Post by: mtn muley madness on April 10, 2019, 10:39:00 AM
https://www.jontimmer.com/VideoCam/Wolves/i-hSGgP9T
Post by: bobcat on April 10, 2019, 10:42:04 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: jackelope on April 10, 2019, 10:47:07 AM
They need proof of a breeding pair. Just a few photos of a wolf in the area doesn't count.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
People don’t seem to realize this.
And no offense, but a guy telling them you saw a wolf somewhere 16 years ago means nothing. Look at the wolf report website and you’ll understand why. There are literally wolf reports from the middle of downtown Seattle. They’re not going to think any more of you telling them you saw a wolf than the crackpot in downtown Seattle telling them they saw a wolf.
I believe it was WaCoyotehunter who posted a few years back the photos people sent in of wolves that were reported. That again may help folks understand why they don’t put a lot of weight into wolf sighting reported by people without their process of confirming a pack. It’s more than just a wolf in an area.
Post by: mtn muley madness on April 10, 2019, 10:48:17 AM
Post by: mtn muley madness on April 10, 2019, 10:53:57 AM
Post by: buckfvr on April 10, 2019, 10:56:12 AM
Proof of a breeding pair doesn't give them the right to act like they don't exist.
That will remain their position until they have no other option than to acknowledge the fact, and even at that, they will just move to their next method of watering it down or discrediting the source.....been the norm over here for years now. Their position will remain the same, following the agenda of the powers/current administrations constituency.
Post by: HighlandLofts on April 10, 2019, 06:18:53 PM
Post by: Whitpirate on April 10, 2019, 07:10:13 PM
Post by: wolfbait on April 12, 2019, 09:28:33 AM
The fact they report the wolf population from 2017-2018 grew by 4 animals means I can't give them credit for any scientific basis or credible attempts at counts. To also report less than 130 animals total in the state is also crazy. That said I've seen over 10% of the state's population of wolves!
Back in 2010-2011 when the UW and CNW were doing a wolf/deer impact study, I asked the CNW representative why Fitkin hadn't confirmed the Bridge Cr wolf pack, she said she knew that fitkin knew of the pack but that it was too expensive to confirm.
This was around the time two different wolf packs were seen on the same day twenty miles apart. Anyone who suggest that WDFW would confirm new wolf packs breeding pairs it given the opportunity is either packing water for WDFW or they have had their head in the sand for several years.
A few years back WDF$Wolves claimed the wolves grew by one wolf, and now four in a year, this shouldn't shock ANYONE after years of their lying corruption.
Rural Washington has past the point of trusting anything WDFW, pubic wolf control is the norm and some of the LEO's are telling people the same. Public opinion has turned against wolves in a major way, and the last blatant lie of a four wolf gain in one year is a perfect example of in your face corruption, even the dumbest wolf lover knows this is BS.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on April 12, 2019, 09:44:55 AM
If they sounded like they knew your sighting didn't matter, it's because it didn't. I'm not trying to be rude here but everybody always wants to throw WDFW under the bus at the first opportunity without really trying to understand their processes.
WDFW will give you plenty of reasons to talk trash about them. No need to fabricate additional reasons.
Post by: fowl smacker on April 12, 2019, 10:22:37 AM
Maybe you did see a wolf, but there is zero chance it was one of the greys that came out of Canada/Yellowstone. It could have been one of the cascade wolves that have been present forever (which is an AWESOME sighting if that's what you saw), a local idiot's domestic, or something of that nature.If our wolf sighting reports don't matter to them, why do they have a dedicated wolf sighting portal on the WDFW website then? Seems like another waste of resources.
If they sounded like they knew your sighting didn't matter, it's because it didn't. I'm not trying to be rude here but everybody always wants to throw WDFW under the bus at the first opportunity without really trying to understand their processes.
WDFW will give you plenty of reasons to talk trash about them. No need to fabricate additional reasons.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on April 12, 2019, 10:34:12 AM
Let's say you have 3 total people working wolf sightings (doubt there are that many). How many hours do you want them spending looking in downtown Seattle, or Forks? We know where the general mass of wolf packs are. My guess is that when someone shows them pictures on the outlying regions of known packs, they're probably jumping on that opportunity.
Post by: Bob33 on April 12, 2019, 10:41:21 AM
The fact they report the wolf population from 2017-2018 grew by 4 animals means I can't give them credit for any scientific basis or credible attempts at counts. To also report less than 130 animals total in the state is also crazy. That said I've seen over 10% of the state's population of wolves!Do they report "no more than 130" or "at least 130"?
Post by: fowl smacker on April 12, 2019, 10:04:25 PM
Think of it as a tip line. Sure you know that you can profile and weed out 99% of what comes in. But 1% might have just enough of a credible ring to it that you follow up.I understand that, but the Mt. Baker wilderness like the OP was talking about is far from downtown Seattle.
Let's say you have 3 total people working wolf sightings (doubt there are that many). How many hours do you want them spending looking in downtown Seattle, or Forks? We know where the general mass of wolf packs are. My guess is that when someone shows them pictures on the outlying regions of known packs, they're probably jumping on that opportunity.
Post by: mtn muley madness on April 13, 2019, 12:16:13 AM
Maybe you did see a wolf, but there is zero chance it was one of the greys that came out of Canada/Yellowstone. It could have been one of the cascade wolves that have been present forever (which is an AWESOME sighting if that's what you saw), a local idiot's domestic, or something of that nature.
If they sounded like they knew your sighting didn't matter, it's because it didn't. I'm not trying to be rude here but everybody always wants to throw WDFW under the bus at the first opportunity without really trying to understand their processes.
WDFW will give you plenty of reasons to talk trash about them. No need to fabricate additional reasons.
You are aware that the Mt Baker Wilderness borders Canada right... well Canada on one side of the wilderness and Century Link Field on the other..naturally...and It didn’t matter to them then cuz it wasn’t a hot topic then. But it is now. There was no money to be made, no reason to care, nothing to get out of the deal. And back then I didn’t care that they didn’t care but with the way things are now and have been for 7 years now how are You still going to try to deceive people that know your not
Being honest. And when you’re the state agency getting paid by the the people and the people have pictures with GPS coordinates putting those pictures in a specific area and you couldn’t care less and not only that you have the balls to tell the same public wolves aren’t here or there knowing darn well sure they are and the public knows your full of it...all because they may or may not be a breeding pair? Seems pretty silly. And I know, the gray wolves out of Canada/Yellowstone only started coming in to Washington after their papers cleared immigration which for Western Wa was like a week ago. Kind of like the Grizz. They too are waiting for their paperwork to clear before coming to WA because it’s not like they aren’t already here as well..Also Now that you mention it it probably was an idiot domestic..I see them everywhere, especially places I don’t see another person for 7-14 days at. Or maybe those are just grouse? Heck I don’t know could have been a honey badger. Either way, it was probably just a lion. It’s much clearer to me having you tell me what I saw, thanks! Not trying to be rude, just really sarcastic.
Post by: mtn muley madness on April 13, 2019, 12:20:18 AM
Post by: mtn muley madness on April 13, 2019, 12:29:35 AM
Post by: hunter399 on April 13, 2019, 08:49:22 AM
Maybe you did see a wolf, but there is zero chance it was one of the greys that came out of Canada/Yellowstone. It could have been one of the cascade wolves that have been present forever (which is an AWESOME sighting if that's what you saw), a local idiot's domestic, or something of that nature.
If they sounded like they knew your sighting didn't matter, it's because it didn't. I'm not trying to be rude here but everybody always wants to throw WDFW under the bus at the first opportunity without really trying to understand their processes.
WDFW will give you plenty of reasons to talk trash about them. No need to fabricate additional reasons.
I think WDFW are driving the bus .
In a reckless dangerous manner with mangement of many different species.
https://images.app.goo.gl/iTfbzvNK6AF7LRtK6
Hehehehehe/hahahahaha :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Funniest part they just turn the wipper on like it's gonna wipe off like a bug.
Post by: Whitpirate on May 16, 2019, 06:50:43 PM
The fact they report the wolf population from 2017-2018 grew by 4 animals means I can't give them credit for any scientific basis or credible attempts at counts. To also report less than 130 animals total in the state is also crazy. That said I've seen over 10% of the state's population of wolves!Do they report "no more than 130" or "at least 130"?
https://wdfw.wa.gov/news/washingtons-wolf-population-increases-10th-straight-year (https://wdfw.wa.gov/news/washingtons-wolf-population-increases-10th-straight-year)
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) today published its annual year-end report, which shows the state has a minimum of 126 individual wolves, 27 packs, and 15 successful breeding pairs – male and female adults who have raised at least two pups that survived through the end of the year. A year ago, those numbers were 122, 22, and 14, respectively.
"minimum" but they stick to the 4 net gain. When uncontrolled litters should be at least 25%.
Post by: Special T on May 17, 2019, 07:04:23 AM
I'm mostly curious what they are going to do when they are taken off the ESA.
According to our director leaving them on the ESA endangers all other animals, because they dont need that kind of protection.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk