Post by: wolfbait on July 17, 2019, 11:39:49 AM
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/jul/10/wolf-pack-to-be-targeted-by-state-shooters-after-r/
Post by: jackelope on July 17, 2019, 11:54:44 AM
Post by: wolfbait on July 17, 2019, 08:53:21 PM
For the wolf lovers on H-W----Washington State Officials to Kill Wolf Families to Protect Cows
https://nywolf.org/2019/07/washington-state-officials-to-kill-wolf-families-to-protect-cows/?fbclid=IwAR2uy9sJhKCS0QQpqAjYSurfMH97X584oxhKnnm0jfFEDS-ZJnhorB_IJ7w#.XSZWE9tO40o.facebook
Post by: Dan-o on July 17, 2019, 09:31:27 PM
Hopefully they get after it and shoot the whole pack before more cattle are slaughtered....
For the wolf lovers on H-W----Washington State Officials to Kill Wolf Families to Protect Cows
https://nywolf.org/2019/07/washington-state-officials-to-kill-wolf-families-to-protect-cows/?fbclid=IwAR2uy9sJhKCS0QQpqAjYSurfMH97X584oxhKnnm0jfFEDS-ZJnhorB_IJ7w#.XSZWE9tO40o.facebook
Hope they get the pack.
I like the part about working to be able to manage the three regions separately, so the NE doesn't have to be held hostage.
Post by: nwwanderer on July 17, 2019, 09:42:30 PM
Post by: Bango skank on July 17, 2019, 10:57:49 PM
Did I read today that one male was killed and the operation was suspended to see if that would stop the predation? Please tell me that someone from WDFW did not say that
Its what they do every time. and the results are always what common sense would indicate.
Post by: PA BEN on July 18, 2019, 05:33:22 AM
Did I read today that one male was killed and the operation was suspended to see if that would stop the predation? Please tell me that someone from WDFW did not say thatYes, they shot a collared Male that was in on the cattle kills. Now they are setting back seeing what they do now. :bash:
Post by: PA BEN on July 18, 2019, 05:55:47 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 18, 2019, 08:00:47 AM
Post by: Bango skank on July 18, 2019, 08:59:31 AM
Did I read today that one male was killed and the operation was suspended to see if that would stop the predation? Please tell me that someone from WDFW did not say thatYes, they shot a collared Male that was in on the cattle kills. Now they are setting back seeing what they do now. :bash:
Same thing they did with the sherman and togo packs, kill the collared ones, let the others run off. Collared one should be last. WOULD be last if they qctually had any intention of completing the job.
Post by: KFhunter on July 18, 2019, 09:04:30 AM
So what WDFW has been doing is drag out the wolf culling as long as possible until the cattle are pulled off anyways, then there's no more conflict :rolleyes:
next year rinse repeat, the wolves know those cows are tasty and easy to catch
Post by: Ghost Hunter on July 18, 2019, 09:27:14 AM
Post by: KFhunter on July 18, 2019, 02:07:00 PM
Seems like they put the cows out later this year. :dunno: Was able to keep my gate open past the middle of June.
Ya, they don't drop the cattle out there anymore until after June 1
it was a deal they made with gov to give the calves some time to get bigger before they hit the range
Post by: KFhunter on July 18, 2019, 02:10:17 PM
Seems like they put the cows out later this year. :dunno: Was able to keep my gate open past the middle of June.
Ya, they don't drop the cattle out there anymore until after June 1
it was a deal they made with gov to give the calves some time to get bigger before they hit the range
I also noticed they don't put their best cattle in those wolf areas, smart, guess I wouldn't either if they were more likely to get ate, the wolves would be eating tough old girls.
Post by: buckfvr on July 18, 2019, 02:33:24 PM
Just when you think maybe the new director will be different, they go and pull the same bs stunt as before. The fight isnt over, its just beginning.
Post by: wolfbait on July 21, 2019, 01:24:05 PM
I cant decide if the bios are actually as stupid as they appear to be or if they are just the fall guys for wdfw......job or no job, I'd not act stupid to further an agenda for my employer. And agenda it is when they keep killing the collared animal so they can play the "we cant find them" card. Goes to show, there are more pro wolfie constituents than hunters.
Just when you think maybe the new director will be different, they go and pull the same bs stunt as before. The fight isnt over, its just beginning.
Actually the fight is over, we lost after the BS wolf plan came out and everything went south from there. WA with at least 18 years worth of wolves according to WDFW, and if the truth were known wolves were being dumped in WA long before their claim of 2002.
90% of the wolf packs are not collared, at this point no one has a clue as to how many wolves WA has, one thing that hasn't changed is the ungulates move to town, and hang around homes when there is a wolf problem, a sure way of knowing you have wolves.
One top WDFW official said dumping wolves in WA and allowing them to grow out of control was the stupidest thing WDFW had ever done, but he won't say that publicly.
As far as biologist, look at Scott Fitkin as an example and then look at the crew running WDFW, the blame game can go on forever, putting them all in the same basket and you have the agenda driven Wildlands Project. This is just a big game to them and time is on their side, 70% of wolves need to be killed each year to hold a wolf population steady.
Even if wolves were delisted tomorrow, we couldn't shoot our way out of this problem. We have past the point where the public has taken the wolf problem into their hands, wolves are being shot on sight, and more then a few LEO's are on the same page.
WDFW will be the most hated agencies in WA before long.
And then there's the cougars problem etc.........
Post by: PA BEN on July 23, 2019, 07:16:02 AM
https://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors/livestock/ne-washington-wolfpack-continues-attacks-on-cattle/article_2763fcea-ac96-11e9-8651-97cd8ca4a214.html?fbclid=IwAR06WIR91GUZSGK9-TbBQExeXfpkrofjjfDsth9AqKFiMp9hV6DlHkpQhAA
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 23, 2019, 07:19:59 AM
Post by: bearpaw on July 23, 2019, 05:02:49 PM
OPT pack update
Quote
Director Susewind is now assessing this situation and considering next steps. WDFW will keep the public informed about this activity through weekly updates. The next update will be provided on July 30.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/species-habitats/at-risk/species-recovery/gray-wolf/updates/opt-pack-update-7-23-19
Post by: Dan-o on July 23, 2019, 06:23:22 PM
The ad had lots of cool facts about how much healthier the wolves make a place and how bad that mean rancher is.
I just wish they had to pay the costs personally.
Post by: KFhunter on July 23, 2019, 06:29:26 PM
Post by: jstone on July 23, 2019, 06:31:59 PM
Post by: buckfvr on July 23, 2019, 06:50:02 PM
Full page ad in the Seattle times trying to get people to call the WDFW Diretor and plead/demand they stop killing wolves.
The ad had lots of cool facts about how much healthier the wolves make a place and how bad that mean rancher is.
I just wish they had to pay the costs personally.
9 out of 10 of the city persona that has nothing to do but complain about things they dont understand would shut their pie holes if it cost them a license and a tag to have a voice.
Post by: Bango skank on July 23, 2019, 06:52:29 PM
Full page ad in the Seattle times trying to get people to call the WDFW Diretor and plead/demand they stop killing wolves.
The ad had lots of cool facts about how much healthier the wolves make a place and how bad that mean rancher is.
I just wish they had to pay the costs personally.
9 out of 10 of the city persona that has nothing to do but complain about things they dont understand would shut their pie holes if it cost them a license and a tag to have a voice.
Unfortunately the internet gives everybody a voice, no matter how stupid they may be, or how assinine their opinions. Look at me, perfect example.
Post by: wolfbait on July 24, 2019, 07:17:40 AM
We'll see if the director has the backbone to do what needs to be done! How many more cattle does the producer have to lose before WDFW acts responsibly?
OPT pack updateQuoteDirector Susewind is now assessing this situation and considering next steps. WDFW will keep the public informed about this activity through weekly updates. The next update will be provided on July 30.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/species-habitats/at-risk/species-recovery/gray-wolf/updates/opt-pack-update-7-23-19
The wolf is about getting cattle off pubic lands and ruining hunting, so far WDFW have done their level best to insure wolves are doing as much damage as possible. WDFW know the entire pack needs to go, this has been proven over and over agin in every state to date.
This BS game of WDFW is the reason most ranchers are handling their own wolf problems, and wolves go undocumented, and WDFW win agin.
Post by: buckfvr on July 24, 2019, 09:06:27 AM
Post by: 2MANY on July 24, 2019, 09:09:23 AM
FIRE AWAY!!!!
Post by: HighlandLofts on July 29, 2019, 06:14:51 PM
Post by: xX Let ER Rip Xx on July 30, 2019, 03:18:14 PM
Post by: wolfbait on July 30, 2019, 06:55:57 PM
They need to figure out how to manage predators. Wether the predators are wolfs or grizzly bears. Management needs to be understood before they have to resort to killing them all. They failed to figure that part out and that’s why they are the way they are now
WDFW have never had any plans on managing wolves, proven by their BS wolf plan and the fact that they refuse to confirm wolves/wolf packs unless they are forced to do so. Look at their asinine management of cougars etc. it isn't that they don't know how to manage predators, they are managing predators to end ungulate hunting, and doing a fine job of it.
Firsts wolves and now grizzles, WDFW were doing the wolf/grizzly bear push in the 1980's, and here we are 2019 overrun with wolves and next will be problem big bears...
Post by: buckfvr on July 30, 2019, 07:36:36 PM
They have their agenda and the only way to end their agenda is to remove all of them from their position.
It must start with the governor........
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 31, 2019, 07:02:08 AM
They have their agenda and the only way to end their agenda is to remove all of them from their position.
It must start with the governor........
Good luck. When Inslee's out, sideshow Bob will be next.
Post by: KFhunter on July 31, 2019, 08:35:52 AM
Post by: Bango skank on July 31, 2019, 08:58:49 AM
I read 27 cattle (or more) wounded or killed by profanity wolves.
Thats just the confirmed number since september
Post by: KFhunter on July 31, 2019, 09:45:29 AM
OSU did a study on cattle with ptsd, low weights, difficult to handle, less birth rates..the losses are really stacking up!
If the cattle industry suffers a few years of low prices in the markets coupled with high wolf losses....
Post by: KFhunter on July 31, 2019, 09:46:35 AM
Post by: PA BEN on July 31, 2019, 10:53:55 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 31, 2019, 10:56:20 AM
Post by: bearpaw on July 31, 2019, 01:04:32 PM
Post by: X-Force on July 31, 2019, 01:07:28 PM
They just approved to kill the rest of the pack. :IBCOOL:
I don’t know how you can celebrate removing a pack especially if it’s a breeding pair. We are so close to meeting delisting and this just pushes that process back.
Post by: bearpaw on July 31, 2019, 01:14:25 PM
They just approved to kill the rest of the pack. :IBCOOL:
I don’t know how you can celebrate removing a pack especially if it’s a breeding pair. We are so close to meeting delisting and this just pushes that process back.
I don't understand why anyone would want the rancher to keep suffering losses? I also don't see how it makes any difference in delisting, the northeast zone must have three times as many breeding pairs as is required for delisting already. Until there are enough breeding pairs in the southwest zone I don't think it matters how many more packs are created or eliminated in the northeast? Am I missing something? :dunno:
Post by: X-Force on July 31, 2019, 02:09:27 PM
They just approved to kill the rest of the pack. :IBCOOL:
I don’t know how you can celebrate removing a pack especially if it’s a breeding pair. We are so close to meeting delisting and this just pushes that process back.
I don't understand why anyone would want the rancher to keep suffering losses? I also don't see how it makes any difference in delisting, the northeast zone must have three times as many breeding pairs as is required for delisting already. Until there are enough breeding pairs in the southwest zone I don't think it matters how many more packs are created or eliminated in the northeast? Am I missing something? :dunno:
I’m not denying or minimizing the ranchers struggles but pack elimination isn’t worth celebrating.
If I’m not mistaken it’s 15 breeding pairs for 3 years or 18 for 1 year for delisting.
Judging by the size of the recent stool sample survey south of I90 wolf populations should start to be identified down there.
Post by: Bango skank on July 31, 2019, 02:11:51 PM
They just approved to kill the rest of the pack. :IBCOOL:
I don’t know how you can celebrate removing a pack especially if it’s a breeding pair. We are so close to meeting delisting and this just pushes that process back.
I don't understand why anyone would want the rancher to keep suffering losses? I also don't see how it makes any difference in delisting, the northeast zone must have three times as many breeding pairs as is required for delisting already. Until there are enough breeding pairs in the southwest zone I don't think it matters how many more packs are created or eliminated in the northeast? Am I missing something? :dunno:
I’m not denying or minimizing the ranchers struggles but pack elimination isn’t worth celebrating.
If I’m not mistaken it’s 15 breeding pairs for 3 years or 18 for 1 year for delisting.
Judging by the size of the recent stool sample survey south of I90 wolf populations should start to be identified down there.
If you think were ever going to have any wolf hunting or any meaningful management in this state, i got a bridge to sell ya.
Post by: Wunderlich33 on July 31, 2019, 02:25:16 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on July 31, 2019, 02:31:34 PM
Post by: X-Force on July 31, 2019, 02:33:57 PM
According to everything written on here about wolves we have nothing to worry about. Either wolves will starting eating coasties or wolves will eat all the ungulates. If coasties start to get eaten they will demand wolf hunting seasons. If the ungulates get eaten we won’t have to worry about hunting seasons.They just approved to kill the rest of the pack. :IBCOOL:
I don’t know how you can celebrate removing a pack especially if it’s a breeding pair. We are so close to meeting delisting and this just pushes that process back.
I don't understand why anyone would want the rancher to keep suffering losses? I also don't see how it makes any difference in delisting, the northeast zone must have three times as many breeding pairs as is required for delisting already. Until there are enough breeding pairs in the southwest zone I don't think it matters how many more packs are created or eliminated in the northeast? Am I missing something? :dunno:
I’m not denying or minimizing the ranchers struggles but pack elimination isn’t worth celebrating.
If I’m not mistaken it’s 15 breeding pairs for 3 years or 18 for 1 year for delisting.
Judging by the size of the recent stool sample survey south of I90 wolf populations should start to be identified down there.
If you think were ever going to have any wolf hunting or any meaningful management in this state, i got a bridge to sell ya.
Post by: X-Force on July 31, 2019, 02:34:54 PM
I'm very pessimistic of wolf de-listing as well. If wolf losses truly are a significant issue to the bottom line, then cattle operations in the NE better figure out how to adapt their business to a changed environment...something that doesn't rely on government assistance in any way.
Show me an ag sector that doesn’t rely on government assistance.
Post by: idahohuntr on July 31, 2019, 02:42:10 PM
I can't name a single one.I'm very pessimistic of wolf de-listing as well. If wolf losses truly are a significant issue to the bottom line, then cattle operations in the NE better figure out how to adapt their business to a changed environment...something that doesn't rely on government assistance in any way.
Show me an ag sector that doesn’t rely on government assistance.
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 31, 2019, 02:57:07 PM
Notice how they call Wielgus "controversial", but say nothing about him skewing his data to forward his agenda on this very study. I thought Spokane was more conservative. :dunno:
Post by: Alchase on July 31, 2019, 03:16:38 PM
They just approved to kill the rest of the pack. :IBCOOL:
I don’t know how you can celebrate removing a pack especially if it’s a breeding pair.
They will just continue teaching their pack to be cattle killers if not eliminated.
Post by: bearpaw on July 31, 2019, 03:30:32 PM
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/jul/10/wolf-pack-to-be-targeted-by-state-shooters-after-r/
Notice how they call Wielgus "controversial", but say nothing about him skewing his data to forward his agenda on this very study. I thought Spokane was more conservative. :dunno:
Most newspapers in any large city are MSM types!
I agree with everyone in respect to the thought that wolf season will likely never happen. However, if wolves are delisted the state legislature will likely create a wolf management team/plan involving government hunters that will act on wolf predation and that will likely get better results than while wolves are listed.
They just approved to kill the rest of the pack. :IBCOOL:
I don’t know how you can celebrate removing a pack especially if it’s a breeding pair. We are so close to meeting delisting and this just pushes that process back.
I don't understand why anyone would want the rancher to keep suffering losses? I also don't see how it makes any difference in delisting, the northeast zone must have three times as many breeding pairs as is required for delisting already. Until there are enough breeding pairs in the southwest zone I don't think it matters how many more packs are created or eliminated in the northeast? Am I missing something? :dunno:
I’m not denying or minimizing the ranchers struggles but pack elimination isn’t worth celebrating.
If I’m not mistaken it’s 15 breeding pairs for 3 years or 18 for 1 year for delisting.
Judging by the size of the recent stool sample survey south of I90 wolf populations should start to be identified down there.
I think it's 18 for 3 years.
Taking out this pack is absolutely essential! Killing that pack will save countless cattle! An additional benefit is that it will save countless moose, elk, and deer in Ferry County. WDFW is removing the pack because they are faced with no other reasonable choice! I will definitely be glad when they are eliminated as will many other local people who see the damage daily in NE WA.
They will just continue teaching their pack to be cattle killers if not eliminated.Alchase has it exactly correct! :tup:
Post by: X-Force on July 31, 2019, 03:39:22 PM
Post by: Alchase on July 31, 2019, 03:43:35 PM
With wolf population growth rate of 15% killing 1 pack is only temporary. Another pack of the same size will be their next year or the following. Eliminating a pack is only a stop gap. Ungulates are still under the same predation and cattle will be put in the same spot. A more well thought-out approach is needed. I don’t have the answer but what we have been seeing isn’t any sort of fix.
Sure it is, those Wolves won't be killing cattle.
Fixed it :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on July 31, 2019, 04:07:36 PM
With wolf population growth rate of 15% killing 1 pack is only temporary. Another pack of the same size will be their next year or the following. Eliminating a pack is only a stop gap. Ungulates are still under the same predation and cattle will be put in the same spot. A more well thought-out approach is needed. I don’t have the answer but what we have been seeing isn’t any sort of fix.
Mostly agree, that's why we need many stop gaps!
Post by: KFhunter on July 31, 2019, 07:05:09 PM
We can agree to disagree about ranching on public lands, but wolves are killing cattle on private lands as well.
I think a guy oughta be able to run cattle on private land.
Post by: wolfbait on July 31, 2019, 07:16:52 PM
They just approved to kill the rest of the pack. :IBCOOL:
I don’t know how you can celebrate removing a pack especially if it’s a breeding pair. We are so close to meeting delisting and this just pushes that process back.
I don't understand why anyone would want the rancher to keep suffering losses? I also don't see how it makes any difference in delisting, the northeast zone must have three times as many breeding pairs as is required for delisting already. Until there are enough breeding pairs in the southwest zone I don't think it matters how many more packs are created or eliminated in the northeast? Am I missing something? :dunno:
I’m not denying or minimizing the ranchers struggles but pack elimination isn’t worth celebrating.
If I’m not mistaken it’s 15 breeding pairs for 3 years or 18 for 1 year for delisting.
Judging by the size of the recent stool sample survey south of I90 wolf populations should start to be identified down there.
If you think were ever going to have any wolf hunting or any meaningful management in this state, i got a bridge to sell ya.
:yeah: The only management will have to come from citizens, just as ranchers etc. have been doing for quite some time now.
Post by: Ridgeratt on July 31, 2019, 08:04:37 PM
https://www.khq.com/news/wdfw-rethinking-how-it-deals-with-wildlife-attacks-on-livestock/article_d1256d20-b3eb-11e9-a89d-5762c7a806bd.html
FERRY COUNTY, Wash. - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is in talks to rework how the organization addresses attacks on wildlife grazing on public lands by wildlife.
Over the last three years, wolves belonging to the OPT Pack have been involved in multiple conflicts with livestock on grazing allotments on the public lands.
The Diamond M Ranch's public land livestock operations have resulted in the killing of 20 recovering wolves, including Wedge Pack in 2012, the Profanity Peak Pack in 2016, the Sherman Pack in 2017, as well as wolves removed from the Sherman and Togo Packs in 2018, and now the OPT Pack.
WDFW said the constants between the deaths of recovering wolves and the attacks are the producer and the public land area being grazed.
A letter submitted WDFW Director Kelly Susewind asks for WDFW to take a different approach and instead prioritize wildlife over livestock on public grazing lands.
The letter says livestock should be relocated and wildlife should not be killed if conflict occurs.
Lands Council Executive Director Mike Peterson and WDFW Director Kelly Susewind discussed the proposal during a meeting Wednesday.
Post by: Dan-o on July 31, 2019, 09:35:22 PM
Looks like they have put it to black and white.
https://www.khq.com/news/wdfw-rethinking-how-it-deals-with-wildlife-attacks-on-livestock/article_d1256d20-b3eb-11e9-a89d-5762c7a806bd.html
FERRY COUNTY, Wash. - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is in talks to rework how the organization addresses attacks on wildlife grazing on public lands by wildlife.
Over the last three years, wolves belonging to the OPT Pack have been involved in multiple conflicts with livestock on grazing allotments on the public lands.
The Diamond M Ranch's public land livestock operations have resulted in the killing of 20 recovering wolves, including Wedge Pack in 2012, the Profanity Peak Pack in 2016, the Sherman Pack in 2017, as well as wolves removed from the Sherman and Togo Packs in 2018, and now the OPT Pack.
WDFW said the constants between the deaths of recovering wolves and the attacks are the producer and the public land area being grazed.
A letter submitted WDFW Director Kelly Susewind asks for WDFW to take a different approach and instead prioritize wildlife over livestock on public grazing lands.
The letter says livestock should be relocated and wildlife should not be killed if conflict occurs.
Lands Council Executive Director Mike Peterson and WDFW Director Kelly Susewind discussed the proposal during a meeting Wednesday.
I can't tell from the article if the letter as submitted to Susewind or by Susewind???
It'd be a bad blow to those who wanted to give him a chance (me included), if the recommendation comes from him.
Post by: bearpaw on August 01, 2019, 05:25:24 AM
Post by: buckfvr on August 01, 2019, 08:36:15 AM
The Diamond M Ranch's public land livestock operations have resulted in the killing of 20 recovering wolves, including Wedge Pack in 2012, the Profanity Peak Pack in 2016, the Sherman Pack in 2017, as well as wolves removed from the Sherman and Togo Packs in 2018, and now the OPT Pack
buckfvr
And yet there are still wolves in each of those areas..........and many others which of course have not been acknowledged. AND, of course we all know the wolves wont bother the cattle once they're on private land........
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 01, 2019, 09:02:58 AM
Post by: bearpaw on August 01, 2019, 09:58:38 AM
I would find it unbelievable that any wildlife manager would make this statement. Clarification is necessary.
:yeah: probably a typo, at least I'm hoping that's the case...
Post by: buckfvr on August 01, 2019, 10:39:03 AM
If WDFW caves and requires ranchers to move cattle then the eco groups have effectively won the war on removing grazing and leases from public land. :twocents:
Add in the murmurs of the feds selling off public lands, our states overwhelming anti hunt/gun population and it sure doesnt fall in step with Pittman Robertson modernization efforts. Feels more like a cash grab as the door slams.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 01, 2019, 11:22:19 AM
The letter was to Susewind...requesting WDFW take that position (move cattle, don't kill wildlife). I think its an extraordinary waste of time and money for WDFW to be involved in any such discussion - they have no authority to require cattle move off federal grazing leases or private lands.Looks like they have put it to black and white.
https://www.khq.com/news/wdfw-rethinking-how-it-deals-with-wildlife-attacks-on-livestock/article_d1256d20-b3eb-11e9-a89d-5762c7a806bd.html
FERRY COUNTY, Wash. - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is in talks to rework how the organization addresses attacks on wildlife grazing on public lands by wildlife.
Over the last three years, wolves belonging to the OPT Pack have been involved in multiple conflicts with livestock on grazing allotments on the public lands.
The Diamond M Ranch's public land livestock operations have resulted in the killing of 20 recovering wolves, including Wedge Pack in 2012, the Profanity Peak Pack in 2016, the Sherman Pack in 2017, as well as wolves removed from the Sherman and Togo Packs in 2018, and now the OPT Pack.
WDFW said the constants between the deaths of recovering wolves and the attacks are the producer and the public land area being grazed.
A letter submitted WDFW Director Kelly Susewind asks for WDFW to take a different approach and instead prioritize wildlife over livestock on public grazing lands.
The letter says livestock should be relocated and wildlife should not be killed if conflict occurs.
Lands Council Executive Director Mike Peterson and WDFW Director Kelly Susewind discussed the proposal during a meeting Wednesday.
I can't tell from the article if the letter as submitted to Susewind or by Susewind???
It'd be a bad blow to those who wanted to give him a chance (me included), if the recommendation comes from him.
However, the overall principle that wildlife has to be culled to eliminate any possible impact to an ag industry is a growing concern of mine. The way some states are managing elk and deer to appease a farmer who plants a crop in a wildlife rich area is a violation of public trust to the core. Reasonable steps to manage conflict should occur...but in some cases its just turning into a wholesale slaughter of the publics wildlife. Add in payments to farmers who don't allow any sort of hunting access to help address the problem and its just salt in an open wound.
Post by: buckfvr on August 01, 2019, 12:41:32 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 01, 2019, 12:52:32 PM
The letter was to Susewind...requesting WDFW take that position (move cattle, don't kill wildlife). I think its an extraordinary waste of time and money for WDFW to be involved in any such discussion - they have no authority to require cattle move off federal grazing leases or private lands.Looks like they have put it to black and white.
https://www.khq.com/news/wdfw-rethinking-how-it-deals-with-wildlife-attacks-on-livestock/article_d1256d20-b3eb-11e9-a89d-5762c7a806bd.html
FERRY COUNTY, Wash. - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is in talks to rework how the organization addresses attacks on wildlife grazing on public lands by wildlife.
Over the last three years, wolves belonging to the OPT Pack have been involved in multiple conflicts with livestock on grazing allotments on the public lands.
The Diamond M Ranch's public land livestock operations have resulted in the killing of 20 recovering wolves, including Wedge Pack in 2012, the Profanity Peak Pack in 2016, the Sherman Pack in 2017, as well as wolves removed from the Sherman and Togo Packs in 2018, and now the OPT Pack.
WDFW said the constants between the deaths of recovering wolves and the attacks are the producer and the public land area being grazed.
A letter submitted WDFW Director Kelly Susewind asks for WDFW to take a different approach and instead prioritize wildlife over livestock on public grazing lands.
The letter says livestock should be relocated and wildlife should not be killed if conflict occurs.
Lands Council Executive Director Mike Peterson and WDFW Director Kelly Susewind discussed the proposal during a meeting Wednesday.
I can't tell from the article if the letter as submitted to Susewind or by Susewind???
It'd be a bad blow to those who wanted to give him a chance (me included), if the recommendation comes from him.
However, the overall principle that wildlife has to be culled to eliminate any possible impact to an ag industry is a growing concern of mine. The way some states are managing elk and deer to appease a farmer who plants a crop in a wildlife rich area is a violation of public trust to the core. Reasonable steps to manage conflict should occur...but in some cases its just turning into a wholesale slaughter of the publics wildlife. Add in payments to farmers who don't allow any sort of hunting access to help address the problem and its just salt in an open wound.
Wolves shouldn't be culled to appease ranchers. They should be actively hunted so they know to fear human interaction.
Post by: bearpaw on August 01, 2019, 01:30:30 PM
The letter was to Susewind...requesting WDFW take that position (move cattle, don't kill wildlife). I think its an extraordinary waste of time and money for WDFW to be involved in any such discussion - they have no authority to require cattle move off federal grazing leases or private lands.Looks like they have put it to black and white.
https://www.khq.com/news/wdfw-rethinking-how-it-deals-with-wildlife-attacks-on-livestock/article_d1256d20-b3eb-11e9-a89d-5762c7a806bd.html
FERRY COUNTY, Wash. - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is in talks to rework how the organization addresses attacks on wildlife grazing on public lands by wildlife.
Over the last three years, wolves belonging to the OPT Pack have been involved in multiple conflicts with livestock on grazing allotments on the public lands.
The Diamond M Ranch's public land livestock operations have resulted in the killing of 20 recovering wolves, including Wedge Pack in 2012, the Profanity Peak Pack in 2016, the Sherman Pack in 2017, as well as wolves removed from the Sherman and Togo Packs in 2018, and now the OPT Pack.
WDFW said the constants between the deaths of recovering wolves and the attacks are the producer and the public land area being grazed.
A letter submitted WDFW Director Kelly Susewind asks for WDFW to take a different approach and instead prioritize wildlife over livestock on public grazing lands.
The letter says livestock should be relocated and wildlife should not be killed if conflict occurs.
Lands Council Executive Director Mike Peterson and WDFW Director Kelly Susewind discussed the proposal during a meeting Wednesday.
I can't tell from the article if the letter as submitted to Susewind or by Susewind???
It'd be a bad blow to those who wanted to give him a chance (me included), if the recommendation comes from him.
However, the overall principle that wildlife has to be culled to eliminate any possible impact to an ag industry is a growing concern of mine. The way some states are managing elk and deer to appease a farmer who plants a crop in a wildlife rich area is a violation of public trust to the core. Reasonable steps to manage conflict should occur...but in some cases its just turning into a wholesale slaughter of the publics wildlife. Add in payments to farmers who don't allow any sort of hunting access to help address the problem and its just salt in an open wound.
When the USFWS planted wolves in the NRM the promise was for a population of a few hundred wolves and producers would be compensated for losses to wolves, perhaps you should review the original USFWS plan to refresh your memory. :dunno:
Most state wolf plans have similar language, including WA.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 01, 2019, 04:22:09 PM
And none of that is relevant to the overarching concern of wildlife being slaughtered exclusively for private commercial ag interests.The letter was to Susewind...requesting WDFW take that position (move cattle, don't kill wildlife). I think its an extraordinary waste of time and money for WDFW to be involved in any such discussion - they have no authority to require cattle move off federal grazing leases or private lands.Looks like they have put it to black and white.
https://www.khq.com/news/wdfw-rethinking-how-it-deals-with-wildlife-attacks-on-livestock/article_d1256d20-b3eb-11e9-a89d-5762c7a806bd.html
FERRY COUNTY, Wash. - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is in talks to rework how the organization addresses attacks on wildlife grazing on public lands by wildlife.
Over the last three years, wolves belonging to the OPT Pack have been involved in multiple conflicts with livestock on grazing allotments on the public lands.
The Diamond M Ranch's public land livestock operations have resulted in the killing of 20 recovering wolves, including Wedge Pack in 2012, the Profanity Peak Pack in 2016, the Sherman Pack in 2017, as well as wolves removed from the Sherman and Togo Packs in 2018, and now the OPT Pack.
WDFW said the constants between the deaths of recovering wolves and the attacks are the producer and the public land area being grazed.
A letter submitted WDFW Director Kelly Susewind asks for WDFW to take a different approach and instead prioritize wildlife over livestock on public grazing lands.
The letter says livestock should be relocated and wildlife should not be killed if conflict occurs.
Lands Council Executive Director Mike Peterson and WDFW Director Kelly Susewind discussed the proposal during a meeting Wednesday.
I can't tell from the article if the letter as submitted to Susewind or by Susewind???
It'd be a bad blow to those who wanted to give him a chance (me included), if the recommendation comes from him.
However, the overall principle that wildlife has to be culled to eliminate any possible impact to an ag industry is a growing concern of mine. The way some states are managing elk and deer to appease a farmer who plants a crop in a wildlife rich area is a violation of public trust to the core. Reasonable steps to manage conflict should occur...but in some cases its just turning into a wholesale slaughter of the publics wildlife. Add in payments to farmers who don't allow any sort of hunting access to help address the problem and its just salt in an open wound.
When the USFWS planted wolves in the NRM the promise was for a population of a few hundred wolves and producers would be compensated for losses to wolves, perhaps you should review the original USFWS plan to refresh your memory. :dunno:
Most state wolf plans have similar language, including WA.
Post by: Alchase on August 01, 2019, 06:13:38 PM
The letter was to Susewind...requesting WDFW take that position (move cattle, don't kill wildlife). I think its an extraordinary waste of time and money for WDFW to be involved in any such discussion - they have no authority to require cattle move off federal grazing leases or private lands.Looks like they have put it to black and white.
https://www.khq.com/news/wdfw-rethinking-how-it-deals-with-wildlife-attacks-on-livestock/article_d1256d20-b3eb-11e9-a89d-5762c7a806bd.html
FERRY COUNTY, Wash. - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is in talks to rework how the organization addresses attacks on wildlife grazing on public lands by wildlife.
Over the last three years, wolves belonging to the OPT Pack have been involved in multiple conflicts with livestock on grazing allotments on the public lands.
The Diamond M Ranch's public land livestock operations have resulted in the killing of 20 recovering wolves, including Wedge Pack in 2012, the Profanity Peak Pack in 2016, the Sherman Pack in 2017, as well as wolves removed from the Sherman and Togo Packs in 2018, and now the OPT Pack.
WDFW said the constants between the deaths of recovering wolves and the attacks are the producer and the public land area being grazed.
A letter submitted WDFW Director Kelly Susewind asks for WDFW to take a different approach and instead prioritize wildlife over livestock on public grazing lands.
The letter says livestock should be relocated and wildlife should not be killed if conflict occurs.
Lands Council Executive Director Mike Peterson and WDFW Director Kelly Susewind discussed the proposal during a meeting Wednesday.
I can't tell from the article if the letter as submitted to Susewind or by Susewind???
It'd be a bad blow to those who wanted to give him a chance (me included), if the recommendation comes from him.
However, the overall principle that wildlife has to be culled to eliminate any possible impact to an ag industry is a growing concern of mine. The way some states are managing elk and deer to appease a farmer who plants a crop in a wildlife rich area is a violation of public trust to the core. Reasonable steps to manage conflict should occur...but in some cases its just turning into a wholesale slaughter of the publics wildlife. Add in payments to farmers who don't allow any sort of hunting access to help address the problem and its just salt in an open wound.
Wolves shouldn't be culled to appease ranchers. They should be actively hunted so they know to fear human interaction.
:yeah:
Yes, that is how it should be!
But if they won't open a season on wolves, which I believe will never happen.
Culling is the only real answer.
Post by: Bushcraft on August 01, 2019, 06:13:44 PM
Kicking the hornet's nest in 3,2,1...
Post by: Dan-o on August 01, 2019, 07:03:16 PM
Perhaps someone ought to ask WDFW about the two wolves killed for livestock depredation south east of Yakima....while WDFW has (fraudulently) said there are no wolves south of I-84
Kicking the hornet's nest in 3,2,1...
Got any proof/documentation?
That would be interesting.
Post by: Nwgunner on August 01, 2019, 10:33:58 PM
Perhaps someone ought to ask WDFW about the two wolves killed for livestock depredation south east of Yakima....while WDFW has (fraudulently) said there are no wolves south of I-84Southeast of Yakima? As in Sunnyside or Prosser? Or down to the Tri cities? Not very suitable wolf habitat if you ask me.
Kicking the hornet's nest in 3,2,1...
Post by: Nwgunner on August 01, 2019, 10:37:14 PM
Also I believe I 84 is on the border of Oregon, Washington. Perhaps you meant I90.Perhaps someone ought to ask WDFW about the two wolves killed for livestock depredation south east of Yakima....while WDFW has (fraudulently) said there are no wolves south of I-84Southeast of Yakima? As in Sunnyside or Prosser? Or down to the Tri cities? Not very suitable wolf habitat if you ask me.
Kicking the hornet's nest in 3,2,1...
Post by: Bushcraft on August 01, 2019, 11:05:02 PM
Call WDFW. Ask for the head biologist in the area. Ask for names and details.
Post by: bearpaw on August 02, 2019, 07:56:28 AM
And none of that is relevant to the overarching concern of wildlife being slaughtered exclusively for private commercial ag interests.The letter was to Susewind...requesting WDFW take that position (move cattle, don't kill wildlife). I think its an extraordinary waste of time and money for WDFW to be involved in any such discussion - they have no authority to require cattle move off federal grazing leases or private lands.Looks like they have put it to black and white.
https://www.khq.com/news/wdfw-rethinking-how-it-deals-with-wildlife-attacks-on-livestock/article_d1256d20-b3eb-11e9-a89d-5762c7a806bd.html
FERRY COUNTY, Wash. - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is in talks to rework how the organization addresses attacks on wildlife grazing on public lands by wildlife.
Over the last three years, wolves belonging to the OPT Pack have been involved in multiple conflicts with livestock on grazing allotments on the public lands.
The Diamond M Ranch's public land livestock operations have resulted in the killing of 20 recovering wolves, including Wedge Pack in 2012, the Profanity Peak Pack in 2016, the Sherman Pack in 2017, as well as wolves removed from the Sherman and Togo Packs in 2018, and now the OPT Pack.
WDFW said the constants between the deaths of recovering wolves and the attacks are the producer and the public land area being grazed.
A letter submitted WDFW Director Kelly Susewind asks for WDFW to take a different approach and instead prioritize wildlife over livestock on public grazing lands.
The letter says livestock should be relocated and wildlife should not be killed if conflict occurs.
Lands Council Executive Director Mike Peterson and WDFW Director Kelly Susewind discussed the proposal during a meeting Wednesday.
I can't tell from the article if the letter as submitted to Susewind or by Susewind???
It'd be a bad blow to those who wanted to give him a chance (me included), if the recommendation comes from him.
However, the overall principle that wildlife has to be culled to eliminate any possible impact to an ag industry is a growing concern of mine. The way some states are managing elk and deer to appease a farmer who plants a crop in a wildlife rich area is a violation of public trust to the core. Reasonable steps to manage conflict should occur...but in some cases its just turning into a wholesale slaughter of the publics wildlife. Add in payments to farmers who don't allow any sort of hunting access to help address the problem and its just salt in an open wound.
When the USFWS planted wolves in the NRM the promise was for a population of a few hundred wolves and producers would be compensated for losses to wolves, perhaps you should review the original USFWS plan to refresh your memory. :dunno:
Most state wolf plans have similar language, including WA.
Nice try, they promised to take care of problem wolves and compensate losses, now some people like you want them to back out of that promise!
Post by: ribka on August 02, 2019, 08:27:43 AM
Shooting a few problem wolves out of 100’s after all other efforts were exhausted is now defined as a “ slaughter “ right out of the radical anti hunting playbook.
When you lie and exaggerate you lose all credibility. Isn’t that something you wrote in the past on here?
How much does Conservation NW receive from WDFW for their failing wolf program?
This entire wolf reintroduction seems to be based on lies, fraud and corruption. But let’s keep cutting back on tags.
And none of that is relevant to the overarching concern of wildlife being slaughtered exclusively for private commercial ag interests.The letter was to Susewind...requesting WDFW take that position (move cattle, don't kill wildlife). I think its an extraordinary waste of time and money for WDFW to be involved in any such discussion - they have no authority to require cattle move off federal grazing leases or private lands.Looks like they have put it to black and white.
https://www.khq.com/news/wdfw-rethinking-how-it-deals-with-wildlife-attacks-on-livestock/article_d1256d20-b3eb-11e9-a89d-5762c7a806bd.html
FERRY COUNTY, Wash. - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is in talks to rework how the organization addresses attacks on wildlife grazing on public lands by wildlife.
Over the last three years, wolves belonging to the OPT Pack have been involved in multiple conflicts with livestock on grazing allotments on the public lands.
The Diamond M Ranch's public land livestock operations have resulted in the killing of 20 recovering wolves, including Wedge Pack in 2012, the Profanity Peak Pack in 2016, the Sherman Pack in 2017, as well as wolves removed from the Sherman and Togo Packs in 2018, and now the OPT Pack.
WDFW said the constants between the deaths of recovering wolves and the attacks are the producer and the public land area being grazed.
A letter submitted WDFW Director Kelly Susewind asks for WDFW to take a different approach and instead prioritize wildlife over livestock on public grazing lands.
The letter says livestock should be relocated and wildlife should not be killed if conflict occurs.
Lands Council Executive Director Mike Peterson and WDFW Director Kelly Susewind discussed the proposal during a meeting Wednesday.
I can't tell from the article if the letter as submitted to Susewind or by Susewind???
It'd be a bad blow to those who wanted to give him a chance (me included), if the recommendation comes from him.
However, the overall principle that wildlife has to be culled to eliminate any possible impact to an ag industry is a growing concern of mine. The way some states are managing elk and deer to appease a farmer who plants a crop in a wildlife rich area is a violation of public trust to the core. Reasonable steps to manage conflict should occur...but in some cases its just turning into a wholesale slaughter of the publics wildlife. Add in payments to farmers who don't allow any sort of hunting access to help address the problem and its just salt in an open wound.
When the USFWS planted wolves in the NRM the promise was for a population of a few hundred wolves and producers would be compensated for losses to wolves, perhaps you should review the original USFWS plan to refresh your memory. :dunno:
Most state wolf plans have similar language, including WA.
Post by: TheStovePipeKid on August 02, 2019, 09:54:53 AM
Post by: KFhunter on August 02, 2019, 10:15:01 AM
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: Tbar on August 02, 2019, 10:16:27 AM
What if this were applied to elk?
Shooting a few problem wolves out of 100’s after all other efforts were exhausted is now defined as a “ slaughter “ right out of the radical anti hunting playbook.
When you lie and exaggerate you lose all credibility. Isn’t that something you wrote in the past on here?
How much does Conservation NW receive from WDFW for their failing wolf program?
This entire wolf reintroduction seems to be based on lies, fraud and corruption. But let’s keep cutting back on tags.And none of that is relevant to the overarching concern of wildlife being slaughtered exclusively for private commercial ag interests.The letter was to Susewind...requesting WDFW take that position (move cattle, don't kill wildlife). I think its an extraordinary waste of time and money for WDFW to be involved in any such discussion - they have no authority to require cattle move off federal grazing leases or private lands.Looks like they have put it to black and white.
https://www.khq.com/news/wdfw-rethinking-how-it-deals-with-wildlife-attacks-on-livestock/article_d1256d20-b3eb-11e9-a89d-5762c7a806bd.html
FERRY COUNTY, Wash. - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is in talks to rework how the organization addresses attacks on wildlife grazing on public lands by wildlife.
Over the last three years, wolves belonging to the OPT Pack have been involved in multiple conflicts with livestock on grazing allotments on the public lands.
The Diamond M Ranch's public land livestock operations have resulted in the killing of 20 recovering wolves, including Wedge Pack in 2012, the Profanity Peak Pack in 2016, the Sherman Pack in 2017, as well as wolves removed from the Sherman and Togo Packs in 2018, and now the OPT Pack.
WDFW said the constants between the deaths of recovering wolves and the attacks are the producer and the public land area being grazed.
A letter submitted WDFW Director Kelly Susewind asks for WDFW to take a different approach and instead prioritize wildlife over livestock on public grazing lands.
The letter says livestock should be relocated and wildlife should not be killed if conflict occurs.
Lands Council Executive Director Mike Peterson and WDFW Director Kelly Susewind discussed the proposal during a meeting Wednesday.
I can't tell from the article if the letter as submitted to Susewind or by Susewind???
It'd be a bad blow to those who wanted to give him a chance (me included), if the recommendation comes from him.
However, the overall principle that wildlife has to be culled to eliminate any possible impact to an ag industry is a growing concern of mine. The way some states are managing elk and deer to appease a farmer who plants a crop in a wildlife rich area is a violation of public trust to the core. Reasonable steps to manage conflict should occur...but in some cases its just turning into a wholesale slaughter of the publics wildlife. Add in payments to farmers who don't allow any sort of hunting access to help address the problem and its just salt in an open wound.
When the USFWS planted wolves in the NRM the promise was for a population of a few hundred wolves and producers would be compensated for losses to wolves, perhaps you should review the original USFWS plan to refresh your memory. :dunno:
Most state wolf plans have similar language, including WA.
Post by: Special T on August 02, 2019, 10:59:57 AM
If applied to elk there is a tangable measurable benefit. Tag sales taxes raised via pitman roblees and sales. Small towns benefit from supporting sportsmen.What if this were applied to elk?
Shooting a few problem wolves out of 100’s after all other efforts were exhausted is now defined as a “ slaughter “ right out of the radical anti hunting playbook.
When you lie and exaggerate you lose all credibility. Isn’t that something you wrote in the past on here?
How much does Conservation NW receive from WDFW for their failing wolf program?
This entire wolf reintroduction seems to be based on lies, fraud and corruption. But let’s keep cutting back on tags.And none of that is relevant to the overarching concern of wildlife being slaughtered exclusively for private commercial ag interests.The letter was to Susewind...requesting WDFW take that position (move cattle, don't kill wildlife). I think its an extraordinary waste of time and money for WDFW to be involved in any such discussion - they have no authority to require cattle move off federal grazing leases or private lands.Looks like they have put it to black and white.
https://www.khq.com/news/wdfw-rethinking-how-it-deals-with-wildlife-attacks-on-livestock/article_d1256d20-b3eb-11e9-a89d-5762c7a806bd.html
FERRY COUNTY, Wash. - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is in talks to rework how the organization addresses attacks on wildlife grazing on public lands by wildlife.
Over the last three years, wolves belonging to the OPT Pack have been involved in multiple conflicts with livestock on grazing allotments on the public lands.
The Diamond M Ranch's public land livestock operations have resulted in the killing of 20 recovering wolves, including Wedge Pack in 2012, the Profanity Peak Pack in 2016, the Sherman Pack in 2017, as well as wolves removed from the Sherman and Togo Packs in 2018, and now the OPT Pack.
WDFW said the constants between the deaths of recovering wolves and the attacks are the producer and the public land area being grazed.
A letter submitted WDFW Director Kelly Susewind asks for WDFW to take a different approach and instead prioritize wildlife over livestock on public grazing lands.
The letter says livestock should be relocated and wildlife should not be killed if conflict occurs.
Lands Council Executive Director Mike Peterson and WDFW Director Kelly Susewind discussed the proposal during a meeting Wednesday.
I can't tell from the article if the letter as submitted to Susewind or by Susewind???
It'd be a bad blow to those who wanted to give him a chance (me included), if the recommendation comes from him.
However, the overall principle that wildlife has to be culled to eliminate any possible impact to an ag industry is a growing concern of mine. The way some states are managing elk and deer to appease a farmer who plants a crop in a wildlife rich area is a violation of public trust to the core. Reasonable steps to manage conflict should occur...but in some cases its just turning into a wholesale slaughter of the publics wildlife. Add in payments to farmers who don't allow any sort of hunting access to help address the problem and its just salt in an open wound.
When the USFWS planted wolves in the NRM the promise was for a population of a few hundred wolves and producers would be compensated for losses to wolves, perhaps you should review the original USFWS plan to refresh your memory. :dunno:
Most state wolf plans have similar language, including WA.
We were told that wolves would bring an economic benefit. Something similar to whale watching or the Sandhill crane festival in Othello.
We are not seeing it here in Wa, and I challenge you to show me where there is a significant economic benefit from wolves. Contrary to the narrative wolves have been in the N Cascades for the whole time they were "exterminated" from the state.
If Susewind folds on this he is done. Fortunately he seems to be inclined to follow through on the departments agreements. Unlike past directors that seemed to drag thier feet. Delay is a tactic and a useful one for Beurocracy. I may not like the agreements because they are to conservative but not following the agreement is showing favoratism. It is why sportsmen have felt frustrated for so long.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Alchase on August 02, 2019, 11:44:12 AM
"SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) — A lawsuit filed Thursday seeks to prevent the state of Washington from killing more wolves from a pack that is preying on cattle.
The Maryland-based Center for a Humane Economy filed the suit in King County Superior Court, contending too many wolves have been killed as a way to protect livestock at a single ranch in the Kettle River Range in Ferry County.
The center and other conservation groups say it may be time to consider moving the cattle off Colville National Forest grazing lands that are also prime wolf habitat.
The state Department of Fish and Wildlife said Wednesday it planned to kill more members of the Old Profanity Territory wolf pack. The agency killed one wolf last month in an effort to change the behavior of the pack.
Since then, the pack has been blamed for killing two cows and injuring five others. The pack is credited with 27 depredations since September.
"The chronic livestock depredations and subsequent wolf removals are stressful and deeply concerning for all those involved," agency director Kelly Susewind said. "The department is working very hard to try to change this pack's behavior."
The Lands Council, a Spokane-based conservation group, said it may be time to move the cattle.
"It is evident at this point, grazing in an area of prime wolf habitat is folly," said Chris Bachman of the Lands Council.
Bachman noted that wolves have come into regular conflict with cattle from the Diamond M Ranch in Ferry County. Conservation groups say the state has killed 18 wolves over the years on behalf of the ranch.
Ranch owner Len McIrvin said his business averages 70 head of cattle lost per year to wolves, and he estimated his losses at more than $1 million.
He doesn't think wolves will stop preying on his cattle just because the state kills a few of the animals.
"If wolves kill my cattle, I have a right to kill wolves," he said.
The Center for Biological Diversity also opposes killing more wolves.
"If this rancher keeps putting cattle in prime wolf habitat, he needs to accept some losses just like any other business," said Sophia Ressler, an attorney at the center.
In 2016, the agency wiped out the Profanity Peak pack of wolves for preying on cattle. The current pack occupies the same general area.
Wolves were exterminated in Washington state by the 1930s on behalf of ranchers. The animals started returning earlier this century from neighboring Idaho and British Columbia.
Most of the wolves are located in the rugged mountains of northeastern Washington, but they have started spreading to other areas of the state.
Officials say the state now has at least 126 wolves in 27 packs with 15 successful breeding pairs. For the first time, a pack has been found living west of the Cascade Range.
Gray wolves are no longer listed as an endangered species under federal protection in eastern Washington. They are still federally protected across the rest of the state, although the federal government is considering lifting those protections."
https://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Washington-to-kill-more-wolves-that-prey-on-cattle-14273089.php
Post by: TheStovePipeKid on August 02, 2019, 11:52:18 AM
Post by: Tbar on August 02, 2019, 11:52:42 AM
So do you support the slaughter of elk exclusively for commercial ag? Because the same principal is being applied to elk.If applied to elk there is a tangable measurable benefit. Tag sales taxes raised via pitman roblees and sales. Small towns benefit from supporting sportsmen.What if this were applied to elk?
Shooting a few problem wolves out of 100’s after all other efforts were exhausted is now defined as a “ slaughter “ right out of the radical anti hunting playbook.
When you lie and exaggerate you lose all credibility. Isn’t that something you wrote in the past on here?
How much does Conservation NW receive from WDFW for their failing wolf program?
This entire wolf reintroduction seems to be based on lies, fraud and corruption. But let’s keep cutting back on tags.And none of that is relevant to the overarching concern of wildlife being slaughtered exclusively for private commercial ag interests.The letter was to Susewind...requesting WDFW take that position (move cattle, don't kill wildlife). I think its an extraordinary waste of time and money for WDFW to be involved in any such discussion - they have no authority to require cattle move off federal grazing leases or private lands.Looks like they have put it to black and white.
https://www.khq.com/news/wdfw-rethinking-how-it-deals-with-wildlife-attacks-on-livestock/article_d1256d20-b3eb-11e9-a89d-5762c7a806bd.html
FERRY COUNTY, Wash. - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is in talks to rework how the organization addresses attacks on wildlife grazing on public lands by wildlife.
Over the last three years, wolves belonging to the OPT Pack have been involved in multiple conflicts with livestock on grazing allotments on the public lands.
The Diamond M Ranch's public land livestock operations have resulted in the killing of 20 recovering wolves, including Wedge Pack in 2012, the Profanity Peak Pack in 2016, the Sherman Pack in 2017, as well as wolves removed from the Sherman and Togo Packs in 2018, and now the OPT Pack.
WDFW said the constants between the deaths of recovering wolves and the attacks are the producer and the public land area being grazed.
A letter submitted WDFW Director Kelly Susewind asks for WDFW to take a different approach and instead prioritize wildlife over livestock on public grazing lands.
The letter says livestock should be relocated and wildlife should not be killed if conflict occurs.
Lands Council Executive Director Mike Peterson and WDFW Director Kelly Susewind discussed the proposal during a meeting Wednesday.
I can't tell from the article if the letter as submitted to Susewind or by Susewind???
It'd be a bad blow to those who wanted to give him a chance (me included), if the recommendation comes from him.
However, the overall principle that wildlife has to be culled to eliminate any possible impact to an ag industry is a growing concern of mine. The way some states are managing elk and deer to appease a farmer who plants a crop in a wildlife rich area is a violation of public trust to the core. Reasonable steps to manage conflict should occur...but in some cases its just turning into a wholesale slaughter of the publics wildlife. Add in payments to farmers who don't allow any sort of hunting access to help address the problem and its just salt in an open wound.
When the USFWS planted wolves in the NRM the promise was for a population of a few hundred wolves and producers would be compensated for losses to wolves, perhaps you should review the original USFWS plan to refresh your memory. :dunno:
Most state wolf plans have similar language, including WA.
We were told that wolves would bring an economic benefit. Something similar to whale watching or the Sandhill crane festival in Othello.
We are not seeing it here in Wa, and I challenge you to show me where there is a significant economic benefit from wolves. Contrary to the narrative wolves have been in the N Cascades for the whole time they were "exterminated" from the state.
If Susewind folds on this he is done. Fortunately he seems to be inclined to follow through on the departments agreements. Unlike past directors that seemed to drag thier feet. Delay is a tactic and a useful one for Beurocracy. I may not like the agreements because they are to conservative but not following the agreement is showing favoratism. It is why sportsmen have felt frustrated for so long.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on August 02, 2019, 12:03:15 PM
Post by: Tbar on August 02, 2019, 12:17:52 PM
Almost every state has special hunts to keep elk out of agriculture, I support that. I do not support shooting and leaving elk lay, they are a food animal and should be utilized. With wolves they need to be shot and destroyed due to the parasites and diseases they carry. I see no benefit to introduce wolves, hunters can be utilized to control game herd numbers. I don't agree with exterminating wolves from the planet, but wolves don't fit and are not needed in heavily human populated areas.Leaving them lay and wholesale slaughter to appease a producer are two totally different things.
Post by: bearpaw on August 02, 2019, 12:21:21 PM
Almost every state has special hunts to keep elk out of agriculture, I support that. I do not support shooting and leaving elk lay, they are a food animal and should be utilized. With wolves they need to be shot and destroyed due to the parasites and diseases they carry. I see no benefit to introduce wolves, hunters can be utilized to control game herd numbers. I don't agree with exterminating wolves from the planet, but wolves don't fit and are not needed in heavily human populated areas.Leaving them lay and wholesale slaughter to appease a producer are two totally different things.
please explain further
Do you not agree that the policies promised in the wolf plans should not be followed?
Post by: Special T on August 02, 2019, 12:22:06 PM
So do you support the slaughter of elk exclusively for commercial ag? Because the same principal is being applied to elk.If applied to elk there is a tangable measurable benefit. Tag sales taxes raised via pitman roblees and sales. Small towns benefit from supporting sportsmen.What if this were applied to elk?
Shooting a few problem wolves out of 100’s after all other efforts were exhausted is now defined as a “ slaughter “ right out of the radical anti hunting playbook.
When you lie and exaggerate you lose all credibility. Isn’t that something you wrote in the past on here?
How much does Conservation NW receive from WDFW for their failing wolf program?
This entire wolf reintroduction seems to be based on lies, fraud and corruption. But let’s keep cutting back on tags.And none of that is relevant to the overarching concern of wildlife being slaughtered exclusively for private commercial ag interests.The letter was to Susewind...requesting WDFW take that position (move cattle, don't kill wildlife). I think its an extraordinary waste of time and money for WDFW to be involved in any such discussion - they have no authority to require cattle move off federal grazing leases or private lands.Looks like they have put it to black and white.
https://www.khq.com/news/wdfw-rethinking-how-it-deals-with-wildlife-attacks-on-livestock/article_d1256d20-b3eb-11e9-a89d-5762c7a806bd.html
FERRY COUNTY, Wash. - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is in talks to rework how the organization addresses attacks on wildlife grazing on public lands by wildlife.
Over the last three years, wolves belonging to the OPT Pack have been involved in multiple conflicts with livestock on grazing allotments on the public lands.
The Diamond M Ranch's public land livestock operations have resulted in the killing of 20 recovering wolves, including Wedge Pack in 2012, the Profanity Peak Pack in 2016, the Sherman Pack in 2017, as well as wolves removed from the Sherman and Togo Packs in 2018, and now the OPT Pack.
WDFW said the constants between the deaths of recovering wolves and the attacks are the producer and the public land area being grazed.
A letter submitted WDFW Director Kelly Susewind asks for WDFW to take a different approach and instead prioritize wildlife over livestock on public grazing lands.
The letter says livestock should be relocated and wildlife should not be killed if conflict occurs.
Lands Council Executive Director Mike Peterson and WDFW Director Kelly Susewind discussed the proposal during a meeting Wednesday.
I can't tell from the article if the letter as submitted to Susewind or by Susewind???
It'd be a bad blow to those who wanted to give him a chance (me included), if the recommendation comes from him.
However, the overall principle that wildlife has to be culled to eliminate any possible impact to an ag industry is a growing concern of mine. The way some states are managing elk and deer to appease a farmer who plants a crop in a wildlife rich area is a violation of public trust to the core. Reasonable steps to manage conflict should occur...but in some cases its just turning into a wholesale slaughter of the publics wildlife. Add in payments to farmers who don't allow any sort of hunting access to help address the problem and its just salt in an open wound.
When the USFWS planted wolves in the NRM the promise was for a population of a few hundred wolves and producers would be compensated for losses to wolves, perhaps you should review the original USFWS plan to refresh your memory. :dunno:
Most state wolf plans have similar language, including WA.
We were told that wolves would bring an economic benefit. Something similar to whale watching or the Sandhill crane festival in Othello.
We are not seeing it here in Wa, and I challenge you to show me where there is a significant economic benefit from wolves. Contrary to the narrative wolves have been in the N Cascades for the whole time they were "exterminated" from the state.
If Susewind folds on this he is done. Fortunately he seems to be inclined to follow through on the departments agreements. Unlike past directors that seemed to drag thier feet. Delay is a tactic and a useful one for Beurocracy. I may not like the agreements because they are to conservative but not following the agreement is showing favoratism. It is why sportsmen have felt frustrated for so long.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Elk are hunt-able by the public Wolves are not. If they were then it would be a different story. The argument has been made by many on here that sportsmen should be allowed more access if Deer or Elk are a problem for farmers. This is a great discussion, but it not relevant to wolves. Sidestepping the issue on Elk and Ag doesn't answer the question of public value
I pointed out how Elk have a tangible measurable benefit to sportsmen and the public. There has been some measurement for non consumptive wildlife viewing like Whale watching and Sand hill crane festival. Show me the Data from wolves. not necessarily from wa but anywhere in the USA.
Post by: bearpaw on August 02, 2019, 12:25:34 PM
Almost every state has special hunts to keep elk out of agriculture, I support that. I do not support shooting and leaving elk lay, they are a food animal and should be utilized. With wolves they need to be shot and destroyed due to the parasites and diseases they carry. I see no benefit to introduce wolves, hunters can be utilized to control game herd numbers. I don't agree with exterminating wolves from the planet, but wolves don't fit and are not needed in heavily human populated areas.Leaving them lay and wholesale slaughter to appease a producer are two totally different things.
please explain further
Do you not agree that the policies promised in the wolf plans should not be followed?
Does this also mean that we can ignore tribal treaties?
Post by: Special T on August 02, 2019, 12:31:10 PM
Almost every state has special hunts to keep elk out of agriculture, I support that. I do not support shooting and leaving elk lay, they are a food animal and should be utilized. With wolves they need to be shot and destroyed due to the parasites and diseases they carry. I see no benefit to introduce wolves, hunters can be utilized to control game herd numbers. I don't agree with exterminating wolves from the planet, but wolves don't fit and are not needed in heavily human populated areas.Leaving them lay and wholesale slaughter to appease a producer are two totally different things.
please explain further
Do you not agree that the policies promised in the wolf plans should not be followed?
Does this also mean that we can ignore tribal treaties?
I will Use MJs moniker for this... Whataboutism... This a bunny trail leading away from the very focused point of discussion. making agreements, following through on them, and measuring the proposed success of the plan. Measure this plan on its merits and do not get distracted by the shiny bobble of a discussion point that is brought up. save that for a separate thread because the 2 are not linked.
Post by: bearpaw on August 02, 2019, 12:35:26 PM
Almost every state has special hunts to keep elk out of agriculture, I support that. I do not support shooting and leaving elk lay, they are a food animal and should be utilized. With wolves they need to be shot and destroyed due to the parasites and diseases they carry. I see no benefit to introduce wolves, hunters can be utilized to control game herd numbers. I don't agree with exterminating wolves from the planet, but wolves don't fit and are not needed in heavily human populated areas.Leaving them lay and wholesale slaughter to appease a producer are two totally different things.
please explain further
Do you not agree that the policies promised in the wolf plans should not be followed?
Does this also mean that we can ignore tribal treaties?
I will Use MJs moniker for this... Whataboutism... This a bunny trail leading away from the very focused point of discussion. making agreements, following through on them, and measuring the proposed success of the plan. Measure this plan on its merits and do not get distracted by the shiny bobble of a discussion point that is brought up. save that for a separate thread because the 2 are not linked.
I think there is a relationship, clearly it seems there is a different standard being applied to agreements with the tribes and agreements that impact ranchers and rural citizens living in areas where wolves are over populating.
Post by: Platensek-po on August 02, 2019, 12:35:56 PM
Post by: Platensek-po on August 02, 2019, 12:39:54 PM
Made with sovereign nations and the other is a promise made by a government to its own people. Promises usually can be broken, especially by governments, without repercussions. Breaking treaties usually means that there will be some form
Of repercussion. I mean is anyone surprised that federal and state government lied to its constituents in order to get what it wants?
Almost every state has special hunts to keep elk out of agriculture, I support that. I do not support shooting and leaving elk lay, they are a food animal and should be utilized. With wolves they need to be shot and destroyed due to the parasites and diseases they carry. I see no benefit to introduce wolves, hunters can be utilized to control game herd numbers. I don't agree with exterminating wolves from the planet, but wolves don't fit and are not needed in heavily human populated areas.Leaving them lay and wholesale slaughter to appease a producer are two totally different things.
please explain further
Do you not agree that the policies promised in the wolf plans should not be followed?
Does this also mean that we can ignore tribal treaties?
I will Use MJs moniker for this... Whataboutism... This a bunny trail leading away from the very focused point of discussion. making agreements, following through on them, and measuring the proposed success of the plan. Measure this plan on its merits and do not get distracted by the shiny bobble of a discussion point that is brought up. save that for a separate thread because the 2 are not linked.
I think there is a relationship, clearly it seems there is a different standard being applied to agreements with the tribes and agreements that impact ranchers and rural citizens living in areas where wolves are over populating.
Post by: Special T on August 02, 2019, 12:46:19 PM
Almost every state has special hunts to keep elk out of agriculture, I support that. I do not support shooting and leaving elk lay, they are a food animal and should be utilized. With wolves they need to be shot and destroyed due to the parasites and diseases they carry. I see no benefit to introduce wolves, hunters can be utilized to control game herd numbers. I don't agree with exterminating wolves from the planet, but wolves don't fit and are not needed in heavily human populated areas.Leaving them lay and wholesale slaughter to appease a producer are two totally different things.
please explain further
Do you not agree that the policies promised in the wolf plans should not be followed?
Does this also mean that we can ignore tribal treaties?
I will Use MJs moniker for this... Whataboutism... This a bunny trail leading away from the very focused point of discussion. making agreements, following through on them, and measuring the proposed success of the plan. Measure this plan on its merits and do not get distracted by the shiny bobble of a discussion point that is brought up. save that for a separate thread because the 2 are not linked.
I think there is a relationship, clearly it seems there is a different standard being applied to agreements with the tribes and agreements that impact ranchers and rural citizens living in areas where wolves are over populating.
T bar didnt make a case, he asked a question which is the very essence of whataboutism. If he wants to make the case by all means make it and i would love to hear it. Instead the question is thrown out to make us chase our tails instead of measuring the agreements sucess or failure... not to mention the execution of the agreement.
Post by: bearpaw on August 02, 2019, 12:49:24 PM
Seems like the one thing we all agree on is that wolves should be managed through hunting. I think a lot of the problems and animosity would go away if people were allowed to purchase tags and hunt them. I personally believe that wolves, along with all the other native fauna, deserve a place on the landscape. That does not mean that they need to be protected at all costs and should not be managed. I would also like to see bison retured to the landscape but big ag is against that wholeheartedly. I think that these threads are interesting because they show how much we disagree on certain specifics but it seems we have a hard time banding together to get what we all agree on. Feels like we should band together on the things we agree on, that wolves should be hunted and managed, and then worry about other specifics later.
I agree with you that much of the drama would go away if we could get beyond the era of "wolf protectionism".
I would like to see bison too, but I understand that some diseases they carry could cause this country to lose many cattle. I don't remember the specifics, but certain diseases spread by wild bovines can destroy the cattle industry in any country. It might be tb or something like that, someone else probably remembers the specifics. For that reason we probably should not allow bison to be too widespread. I'm sure with a little research or someone providing more info this issue could be better understood.
Quote
T bar didnt make a case, he asked a question which is the very essence of whataboutism. If he wants to make the case by all means make it and i would love to hear it. Instead the question is thrown out to make us chase our tails instead of measuring the agreements sucess or failure... not to mention the execution of the agreement.:yeah: agreed
Post by: KFhunter on August 02, 2019, 12:49:45 PM
Beyond that its just a numbers game of how many and where. I don't think I've ever seen anyone not want some form of management or not want them hunted here on HW forum.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on August 02, 2019, 12:50:52 PM
Well there is a big difference. One has to do with treaties
Made with sovereign nations and the other is a promise made by a government to its own people. Promises usually can be broken, especially by governments, without repercussions. Breaking treaties usually means that there will be some form
Of repercussion. I mean is anyone surprised that federal and state government lied to its constituents in order to get what it wants?Almost every state has special hunts to keep elk out of agriculture, I support that. I do not support shooting and leaving elk lay, they are a food animal and should be utilized. With wolves they need to be shot and destroyed due to the parasites and diseases they carry. I see no benefit to introduce wolves, hunters can be utilized to control game herd numbers. I don't agree with exterminating wolves from the planet, but wolves don't fit and are not needed in heavily human populated areas.Leaving them lay and wholesale slaughter to appease a producer are two totally different things.
please explain further
Do you not agree that the policies promised in the wolf plans should not be followed?
Does this also mean that we can ignore tribal treaties?
I will Use MJs moniker for this... Whataboutism... This a bunny trail leading away from the very focused point of discussion. making agreements, following through on them, and measuring the proposed success of the plan. Measure this plan on its merits and do not get distracted by the shiny bobble of a discussion point that is brought up. save that for a separate thread because the 2 are not linked.
I think there is a relationship, clearly it seems there is a different standard being applied to agreements with the tribes and agreements that impact ranchers and rural citizens living in areas where wolves are over populating.
Thank you for showing the double standard! :tup:
Post by: Tbar on August 02, 2019, 12:57:25 PM
You guys realize the only ones actively hunting wolves are tribes? Way to alienate allies. Not surprising on your hatewa website. You perpetuate the divide and then play victim on behalf of your political buddy. They could always offer to end their grazing where the impact is too great but they also know someone will assume that grazing lease :tup:.Well there is a big difference. One has to do with treaties
Made with sovereign nations and the other is a promise made by a government to its own people. Promises usually can be broken, especially by governments, without repercussions. Breaking treaties usually means that there will be some form
Of repercussion. I mean is anyone surprised that federal and state government lied to its constituents in order to get what it wants?Almost every state has special hunts to keep elk out of agriculture, I support that. I do not support shooting and leaving elk lay, they are a food animal and should be utilized. With wolves they need to be shot and destroyed due to the parasites and diseases they carry. I see no benefit to introduce wolves, hunters can be utilized to control game herd numbers. I don't agree with exterminating wolves from the planet, but wolves don't fit and are not needed in heavily human populated areas.Leaving them lay and wholesale slaughter to appease a producer are two totally different things.
please explain further
Do you not agree that the policies promised in the wolf plans should not be followed?
Does this also mean that we can ignore tribal treaties?
I will Use MJs moniker for this... Whataboutism... This a bunny trail leading away from the very focused point of discussion. making agreements, following through on them, and measuring the proposed success of the plan. Measure this plan on its merits and do not get distracted by the shiny bobble of a discussion point that is brought up. save that for a separate thread because the 2 are not linked.
I think there is a relationship, clearly it seems there is a different standard being applied to agreements with the tribes and agreements that impact ranchers and rural citizens living in areas where wolves are over populating.
Thank you for showing the double standard! :tup:
Post by: Tbar on August 02, 2019, 01:03:09 PM
Post by: Tbar on August 02, 2019, 01:13:50 PM
Post by: buglebrush on August 02, 2019, 01:42:00 PM
I'm still waiting to hear what legitimate impact killing wolves has on anything in Washington. If they all disappeared tomorrow what negative effect would it have?
There's nothing positive about wolves at all. It would be awesome if they all got killed off. It would also be awesome if I could fly...
Post by: bearpaw on August 02, 2019, 03:39:09 PM
Do you really want to go down the road of broken promises and double standards with the federal or state government and tribes? I'll gladly derail this with literally thousands of factual citations of promises broken. I know that won't fit your hatewa narrative or your buddy's role as a poor cattle producer barely making it.
Easy there fella, no need to get nasty, this is just a friendly conversation. It seems some people expect promises to be kept for some groups but not for ranchers or people who have to live with wolves, that's all I was pointing out.
A DOUBLE STANDARD
Post by: bearpaw on August 02, 2019, 03:45:51 PM
Has your buddy Kretz ever advocated for tribal support to deal with wolf issues? Honest question.
I don't know Kretz exact position, I don't know why he would be opposed to thinning wolves, most people I know are glad the Colville's are hunting wolves and other predators. I think the Spokane's are hunting wolves too, that's good, however, the rest of the state's citizens should be able to hunt wolves too, and a rancher should be able to protect his livestock. Let me point out that you don't see me calling the tribes "wholesale slaughterers" because they want to protect their elk and deer herds.
Post by: bearpaw on August 02, 2019, 05:41:59 PM
Court denies request for temporary restraining order to prevent OPT wolf removal
https://wdfw.wa.gov/species-habitats/at-risk/species-recovery/gray-wolf/updates/court-denies-request-temporary
Post by: PA BEN on August 08, 2019, 10:55:37 AM
Has your buddy Kretz ever advocated for tribal support to deal with wolf issues? Honest question.Yes
Post by: beauhunter on August 08, 2019, 12:23:21 PM
Post by: PA BEN on August 14, 2019, 07:28:49 PM
Has your buddy Kretz ever advocated for tribal support to deal with wolf issues? Honest question.http://joelkretz.houserepublicans.wa.gov/2019/04/27/kretz-fights-for-his-communities-neighbors-and-friends-dealing-with-wolves-and-wolf-regulations/
Post by: beauhunter on August 15, 2019, 11:29:11 AM
Post by: jackelope on August 16, 2019, 01:11:49 PM
http://nwsportsmanmag.com/wdfw-takes-out-4-more-opt-wolves-but-must-stop-removals-after-judges-decision/