Post by: Practical Approach on October 01, 2019, 09:25:02 AM
https://komonews.com/news/local/inslee-seeking-changes-in-how-the-state-deals-with-problem-wolves-in-ferry-county
Post by: KFhunter on October 01, 2019, 09:27:45 AM
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: Practical Approach on October 01, 2019, 09:32:05 AM
Cows fart and change the climate, so wolves kill cattle for climate change see?Thank you for clearing that up. It all makes sense to me now. :chuckle:
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 01, 2019, 10:14:30 AM
@bigtex You're going to see a lot more sheriffs taking predator management on as this idiot politicizes wildlife management.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 01, 2019, 10:57:41 AM
Post by: bigtex on October 01, 2019, 11:07:02 AM
Inslee knows from where the big contributions to his campaign come. Animal rights activists and their orgs, anti-gun billionaires, green new deal supporters. He's so far left he makes Bernie look moderate. This is not good.I don't disagree, and as long as they do it responsibly I think they'll be ok. But if they start popping every cougar they see I think we'll swiftly see change in the law from the legislature. It wasnt until this year that sherriff's even realized they had this authority.
@bigtex You're going to see a lot more sheriffs taking predator management on as this idiot politicizes wildlife management.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Special T on October 01, 2019, 11:10:57 AM
Does anyone think all parties are operating in good faith?
Post by: KFhunter on October 01, 2019, 11:14:10 AM
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 01, 2019, 11:16:47 AM
Post by: Practical Approach on October 01, 2019, 11:22:42 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 01, 2019, 11:25:28 AM
Post by: Crunchy on October 01, 2019, 11:36:29 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on October 01, 2019, 11:38:58 AM
Post by: Ridgeratt on October 01, 2019, 11:48:58 AM
And that would be?
Post by: idahohuntr on October 01, 2019, 11:52:19 AM
https://www.governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/Letter%20to%20Director%20Susewind.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
The message is pretty clear: Don't kill wolves that eat cows on federal lands...work with federal land managers to minimize overlap between grazing cattle and wolf habitat (i.e., don't have cattle grazing allotments in prime wolf habitat).
If the State isn't going to reduce the wolf population, then I'm in support of reducing the cattle conflicts that result in WDFW resources being expended on mitigating private interests. Too many bigger things for WDFW to be focused on for hunters and anglers than wasting time on super political/controversial issues that the Governor will meddle in. If that approach results in widespread poaching of wolves by locals...I'm fine with that. It will be the outcome of the Governors policy. :twocents:
Post by: ribka on October 01, 2019, 12:22:02 PM
https://www.conservationnw.org/news-updates/statement-on-letter-from-governor-regarding-wolves/
I would be wiiing to bet the eco terrorist ,Mitch Friedman, initially pushed this to the Gov
Post by: Curly on October 01, 2019, 12:26:28 PM
Quote
Department of Fish and Wildlife on Monday saying that the state's wolf management plan does not appear to be working in the Kettle River Range area of Ferry County.
Finally something to agree with Inslee on. The wolf plan is not working.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 01, 2019, 12:28:40 PM
Well surprise, surprise the anti hunting pro wolf group Conservation NW supports the left wing Gov
https://www.conservationnw.org/news-updates/statement-on-letter-from-governor-regarding-wolves/
I would be wiiing to bet the eco terrorist ,Mitch Friedman, initially pushed this to the Gov
No surprises there. CNW has always underplayed their hand with regard to the wolves and control. It's pretty clear now. They're right there with DOW, HSUS, and the rest of the extremists.
Post by: Bango skank on October 01, 2019, 12:35:12 PM
QuoteDepartment of Fish and Wildlife on Monday saying that the state's wolf management plan does not appear to be working in the Kettle River Range area of Ferry County.
Finally something to agree with Inslee on. The wolf plan is not working.
Yeah, but dont expect to agree with him on the solution.
Post by: Curly on October 01, 2019, 12:38:48 PM
QuoteDepartment of Fish and Wildlife on Monday saying that the state's wolf management plan does not appear to be working in the Kettle River Range area of Ferry County.
Finally something to agree with Inslee on. The wolf plan is not working.
Yeah, but dont expect to agree with him on the solution.
Correct. My solution would be to treat them like coyotes.
Post by: KFhunter on October 01, 2019, 01:15:04 PM
The full letter:I could have a reasonable debate regarding cattle on public lands *if* there was a solution to keeping cattle safe on private lands; but until then..., don't be talking about keeping cattle out of "prime wolf habitat" when there is no such thing. Wolves go where they will and know no boundaries. It's a stupid argument.
https://www.governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/Letter%20to%20Director%20Susewind.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
The message is pretty clear: Don't kill wolves that eat cows on federal lands...work with federal land managers to minimize overlap between grazing cattle and wolf habitat (i.e., don't have cattle grazing allotments in prime wolf habitat).
If the State isn't going to reduce the wolf population, then I'm in support of reducing the cattle conflicts that result in WDFW resources being expended on mitigating private interests. Too many bigger things for WDFW to be focused on for hunters and anglers than wasting time on super political/controversial issues that the Governor will meddle in. If that approach results in widespread poaching of wolves by locals...I'm fine with that. It will be the outcome of the Governors policy. :twocents:
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: ribka on October 01, 2019, 01:44:52 PM
The full letter:I could have a reasonable debate regarding cattle on public lands *if* there was a solution to keeping cattle safe on private lands; but until then..., don't be talking about keeping cattle out of "prime wolf habitat" when there is no such thing. Wolves go where they will and know no boundaries. It's a stupid argument.
https://www.governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/Letter%20to%20Director%20Susewind.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
The message is pretty clear: Don't kill wolves that eat cows on federal lands...work with federal land managers to minimize overlap between grazing cattle and wolf habitat (i.e., don't have cattle grazing allotments in prime wolf habitat).
If the State isn't going to reduce the wolf population, then I'm in support of reducing the cattle conflicts that result in WDFW resources being expended on mitigating private interests. Too many bigger things for WDFW to be focused on for hunters and anglers than wasting time on super political/controversial issues that the Governor will meddle in. If that approach results in widespread poaching of wolves by locals...I'm fine with that. It will be the outcome of the Governors policy. :twocents:
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
“Prime wolf habitat “ is now in people’s back yards where wolves go to eat livestock and families’ pets after killing all the animals in the public forests ( “prime elk ,moose, mountain caribou and mule deer habitat “ that the wolves have destroyed)
A lot of ignorant hatred of ranchers in Washington state
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 01, 2019, 02:09:49 PM
Look what WY did? They took the Western 1/3 of the state and designated the wilderness areas as wolf habitat. And the eastern 2/3s as human and cow habitat. Now there's a tag season in the western 1/3 and an open season in the eastern 2/3s. They don't belong there so feel free to kill them. I wish our state had that kind of intestinal fortitude. We just jumped right in bed with the USFWS and believed everything they said.
Post by: Bushcraft on October 01, 2019, 02:10:30 PM
The full letter:
https://www.governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/Letter%20to%20Director%20Susewind.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
The message is pretty clear: Don't kill wolves that eat cows on federal lands...work with federal land managers to minimize overlap between grazing cattle and wolf habitat (i.e., don't have cattle grazing allotments in prime wolf habitat).
If the State isn't going to reduce the wolf population, then I'm in support of reducing the cattle conflicts that result in WDFW resources being expended on mitigating private interests. Too many bigger things for WDFW to be focused on for hunters and anglers than wasting time on super political/controversial issues that the Governor will meddle in. If that approach results in widespread poaching of wolves by locals...I'm fine with that. It will be the outcome of the Governors policy. :twocents:
You are overvaluing the worth of your $.02 input on the matter. :rolleyes:
Post by: idahohuntr on October 01, 2019, 03:07:02 PM
I want the state to spend less (preferably zero) resources on wolf/cattle conflicts. The state is clearly never going to meaningfully hunt or reduce wolf numbers. Therefore, keeping cattle out of high density wolf areas on public lands is basically the only viable option at this time to minimize conflicts...unless some vigilantes find effective control methods?? Also, if the conflicts are on private lands, that's a very different narrative than when they occur on public lands - and much harder for politicians to decry lethal removal. I'm fine with whatever keeps WDFW from spending another dollar on this dumb wolf conflict $**t...but in this political climate, getting cattle out of high density wolf areas on public lands is probably the most likely successful approach.The full letter:I could have a reasonable debate regarding cattle on public lands *if* there was a solution to keeping cattle safe on private lands; but until then..., don't be talking about keeping cattle out of "prime wolf habitat" when there is no such thing. Wolves go where they will and know no boundaries. It's a stupid argument.
https://www.governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/Letter%20to%20Director%20Susewind.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
The message is pretty clear: Don't kill wolves that eat cows on federal lands...work with federal land managers to minimize overlap between grazing cattle and wolf habitat (i.e., don't have cattle grazing allotments in prime wolf habitat).
If the State isn't going to reduce the wolf population, then I'm in support of reducing the cattle conflicts that result in WDFW resources being expended on mitigating private interests. Too many bigger things for WDFW to be focused on for hunters and anglers than wasting time on super political/controversial issues that the Governor will meddle in. If that approach results in widespread poaching of wolves by locals...I'm fine with that. It will be the outcome of the Governors policy. :twocents:
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: Bango skank on October 01, 2019, 03:10:59 PM
Post by: Bushcraft on October 01, 2019, 03:18:53 PM
The problem is that anywhere the cattle are moved to will then become a high wolf density area.
DING, DING, DING...WE HAVE A WINNER!!!
It's amazing what happens when critical thinking skills are engaged instead of making a sacrifice on the Public Land alter. (idahohunter, take note)
Post by: KFhunter on October 01, 2019, 04:14:48 PM
I want the state to spend less (preferably zero) resources on wolf/cattle conflicts. The state is clearly never going to meaningfully hunt or reduce wolf numbers. Therefore, keeping cattle out of high density wolf areas on public lands is basically the only viable option at this time to minimize conflicts...unless some vigilantes find effective control methods?? Also, if the conflicts are on private lands, that's a very different narrative than when they occur on public lands - and much harder for politicians to decry lethal removal. I'm fine with whatever keeps WDFW from spending another dollar on this dumb wolf conflict $**t...but in this political climate, getting cattle out of high density wolf areas on public lands is probably the most likely successful approach.The full letter:I could have a reasonable debate regarding cattle on public lands *if* there was a solution to keeping cattle safe on private lands; but until then..., don't be talking about keeping cattle out of "prime wolf habitat" when there is no such thing. Wolves go where they will and know no boundaries. It's a stupid argument.
https://www.governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/Letter%20to%20Director%20Susewind.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
The message is pretty clear: Don't kill wolves that eat cows on federal lands...work with federal land managers to minimize overlap between grazing cattle and wolf habitat (i.e., don't have cattle grazing allotments in prime wolf habitat).
If the State isn't going to reduce the wolf population, then I'm in support of reducing the cattle conflicts that result in WDFW resources being expended on mitigating private interests. Too many bigger things for WDFW to be focused on for hunters and anglers than wasting time on super political/controversial issues that the Governor will meddle in. If that approach results in widespread poaching of wolves by locals...I'm fine with that. It will be the outcome of the Governors policy. :twocents:
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
What you're advocating for (WDFW washes hands of wolf conflict management) would only be workable *if* WDFW also allowed very liberal hunting, trapping and protection of property rights...and ironically enough, that's what the ranchers have been asking for all along.
Post by: ribka on October 01, 2019, 04:47:02 PM
Are you saying the tax payer funded extremely successful Conservation NW range rider program is not working???
Mitch Friedman says it is extremely successful
Who’s lying?
I want the state to spend less (preferably zero) resources on wolf/cattle conflicts. The state is clearly never going to meaningfully hunt or reduce wolf numbers. Therefore, keeping cattle out of high density wolf areas on public lands is basically the only viable option at this time to minimize conflicts...unless some vigilantes find effective control methods?? Also, if the conflicts are on private lands, that's a very different narrative than when they occur on public lands - and much harder for politicians to decry lethal removal. I'm fine with whatever keeps WDFW from spending another dollar on this dumb wolf conflict $**t...but in this political climate, getting cattle out of high density wolf areas on public lands is probably the most likely successful approach.The full letter:I could have a reasonable debate regarding cattle on public lands *if* there was a solution to keeping cattle safe on private lands; but until then..., don't be talking about keeping cattle out of "prime wolf habitat" when there is no such thing. Wolves go where they will and know no boundaries. It's a stupid argument.
https://www.governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/Letter%20to%20Director%20Susewind.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
The message is pretty clear: Don't kill wolves that eat cows on federal lands...work with federal land managers to minimize overlap between grazing cattle and wolf habitat (i.e., don't have cattle grazing allotments in prime wolf habitat).
If the State isn't going to reduce the wolf population, then I'm in support of reducing the cattle conflicts that result in WDFW resources being expended on mitigating private interests. Too many bigger things for WDFW to be focused on for hunters and anglers than wasting time on super political/controversial issues that the Governor will meddle in. If that approach results in widespread poaching of wolves by locals...I'm fine with that. It will be the outcome of the Governors policy. :twocents:
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: buckfvr on October 01, 2019, 05:05:01 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on October 01, 2019, 05:12:46 PM
WDFW won't ever have that authority...but I think they can still wash their hands of the whole mess by devolving wolf/endangered species/livestock conflict management issues to some other agency and let these other agencies waste their resources trying to come up with unicorn solutions that appease King County liberals and Ferry County conservatives. Heck, let Inslee create a brand new bureaucracy to handle this issue for all I care...The Department of Climate Change, butterflies, and wolves...I want the state to spend less (preferably zero) resources on wolf/cattle conflicts. The state is clearly never going to meaningfully hunt or reduce wolf numbers. Therefore, keeping cattle out of high density wolf areas on public lands is basically the only viable option at this time to minimize conflicts...unless some vigilantes find effective control methods?? Also, if the conflicts are on private lands, that's a very different narrative than when they occur on public lands - and much harder for politicians to decry lethal removal. I'm fine with whatever keeps WDFW from spending another dollar on this dumb wolf conflict $**t...but in this political climate, getting cattle out of high density wolf areas on public lands is probably the most likely successful approach.The full letter:I could have a reasonable debate regarding cattle on public lands *if* there was a solution to keeping cattle safe on private lands; but until then..., don't be talking about keeping cattle out of "prime wolf habitat" when there is no such thing. Wolves go where they will and know no boundaries. It's a stupid argument.
https://www.governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/Letter%20to%20Director%20Susewind.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
The message is pretty clear: Don't kill wolves that eat cows on federal lands...work with federal land managers to minimize overlap between grazing cattle and wolf habitat (i.e., don't have cattle grazing allotments in prime wolf habitat).
If the State isn't going to reduce the wolf population, then I'm in support of reducing the cattle conflicts that result in WDFW resources being expended on mitigating private interests. Too many bigger things for WDFW to be focused on for hunters and anglers than wasting time on super political/controversial issues that the Governor will meddle in. If that approach results in widespread poaching of wolves by locals...I'm fine with that. It will be the outcome of the Governors policy. :twocents:
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
What you're advocating for (WDFW washes hands of wolf conflict management) would only be workable *if* WDFW also allowed very liberal hunting, trapping and protection of property rights...and ironically enough, that's what the ranchers have been asking for all along.
WDFW needs to focus on things they actually have control over that best serve the hunters and anglers in this State. Watching them spend endless resources and energy on wolves that will never be legally hunted is just salt in the wound of this states "wolf program".
Post by: idahohuntr on October 01, 2019, 05:17:07 PM
The problem is that anywhere the cattle are moved to will then become a high wolf density area.Possibly, but the narrative and political pressure changes a fair bit when the depredation is occurring on private lands. The eco-crazies won't care either way, but they will be less influential (even in WA state) when the issue is on private lands.
Post by: jstone on October 01, 2019, 05:39:56 PM
Post by: Bushcraft on October 01, 2019, 06:03:00 PM
Are you saying the tax payer funded extremely successful Conservation NW range rider program is not working???
Mitch Friedman says it is extremely successful
Who’s lying?
No one that's been a proponent of eco-terrorism would ever dream of lying! :chuckle: ;)
95% of the stuff that comes out of that pathetic slime-ball's mouth is said to court favor with his idiotic *censored* donors. The other 5% suggests that he believes the lies he's telling.
Post by: Ridgeratt on October 01, 2019, 06:42:09 PM
I do think it's a cattle rancher who is riding his own herd to protect them.
The date on the photo is from 2014. Not sure he is riding them there now.
Post by: KFhunter on October 01, 2019, 06:48:49 PM
WDFW won't ever have that authority...but I think they can still wash their hands of the whole mess by devolving wolf/endangered species/livestock conflict management issues to some other agency and let these other agencies waste their resources trying to come up with unicorn solutions that appease King County liberals and Ferry County conservatives. Heck, let Inslee create a brand new bureaucracy to handle this issue for all I care...The Department of Climate Change, butterflies, and wolves...
WDFW needs to focus on things they actually have control over that best serve the hunters and anglers in this State. Watching them spend endless resources and energy on wolves that will never be legally hunted is just salt in the wound of this states "wolf program".
So Cougar you want WDFW to manage conflict, but wolves you want anyone but WDFW to handle conflict, why the differentiation between the two species?
Appears the sentiment is in favor of County Sheriff's essentially managing cougar populations in WA state.
I think that is misguided...as the attention will absolutely result in a prompt change by the legislature.
While I wish the state would more aggressively manage our high cougar populations I do not at all support individual county politicians managing the state's wildlife. Even if I ultimately like the actions they are taking in one instance, it is so loaded with problems and potential abuses I could never support it in principle. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on October 01, 2019, 06:49:57 PM
Anyone Recognize the range rider from the CNW photo.
I do think it's a cattle rancher who is riding his own herd to protect them.
Yes, but they also have a range rider there.
Post by: KFhunter on October 01, 2019, 07:06:37 PM
It's not effective. There would have to be a ton of them spread out to cover the cattle herds, and they'd have to be out there in the middle of the night with thermal.
Cattle don't stay in one big herd, they have little small herds all spread out through the range, a few here, a few there, more over there...they don't stay all grouped up. It might be 2-3 older cows, their calves and a yearling or 3, making up a smaller herd within the bigger overall herd.
Wolves come in and hit one of these small groups.
Post by: Axle on October 01, 2019, 07:26:03 PM
Cows fart and change the climate, so wolves kill cattle for climate change see?
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
That would explain the global cooling we've been having the past few years. I think it's called 'climate change'.
And this winter, which is starting in early fall, is rather cold so far. I've never had frost here in September over the past 34 years in but we sure got nailed this year. October is starting out freezing cold too.
I see why the evil liberals are touting climate change. I don't like this cold stuff either!
I guess I need to get some cattle on my place to help warm things up.
Post by: KFhunter on October 01, 2019, 07:41:14 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on October 01, 2019, 09:21:13 PM
Two reasons:
So Cougar you want WDFW to manage conflict, but wolves you want anyone but WDFW to handle conflict, why the differentiation between the two species?
1) I don't support county management of wildlife because the potential for abuse is off the charts and it is a horrible precedent even if there are some short term wins...I don't care whether its cougars, elk, or grouse. County sheriffs sticking to very narrow and specific public safety threats I have no issue, but when folks start implying maybe county sheriffs can address the large number of Cougars in the state...that's an abuse and would need to be stopped immediately.
2) Wolves are a listed species and WDFW's options (and actions) are so scrutinized and require so much justification its an impossible task. Cougars are not listed and WDFW can carry out depredation decisions/actions without all the hysteria and wasted efforts/resources.
The overarching theme behind all of this: I support keeping WDFW (and their resources) focused on things that benefit hunters and anglers. Not one dollar spent on any wolf activity by WDFW will benefit any hunters...ever. Possibly the same argument for cougar issues, but as I mention above there just isn't the hysteria so wdfw can make cougar depredation decisions without wasting so much sportsmen $.
Post by: KFhunter on October 01, 2019, 09:40:11 PM
As for fishing..I suck at fishing, terrible.
I almost skunked a professional guide boat that hasn't ever been skunked before in the history of the boat :chuckle: seriously, I had the guy sweating with my bad luck...and I didn't even have a banana. So I'll let you and the other guys here talk fishing.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 02, 2019, 06:08:47 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 02, 2019, 07:05:39 AM
The problem is that anywhere the cattle are moved to will then become a high wolf density area.
Until they're actively killed by humans and taught that interaction with humans is dangerous, wolves will never leave the cattle alone, regardless of where the cattle graze, public land or private. Currently, they've been taught that interactions with helicopters are dangerous. They don't know that humans fly them. They're also very intelligent and they feed on that prey which is the easiest to kill. Cattle, goats, and sheep fit the bill nicely, as do pets and eventually, small children if we don't change our methods of dealing with them. Their habits are well-documented, worldwide. They won't change their behavior until we change it, on the ground, face-to-face. As in Wyoming, their territory should be confined to remote wilderness areas and when they come out of there and interact with humans and livestock, they should be killed. And suggesting that public land grazing is the reason for the cattle depredations shows a complete ignorance of wolf behavior and the current data of WA wolf depredations. Wolves don't know which land is public or private and they have, as of yet, no reason to avoid the private, regardless of CNW's little red flags and range riders. Documented multiple depredations on private grazing land are proof of that.
Post by: Bushcraft on October 02, 2019, 09:15:26 AM
The problem is that anywhere the cattle are moved to will then become a high wolf density area.
Until they're actively killed by humans and taught that interaction with humans is dangerous, wolves will never leave the cattle alone, regardless of where the cattle graze, public land or private. Currently, they've been taught that interactions with helicopters are dangerous. They don't know that humans fly them. They're also very intelligent and they feed on that prey which is the easiest to kill. Cattle, goats, and sheep fit the bill nicely, as do pets and eventually, small children if we don't change our methods of dealing with them. Their habits are well-documented, worldwide. They won't change their behavior until we change it, on the ground, face-to-face. As in Wyoming, their territory should be confined to remote wilderness areas and when they come out of there and interact with humans and livestock, they should be killed. And suggesting that public land grazing is the reason for the cattle depredations shows a complete ignorance of wolf behavior and the current data of WA wolf depredations. Wolves don't know which land is public or private and they have, as of yet, no reason to avoid the private, regardless of CNW's little red flags and range riders. Documented multiple depredations on private grazing land are proof of that.
Bravo, sir. Bravo.