. :chuckle:
Either way, I'm good. I can make up BS as good as the next guy.
:chuckle: 1.7 million is a lot of bullets and traps
Post by: trophyhunt on February 15, 2017, 04:27:32 PM
Post by: Duckslayer89 on February 15, 2017, 04:29:23 PM
What a waste of damn money, look at wyomings moose population, looks at idaho for god's sake. Can't they pull some valuable info from the states that have already suffered from the wolf populations, how tough and expensive would that be????
Sad thing is these states are actually doing something about it and they are still having huge problems. Our state never will, going to be a mess.
Post by: Cougartail on February 15, 2017, 04:29:42 PM
I don't see anything in the report that says they captured and collared fawns and calves to look at predation rates on recruitment. Seems like that would be a big piece of the picture. :dunno:
And when they find coyotes and black bears are the big culprits when it comes to fawn/calf predation the wolf-haters will deny it.
I know, 200 wolves eat more fawns/calves than 25,000 bears and 200,000 coyotes. Makes perfect sense..to the great scientific minds on here.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 15, 2017, 04:34:26 PM
For the westside, some studies have been done that suggest bobcats get most the fawns and cougars the calves.I don't see anything in the report that says they captured and collared fawns and calves to look at predation rates on recruitment. Seems like that would be a big piece of the picture. :dunno:
And when they find coyotes and black bears are the big culprits when it comes to fawn/calf predation the wolf-haters will deny it.
I know, 200 wolves eat more fawns/calves than 25,000 bears and 200,000 coyotes. Makes perfect sense..to the great scientific minds on here.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 15, 2017, 05:30:02 PM
For the westside, some studies have been done that suggest bobcats get most the fawns and cougars the calves.I don't see anything in the report that says they captured and collared fawns and calves to look at predation rates on recruitment. Seems like that would be a big piece of the picture. :dunno:
And when they find coyotes and black bears are the big culprits when it comes to fawn/calf predation the wolf-haters will deny it.
I know, 200 wolves eat more fawns/calves than 25,000 bears and 200,000 coyotes. Makes perfect sense..to the great scientific minds on here.
Our neighborhood cougar takes deer and neighborhood cats and dogs.
Post by: garrett89 on February 15, 2017, 06:20:28 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 16, 2017, 06:21:05 AM
I don't see anything in the report that says they captured and collared fawns and calves to look at predation rates on recruitment. Seems like that would be a big piece of the picture. :dunno:
And when they find coyotes and black bears are the big culprits when it comes to fawn/calf predation the wolf-haters will deny it.
I know, 200 wolves eat more fawns/calves than 25,000 bears and 200,000 coyotes. Makes perfect sense..to the great scientific minds on here.
I have no doubt that's exactly what they'll report. There's a vast difference between just hating wolves for hating them and realizing that a wolf plan which is 50% more aggressive than a state with twice the land mass and 1/16th of the population density (MT), is ridiculous. 15 breeding pairs in our state and the refusal of the WDFW to de-list in the NE where the feds have already done so is a clear indication of their priorities. Meanwhile, the people and other wildlife there mean nothing as long as the great wolf plan succeeds. And it is succeeding, beyond their wildest dreams. I may not have a great scientific mind but I know numbers and know we were sold a rotten bill of goods by the USFWS and the WDFW. And, that's without even discussing echinococcus granulosus. Maybe your great scientific mind can enlighten us on the benefits of bringing in that disease.
Post by: Practical Approach on February 16, 2017, 07:50:41 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 16, 2017, 08:13:23 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 16, 2017, 08:20:48 AM
Post by: nwwanderer on February 16, 2017, 09:29:14 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 16, 2017, 09:36:54 AM
I may not have a great scientific mind but I know numbers and know we were sold a rotten bill of goods by the USFWS and the WDFW. And, that's without even discussing echinococcus granulosus. Maybe your great scientific mind can enlighten us on the benefits of bringing in that disease.
Bringing in what? We've always had tapeworms here. They are spread by canines such as dogs and coyotes. That argument is such a red herring.
Post by: Practical Approach on February 16, 2017, 10:09:07 AM
How could an effective study of wolves' effect on other wildlife not include predation of infant and immature ungulates?
Word on the street is that it was too expensive to try to catch and collar the young ones. But your right it won't be very effective if it is indeed true.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on February 16, 2017, 10:20:53 AM
How could an effective study of wolves' effect on other wildlife not include predation of infant and immature ungulates?
That's a pretty tough piece of information to capture. Collaring infants is never going to work, they are collaring subadults if they are big enough to hold the collar. Vaginal implants could potentially work, but getting eyes on a WT deer with fawn in this area is damn near impossible.
I get what you're saying, but it's very hard to do in big country. Collared elk can be surveyed for calf survival during the winter.
Post by: Practical Approach on February 16, 2017, 10:57:41 AM
I agree it is more difficult and costly, but I think it is important. You can collar infants using collars for infants that expand as they grow. You could use vaginal implants on all of the mature females you caught, but you would have to spend additional money to go back in in a timely manner and find the fawns and calves to get the collar on them before they are too big to get away. If you can get to them fairly soon after the implant is expelled the fawn/calf will not be far from the implant or the collared mother.How could an effective study of wolves' effect on other wildlife not include predation of infant and immature ungulates?
That's a pretty tough piece of information to capture. Collaring infants is never going to work, they are collaring subadults if they are big enough to hold the collar. Vaginal implants could potentially work, but getting eyes on a WT deer with fawn in this area is damn near impossible.
I get what you're saying, but it's very hard to do in big country. Collared elk can be surveyed for calf survival during the winter.
I am not discounting the added layer of difficulty and expense, but on a project of this magnitude and the questions you are trying to answer, it seems pretty important.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 16, 2017, 11:01:50 AM
Post by: KFhunter on February 16, 2017, 11:10:49 AM
Wolves tend to have a different hunting style than the other predators mentioned. Occasionally yotes can run deer/elk, but usually they are just sniffing around for the bedded fawn like black bears. Deer probably aren't used to being chased long distances on a regular basis.
In a lot of areas a person can run down a deer this time of year, wouldn't take much for a wolf. They're on super low reserves right now and gas out quickly.
Post by: garrett89 on February 16, 2017, 11:12:20 AM
Post by: wolfbait on February 16, 2017, 11:18:56 AM
Study after study has already been done in other states where wolves were dump, and the outcome has always been the same, it's wolves stupid!
My guess is WDFW have already predetermined what the study will say and I would imagine it will favor either more habitat is needed or poor habitat.
Remember when WDFW claimed they would have enough bps to delist in 6 years? And yet we know that wolf populations double in size each year.
Post by: Practical Approach on February 16, 2017, 11:23:11 AM
If this is the link to the bill for the study, then I am not sure why WDFW is so heavily involved? Does anyone know if this is the legislation linked to the predator prey study?
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 16, 2017, 11:24:34 AM
How could an effective study of wolves' effect on other wildlife not include predation of infant and immature ungulates?
That's a pretty tough piece of information to capture. Collaring infants is never going to work, they are collaring subadults if they are big enough to hold the collar. Vaginal implants could potentially work, but getting eyes on a WT deer with fawn in this area is damn near impossible.
I get what you're saying, but it's very hard to do in big country. Collared elk can be surveyed for calf survival during the winter.
I'd be fine with checking the wolves' stomach contents.
Post by: garrett89 on February 16, 2017, 11:26:11 AM
This is just another joke study with $$$$ in the pockets of WDF&Wolves etc..
Study after study has already been done in other states where wolves were dump, and the outcome has always been the same, it's wolves stupid!
My guess is WDFW have already predetermined what the study will say and I would imagine it will favor either more habitat is needed or poor habitat.
Remember when WDFW claimed they would have enough bps to delist in 6 years? And yet we know that wolf populations double in size each year.
Probably got paid off by a bunch of hippies to start the project in the first place.
Post by: idaho guy on February 16, 2017, 02:20:38 PM
What a waste of damn money, look at wyomings moose population, looks at idaho for god's sake. Can't they pull some valuable info from the states that have already suffered from the wolf populations, how tough and expensive would that be????
:yeah:I would say the "study" has already been done in wy,mt,and Id. Total waste of money
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on February 16, 2017, 02:27:16 PM
Looks like 1.9 million dollars is what they have to spend. I wonder, is it really worth it? Wouldn't it be better to spend that money on wildlife habitat restoration?$150k of WDFW funds to leverage $1.85M is a pretty efficient use. That $1.85M isn't available for other purposes.
Post by: Special T on February 16, 2017, 02:29:33 PM
Post by: garrett89 on February 16, 2017, 03:27:45 PM
Except that they use 400k worth of Pitman Robert's funds that could go to improving something we can huntLike in the study of hoof rot would be nice to find out what's exactly causing it.
Post by: Special T on February 16, 2017, 03:59:36 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on February 16, 2017, 06:51:44 PM
This is just another joke study with $$$$ in the pockets of WDF&Wolves etc..I don't remember them saying anything about meeting requirements in six years. Do you have a link to that somewhere?
Study after study has already been done in other states where wolves were dump, and the outcome has always been the same, it's wolves stupid!
My guess is WDFW have already predetermined what the study will say and I would imagine it will favor either more habitat is needed or poor habitat.
Remember when WDFW claimed they would have enough bps to delist in 6 years? And yet we know that wolf populations double in size each year.
Which studies showed wolves were the culprit? I know the Bitterroot showed otherwise, and the one currently underway in the CDAs is looking like lions are going to come out looking like the bad guys
Post by: idaho guy on February 17, 2017, 10:46:28 AM
This is just another joke study with $$$$ in the pockets of WDF&Wolves etc..I don't remember them saying anything about meeting requirements in six years. Do you have a link to that somewhere?
Study after study has already been done in other states where wolves were dump, and the outcome has always been the same, it's wolves stupid!
My guess is WDFW have already predetermined what the study will say and I would imagine it will favor either more habitat is needed or poor habitat.
Remember when WDFW claimed they would have enough bps to delist in 6 years? And yet we know that wolf populations double in size each year.
Which studies showed wolves were the culprit? I know the Bitterroot showed otherwise, and the one currently underway in the CDAs is looking like lions are going to come out looking like the bad guys
I have heard that they are suggesting that something like 70% of elk kills are due to lions not wolves in the panhandle. I don't know if this is the result of the study you are referencing but local idfg personnel have been saying this. I hound hunt quite a bit and I have a very hard time believing that since about 90% of the lion kills I have ever found have been deer? I have also found a lot more wolf kills on elk than lions. It seems like we have a lot less lions in the panhandle now then we did in the 90s and that was the "good old days" for elk numbers in the panhandle. I never noticed a significant decline in elk numbers hunting in the panhandle till the wolves showed up in large numbers. WAcoyotehunter I know from other posts you hunt lions in the cda's and that you are a biologist. I respect your opinion and I just have a real hard time believing lions are the bad guy here. I am not a biologist and probably just a redneck but we had tons of elk and seemingly more lions before the wolves. After wolves less elk AND less lions. This is all based on what I see when out in the woods or hunting and maybe I am wrong. Might be specific to the areas I hunt? I would like to see numbers on actual lions before wolves and now and then compare that to elk numbers. I also have noticed a big rebound in Elk in the area I regularly cat hunt and a huge decline in the number of wolf tracks. Educate me because it seems like a bunch of BS.
Post by: flatbkman on February 17, 2017, 11:28:14 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 17, 2017, 11:31:45 AM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on February 17, 2017, 11:56:03 AM
What is an across the board finding is that it is very difficult to limit or suppress established wolf populations through recreational hunting, even with OTC tags and liberal trapping and hunting quotas. I'm pretty confident we'll never see legal trapping for wolves in WA, and despite the fact that they are a wide-ranging, resilient and highly fecund carnivore with impressive survival instincts, we will never see them hunted in Washington in a manner that would imperil populations. There is no more frustrating game species to manage based on its intrinsic productivity than the wolf, if the emotions and politics were out of the equation they could be managed with the same rules as coyotes and wolf populations would not be imperiled.
Post by: idaho guy on February 17, 2017, 12:07:44 PM
Most of the studies I've seen show greatly varied results that are very area specific when it comes to wolf impacts, and depend on the deer species and abundance, elk abundance, topographic roughness, and predator assemblages. Wolves are really tough on mule deer where the conditions favor a coursing predator; basically anywhere that mule deer expanded into after wolves were eradicated, takes a huge hit when wolves return; however, they are also death on cougars in those same areas, which preferentially kill mule deer even when elk and whitetails are more abundant. Mule deer fare much better when they have steep, rocky uneven mountain habitat. Whitetails in forested environments seem pretty resilient to wolf predation. Where wolves thrive, they put a hurt on coyotes, which can be a mitigating effect where coyote predation limits fawn/calf recruitment. Where there are grizzlies, appropriating wolf kills puts griz on a protein rich diet for a much longer period of time, causing both wolves to kill more than in areas without grizzlies, and increasing the grizzly population (Wyoming documented grizzlies increasing from a 4% annual population growth rate pre-wolves, to 8% post wolves). The same hasn't been true for black bear, which don't seem to exhibit much change with or without wolves. There are definitely places where wolves have severely depressed deer and/or elk populations, but it is not an across the board finding.
What is an across the board finding is that it is very difficult to limit or suppress established wolf populations through recreational hunting, even with OTC tags and liberal trapping and hunting quotas. I'm pretty confident we'll never see legal trapping for wolves in WA, and despite the fact that they are a wide-ranging, resilient and highly fecund carnivore with impressive survival instincts, we will never see them hunted in Washington in a manner that would imperil populations. There is no more frustrating game species to manage based on its intrinsic productivity than the wolf, if the emotions and politics were out of the equation they could be managed with the same rules as coyotes and wolf populations would not be imperiled.
Good info! Wolves can be managed like coyotes! No need for a study the real question has been answered!
Post by: Wacenturion on February 17, 2017, 05:16:46 PM
It will most likely be a complete and total waste of money.
Yep....certainly could spend it somewhere else that it's needed, but that requires WDFW to actually do some physical work, like habitat improvement. Reseach is like crack to natural resource agencies. Does two things....gives an excuse to put off anwering common sense questions and when they complete the task at hand they can and have molded the findings to fit their agenda. Beyond that additional reseach is often deemed necessary to buy more time. Like a wheel in a hampster cage. Just keeps on spinning. :chuckle: You can bet on it....fact
Post by: wolfbait on February 17, 2017, 10:32:08 PM
By preying on the elk, wolves can/will take the more vulnerable mule deer to exceedingly low levels or extinction. The wolves that were turned loose in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have preyed primarily on elk and there are data on how many elk each wolf kills per year---22 elk/wolf/year---but there is little data from these states or anywhere else on the effect of wolf predation on mule deer. To put it simply, mule decline so rapidly that there is nothing left to study!
Hunter harvest of black-tailed deer on Vancouver island though, gives some idea of what will happen if pro-wolf advocates have their way. Before wolves arrived, sportsmen on Vancouver Island took home around 25,000 blacktails a year. Now that wolves have overrun the island, the figure has plummeted to less than 4,000 deer a year. Moreover, blacktails are now found in reasonable abundance only where they live in suburbs or cities; i.e., the deer have moved into town to avoid predators
http://idahoforwildlife.com/Charles%20Kay/76-wolf%20predation-more%20bad%20news.pdf
"the deer have moved into town to avoid predators"
Sounds like the Methow Valley
Post by: MR5x5 on February 18, 2017, 10:04:49 AM
Post by: KFhunter on February 18, 2017, 10:11:48 AM
If WDF&Wolves were really interested.........
By preying on the elk, wolves can/will take the more vulnerable mule deer to exceedingly low levels or extinction. The wolves that were turned loose in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have preyed primarily on elk and there are data on how many elk each wolf kills per year---22 elk/wolf/year---but there is little data from these states or anywhere else on the effect of wolf predation on mule deer. To put it simply, mule decline so rapidly that there is nothing left to study!
Hunter harvest of black-tailed deer on Vancouver island though, gives some idea of what will happen if pro-wolf advocates have their way. Before wolves arrived, sportsmen on Vancouver Island took home around 25,000 blacktails a year. Now that wolves have overrun the island, the figure has plummeted to less than 4,000 deer a year. Moreover, blacktails are now found in reasonable abundance only where they live in suburbs or cities; i.e., the deer have moved into town to avoid predators
http://idahoforwildlife.com/Charles%20Kay/76-wolf%20predation-more%20bad%20news.pdf
"the deer have moved into town to avoid predators"
Sounds like the Methow Valley
and the cats follow
Post by: garrett89 on February 18, 2017, 12:02:26 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 18, 2017, 12:56:47 PM
https://news.wsu.edu/2016/08/31/wsu-issues-statement-clarifying-comments-profanity-peak-wolf-pack/
Quote
PULLMAN, Wash. – Washington State University and the WSU College of Agricultural, Human and Natural Resources Sciences Wednesday issued the following statement regarding public statements made by Rob Wielgus, associate professor and director of the Large Carnivore Conservation Lab at WSU, related to the Profanity Peak wolf pack.
Some of Wielgus’ statements in regard to this controversial issue have been both inaccurate and inappropriate. As such, they have contributed substantially to the growing anger and confusion about this significant wildlife management issue and have unfairly jeopardized the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Wolf Advisory Group’s many-months long stakeholder process. Moreover, the statements do not in any way represent the views or position of WSU or the College of Agricultural, Human and Natural Resources Sciences. These statements are disavowed by our institutions.
We offer the following corrections of the information in the public arena:
In an article published by the Seattle Times on Aug. 25, Wielgus stated that a particular livestock operator had “elected to put his livestock directly on top of (the wolves’) den site; we have pictures of cows swamping it…”
In fact, the rancher identified in the article did not intentionally place livestock at or near the den site of the Profanity Peak wolf pack, and Wielgus subsequently acknowledged that he had no basis in fact for making such a statement. In actuality, the livestock were released at low elevation on the east side of the Kettle Crest more than 4 miles from the den site and were dispersed throughout the allotments based on instructions found in the Annual Operating Instructions (AOI). The CC mountain allotment is more than 30,000 acres and livestock are generally moved from pasture to pasture following an established rotation.
In the same article, Wielgus stated that a particular cattle rancher had also “refused to radio-collar his cattle to help predict and avoid interactions with radio-collared wolves” and that there had been no documented “cattle kills among producers who are participating in research studies and very few among producers using Fish and Wildlife’s protocol.”
In fact, the rancher identified in the article has held a term grazing permit for 73 years and has worked with both the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife and the U.S. Forest Service in the management of livestock in order to avoid conflict – following procedures outlined by the Washington Wolf Advisory Group. In order to reduce wolf/livestock conflict, the rancher has modified livestock rotation practices and utilized range riders to ensure livestock safety.
While the rancher is not currently participating in Wielgus’ ongoing study, radio-collaring of livestock is not a Wolf Advisory Group procedure nor is it 100 percent effective at preventing depredations. It is inaccurate to state that there have been no cattle kills among producers participating in the study. There is at least one permittee who is participating in the study who has incurred livestock depredations.
The decision to eliminate the Profanity Peak wolf pack came after two years of careful work and scientific analysis by the Washington State Wolf Advisory Group, consisting of a collaboration between scientists, industry and conservation partners. WSU subscribes to the highest standards of research integrity and will not and cannot condone statements that have the effect of compromising that integrity.
Regarding future steps for preventing subsequent inaccurate or inappropriate statements, we are implementing applicable internal university processes.
WSU apologizes to our friends, our science partners and to the public for this incident.
INSANE! WDFW should have immediately dropped that cougar plan and anything else Wielgus had influenced.
Post by: Cougartail on February 18, 2017, 01:42:15 PM
Since he has final say, any new plan will look exactly like the last one.
Post by: KFhunter on February 18, 2017, 01:48:36 PM