Post by: wolfbait on May 28, 2009, 12:47:34 PM
Post by: Aqar on May 28, 2009, 12:59:38 PM
You also may want to introduce yourself.
Welcome to the site.
Post by: Curly on May 28, 2009, 01:05:27 PM
That's kind of a blanket statement... do you have any pictures, stories, ect...
You also may want to introduce yourself.
Welcome to the site.
:chuckle: says the guy with one post to the other new guy with one post :)
Post by: Bean Counter on May 28, 2009, 01:14:31 PM
Post by: agchawk on May 28, 2009, 01:16:50 PM
That's kind of a blanket statement... do you have any pictures, stories, ect...
You also may want to introduce yourself.
Welcome to the site.
:chuckle: says the guy with one post to the other new guy with one post :)
LMAO! TOO FUNNY
Post by: jackelope on May 28, 2009, 01:17:06 PM
Post by: jackelope on May 28, 2009, 01:18:02 PM
That's kind of a blanket statement... do you have any pictures, stories, ect...
You also may want to introduce yourself.
Welcome to the site.
so may you...
welcome.
Post by: Machias on May 28, 2009, 01:18:50 PM
That's kind of a blanket statement... do you have any pictures, stories, ect...
You also may want to introduce yourself.
Welcome to the site.
:chuckle: says the guy with one post to the other new guy with one post :)
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Timberstalker on May 28, 2009, 01:20:26 PM
Post by: gasman on May 28, 2009, 01:31:05 PM
If some of you plan on deer hunting in the Methow Valley, it isn't looking to good. Wolves are slaughtering the deer. Also has anyone seen this site before? http:www.takingliberty.us/
Check out dudes web site he posted. I did nt look to far but i saw nthing abut wolves,jus about sival libertys (a political web site).
Post by: jackelope on May 28, 2009, 01:33:56 PM
where'd you guys go?
i suspect this was a post to drop the link to his site and thats all.
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on May 28, 2009, 01:38:03 PM
Post by: Crunchy on May 28, 2009, 01:54:10 PM
Post by: X-Force on May 28, 2009, 02:05:43 PM
Post by: saylean on May 28, 2009, 03:39:45 PM
now back to the wolves...
and wheres my wolf rug?! :'(
Post by: wolfbait on May 28, 2009, 04:26:49 PM
LOl...Aqar..next time say hi :bash: :chuckle:
now back to the wolves...
and wheres my wolf rug?! :'(
Hello to you all, just learning how all this works. I live in the methow Valley, Have lived here since before most of the roads were paved. Yep, we have a lot of wolves now, don't have any pictures for you but I have seen several like alot of people that gets out n bout. They planted some more this spring on the new game department land they bought this spring. They were trying to claim that these wolves just move in on their own, but then KER-Blam they got caught let them out of crates. I saw wolves in here 4 years ago and so did some other folks, and they been multipling every since. I don't know how many they have turn loose on us. Our deer are getting run into the ground at least the ones that don't have parts of their butts ate out. The new wolves that were suppose to be fattening up on the deer at their new wolf habitat killed a cow last week, so I guess venison is gettin kind of old, or the deer are already ate up or run out of there. Friend of my, said he can hear them howling sometimes in the middle of the day. I put that site on here because I saw one kind of like it on here awhile back, and I thought that maybe some of you might be interested. Seems everyone is fighting over the wolf issue, whether they are killing off all the game, or dogs, and livestock. I found that site and thought it rather interesting....wolfbait
Post by: WDFW-SUX on May 28, 2009, 04:32:20 PM
Quote
They planted some more this spring on the new game department land they bought this spring.
:puke:
Post by: boneaddict on May 28, 2009, 04:47:34 PM
Post by: mossback91 on May 28, 2009, 05:03:20 PM
Post by: wolfbait on May 28, 2009, 05:23:41 PM
When do we get to go wolf hunting?!?! :chuckle:
well, Bout the time they start eating the deer on mainsteet, seems to be alot of deer hanging in town, infact that is about the only place we see them anymore. I have seen wolves with in 5 minutes of town as the crow flies. I actualy do have some pictures of some fresh wolf tracks, couple of cougar killed a deer one night and come morning there was 2 wolves eatin on it, was to dark to get pictures of the wolves but I did get some goodin bloody wolf tracks in the snow when the sun dropped in.
Post by: Kain on May 28, 2009, 06:02:40 PM
Post by: wolfbait on May 28, 2009, 06:28:21 PM
I dont have the hatred for wolves like some of you but I call DIBS on the first wolf tag. :IBCOOL: :IBCOOL:
Actually I would say that most of us like the wolves, but I don't think we like these wolves. we had wolves here for years, but not to many and I don't think they were these canadian wolves. I have lived here all my life and have been all over this country, and have seen around 15 wolves all total in several decades. These wolves are very bad news for us, we have found deer dumpings, where piles of deer have just there butts ate off, they are skinned from the neck down to their knees. I have been with in 5o ft of these wolves and they are not afraid of you, like the wolves that we had here before over the years. A few of my bow huntin freinds are not to keen on huntin with these wolves. Over by Omak which is only bout 30 miles from Twisp they had a cougar come within a mile of town into a guys back yard and kill his dog, which tells us that deer are getting even more fewer an far between than we thought. problem cats arn't a problem as you can get them with hounds, but these wolves just kill the dogs.
Post by: jackelope on May 28, 2009, 06:39:33 PM
it might open a blind eye.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on May 28, 2009, 07:26:35 PM
Post by: jackelope on May 28, 2009, 07:30:22 PM
:P
Post by: WDFW-SUX on May 28, 2009, 07:31:56 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 29, 2009, 08:33:55 AM
They planted some more this spring on the new game department land they bought this spring. They were trying to claim that these wolves just move in on their own, but then KER-Blam they got caught let them out of crates. I don't know how many they have turn loose on us. The new wolves that were suppose to be fattening up on the deer at their new wolf habitat killed a cow last week, so I guess venison is gettin kind of old, or the deer are already ate up or run out of there. wolfbait
Hmmm- where do I start? Show us some evidence that the DFW planted wolves. pictures, documents,...? Anything other than 'word of mouth' which is unrelaible at best (particularly from some mouth's) Does anyone really think the WDFW could pull something that big off without word getting out? Also- they would need a permit and there would be a public paper trail. Go find it and show us.
While you're at it, show some evidence that wolves killed the cow. There were wolf tracks around a carcass...there have been hundreds of times I've seen coyotes eating on a dead carcass. That doesn't necessarily mean they killed it...you can probably see where I'm going with this line of reason. Had the carcass been fresh to determine method of kill you might have something. Until then, we have a dead cow and no idea what caused it.
I know that wolves kill dogs, but you should show some evidence that it has happened here before making the quantom leap between an urban deer population and wolves driving all the lions and deer into peoples living rooms.
Let's hear what sort of genius comments the SSS crowd has to offer up....
Post by: boneaddict on May 29, 2009, 08:51:35 AM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on May 29, 2009, 08:55:19 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 29, 2009, 08:57:40 AM
I think the genius has already spoken.
I'm curious to hear why you concur with his idea about the DFW planting? It seems if you had any evidence at all we would all know about it? I'm skeptical when I hear the 'heard from a guy' line as evidence :twocents:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 29, 2009, 08:59:09 AM
My guess is that the US fish and Wildlife service planted them and is providing the funding for there monitoring.That would be a way to hide the project from budget, but they stll have to go through a permit process. :dunno: they would be in VERY hot water if they did something like that w/out the right process.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on May 29, 2009, 09:00:21 AM
This would also provide cover for WDFW "we did not plant the Wolves" line.
By the time we figure it out its not like we can just round up the wolves that were planted and not kill the natives.
Post by: boneaddict on May 29, 2009, 09:02:33 AM
Post by: jackelope on May 29, 2009, 09:05:17 AM
the last guy on this site that heard about the wolves getting transplanted to twisp referred to hearing about it from the locals in the bars in idaho and montana.
not sure thats a good source of info for me, but apparently it works for some.
:dunno:
my experience asking questions where they should be asked shows that the wdfw will not deny relocating wolves within washington if needed, though they had not, at that time, done it yet. they will not transplant from other states. i am open to the idea that someone may have been blowing smoke up my skirt, but who knows. i think it's more reliable than the guys at the bar.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 29, 2009, 09:06:05 AM
The wolf management plan allows for wolves to be moved around within the state of washington once one area meets a reproduction goal. i.e.- when the methow or NE wash have enough breeding pairs they can try to trap/transport them to another recovery zone. That's a good design becasue NE and the methow are going to be the first ones there and it would expedite the recovery if we could give some wolves away to ge the goals met. :twocents: But no zones are at their goal yet and there shouldn't be any effort to move them.
The plan also specifically states that reintroduction is not an option, only movement of Washington wolves to other parts of Washington.
Post by: boneaddict on May 29, 2009, 09:06:26 AM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on May 29, 2009, 09:07:10 AM
The money for the plant could have come from a grant from the defenders of wildlife crew...they seem to be up to speed on the *censored*s.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on May 29, 2009, 09:11:04 AM
Quote
But no zones are at their goal yet and there shouldn't be any effort to move them.
Problem with that is that technically Idaho and the eastern third of washington are in the same Zone.............US F&W doesn't have to deal with the same state issues either.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 29, 2009, 09:11:49 AM
I've asked for various info from WDFW with a freedom of information act request and have been denied..........they are not an open and transparent operation especially when they have done something wrong.Have you tried the request from the USFWS? I'm not sure where else you could check
The money for the plant could have come from a grant from the defenders of wildlife crew...they seem to be up to speed on the *censored*s.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 29, 2009, 09:12:59 AM
Sorry- what I met was zones w/in WA. Specifically NE washington, north cascades, and Mt. St. Helens.QuoteBut no zones are at their goal yet and there shouldn't be any effort to move them.
Problem with that is that technically Idaho and the eastern third of washington are in the same Zone.............US F&W doesn't have to deal with the same state issues either.
Post by: boneaddict on May 29, 2009, 09:19:53 AM
as for conspiracy theorys......I'm very certain that the government does what it wants to when it wants too. As for hot water, well when you make the rules...... The only solid evidence I could give to you right at the moment is their constant denial of wolves in the first place. That there is just plain funny. If you bought that arguement then biologist or not..........so with that in mind, why exactly would we believe a damn thing they said to us.
Post by: boneaddict on May 29, 2009, 09:25:24 AM
Have they disclosed all of the pairs that are collared and tagged that they are monitoring. How about their activity in the Blues, the NE corner, the ones in Lincoln county, etc. Where is that information? Is that all public knowledge.
Post by: jackelope on May 29, 2009, 09:32:46 AM
whether or not to believe them is another story i guess.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on May 29, 2009, 09:35:28 AM
Quote
Idaho was begging to transport some somewhere.
Bingo..and that was right before ours blew up.
Fido gets in the crate with the USF&W they drop them off in twisp done deal. Hotel and gas $500 bucks.
The endangered species act provides all sorts of cover for them lying. They play dumb about Grizzly bears in the cascades and Wolves in Washington. There is no Benefit for them to disclose what they are up to especially in a sensitive area where the wolves could be hunted out really quick if the "folks" discovered what there plan was.
Post by: groundhog on May 29, 2009, 09:36:57 AM
I was bow hunting in a remote area of northern Idaho (Clearwater 10a) in the 80s and we were seeing tracks, scat, and hearing them and the Idaho game agents told us we were nuts.....
Back to Washington. A Friend of mine asked a game agent if there were wolves transplanted in this part (central) of the state and he said "I can't comment on that". No denial, just no comment. Hmmmmm
Post by: boneaddict on May 29, 2009, 09:46:53 AM
I have been told by someone that has trailcam photos of the ones in Teanaway, and have seen tracks in there in the snow that I was highly suspicious of one this spring. I discounted it because it Could have been a very large stray dog, but in reality it probably wasn't. :dunno:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 29, 2009, 10:31:31 AM
Well you're right on the money there. If I was charged with wolf recovery in Wa I would not tell anyone where the wolves were because I would be afraid of the SSS crowd.QuoteIdaho was begging to transport some somewhere.
Bingo..and that was right before ours blew up.
Fido gets in the crate with the USF&W they drop them off in twisp done deal. Hotel and gas $500 bucks.
The endangered species act provides all sorts of cover for them lying. They play dumb about Grizzly bears in the cascades and Wolves in Washington. There is no Benefit for them to disclose what they are up to especially in a sensitive area where the wolves could be hunted out really quick if the "folks" discovered what there plan was.
The wolves in ID are different than the ones in the methow. DNA evidence as well as their general appearance- different animals.
Post by: BLKBEARKLR on May 29, 2009, 04:49:33 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on May 29, 2009, 06:09:21 PM
Post by: boneaddict on May 29, 2009, 06:26:07 PM
Post by: Ironhead on May 29, 2009, 06:38:27 PM
Thats the same horse crap they said in Idaho, we can't prove it was wolves, maybe on the next one, and on and on and on.
Now Id is sending out questionaires on why Non Residents aren't buying liscences anymore. Must be the cats......... Wait, I can't prove that.
Post by: boneaddict on May 29, 2009, 06:57:40 PM
Post by: Kain on May 29, 2009, 11:38:29 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/research/papers/wolf_intro/
Quote
Methods to Assess Prey Abundance for Possible Wolf Reintroductions
on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington, Using DNA from Pellets
D. John Pierce (WDFW), Samuel K. Wasser (U. of Washington Dept. of Zoology),
Christine M. Clarke (U. of Washington School of Medicine), and Kenneth I. Warheit (WDFW)
2001
INTRODUCTION: There has been a growing interest in the question of whether to establish a gray wolf (Canis lupus) population on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington State. Prior to the twentieth century wolves were common residents of the Olympic Peninsula (Scheffer 1995). The historical record indicates that by the 1930's or 1940's Olympic Peninsula wolves were likely extinct. The last verified record occurred in 1930’s (Scheffer 1995). Today approximately 25% of the peninsula (approximately 3,600 km2 is within Olympia National Park) is in the same general condition that existed when wolves were present 100 years ago. However, since the early 1900's the majority of the peninsula landscape outside of the park (~ 12,000 km2) has been managed as commercial timberlands and has changed considerably since wolves were last reported on the peninsula.
The large scale changes to the landscape, the uncertain associated effects on any potentially reintroduced wolf population, and a recognized lack of biological information on prey species known to occur on the peninsula, led the U.S. Congress to appropriate funds in 1998 to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to investigate the possibility of reintroducing wolves on the peninsula. In March 1998 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service contracted with the University of Idaho to examine the biological feasibility of restoring wolves to their former range on Washington’s Olympic Peninsula (Ratti et al. 1999). One problem facing the feasibility analysis was that there was virtually no quantitative information available on the abundance and densities of the likely prey species, Roosevelt elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti) and black-tailed deer (Odocoilius hemionus columbianus), for the peninsula. This was particularly true of black-tailed deer populations both inside and outside of the Olympic National Park. Recognizing this limitation, the U.S. Congress House Report of the Appropriations Committee stated: “these funds should permit the necessary review and research and priority focus should be placed on prey base studies”.
Although much of the attention so far has centered on the ability of the Olympic National Park to support wolves, there is a need to look at the landscape outside of the park to evaluate wolf reintroductions. Probably the most important reason to consider non-park land as important in determining the likelihood of a successful reintroduction is that almost all (~90%) of the Peninsula-wide winter range of potential prey, (i.e. deer and elk), exists outside of the Olympic National Park boundary. Most of Olympic National Park is over 750 meters in elevation, which is a defining typical winter range for deer and elk on the peninsula (Jenkins et al. 1999, Ratti et al. 1999). In contrast, non-park land that surrounds the Park is at much lower elevation. Most of the area outside of the Park is below 500 meters in elevation.
Historically abundance estimations of deer in western Washington have ranged from 5-150 deer /sq mile, depending on the local habitat conditions in the surrounding landscape (Ratti et al. 1999, Raedeke 1986, Brown 1961). In spite of the fact that black-tailed deer are the most abundant ungulate on the peninsula no method exists for accurately determining the size of the deer population with an adequate level of precision (Raedeke 1993). Western Washington and in particular the Olympic Peninsula receives substantial annual rainfall (over 300 cm) which translates to rapid and heavy growth of underbrush. The presence of the underbrush and dense forest canopy make it especially difficult to directly observe deer. Traditional techniques used to monitor deer have included spotlighting transects, composition counts from deer observed while driving, and in some cases pellet counts.
However the most important and consistent method used to monitor the deer population has relied on the estimated annual number of deer killed during the fall hunting season. Even the most quantitative approach to analyzing deer harvest numbers, at best, provides only an index to changing trends in the population, not reliable estimates of the absolute abundance of black-tailed deer on the peninsula. The scope of this project is to evaluate the feasibility of using DNA genotyping from deer pellets collected along random transects to determine an unbiased estimate of the population abundance of black-tailed deer on the Olympic Peninsula.
The original objectives of this study were to 1) develop a population estimation technique for black-tailed deer in dense forest of western Washington, and 2) determine the abundance and distribution of black-tailed deer on the Olympic Peninsula outside of the Olympic National Park (ONP).
Post by: Kain on May 29, 2009, 11:52:44 PM
Post by: Kain on May 30, 2009, 12:17:39 AM
Quote
To report sightings of a wolf or wolf tracks, or suspected wolf depredation on livestock, contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the agency responsible for wolf management in Washington. In eastern Washington, the USFWS office can be reached at 509-891-6839; in western Washington, call 360-753-9440. Wolf sightings can also be recorded on the USFWS toll-free hotline, 1-888-584-9038.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/gray_wolf/fact_sheet.htm
Quote
There are no federal or state plans to reintroduce wolves into Washington. With the success of recent federal wolf-recovery efforts in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, it is likely that wolves will increasingly disperse into eastern Washington. State and federal wildlife authorities are monitoring the activity of resident wolves to learn more about their use of habitat and to reduce potential conflicts.
Well it seems this statement contradicts the study I posted above. Maybe they gave up on the idea or already introduced them where they could. :dunno: And it is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that is in charge of wolf management in Washington? Yet WDFW has created a working group to developed a state wolf plan.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/do/newreal/release.php?id=jan0807b
Lots of conflicting info here. Interesting.
I hope you all are doing your part to report your wolf related encounters, even tracks. (See phone numbers above). I would like to see a flood of real sightings to help get a management plan in action. If you SSS we may never see any wolf tags here in Washington. And just for the record I called DIBS on the first one. :chuckle: Now what to do with it...rug it, mount it or wear it?
Post by: wolfbait on May 30, 2009, 08:25:42 AM
Back in the early 1990's the feds planted some grizzly bears in the Pasayten wilderness, never told anybody. Then they went back in and tried to catch them agin to prove we had the big bears here, but all they could catch were black bears. So this isn't a new thing for them. (plant then discover)
Post by: billythekidrock on May 30, 2009, 08:28:20 AM
The locals here in the valley have been seeing wolves for 5or 6 years now, we generally don't tell anyone about wildlife such as spotted owls and wolves, because of the closures that follow. A rancher just out of Twisp was the first to say something to the game department, suddenly up pops the ws wildlife biologist and he is spouting brand new wolf pack, we know something smells funny, especially when we have been seeing them white suv's with the attennas here n there and little martians holding atennas in the air way before said wolf pack was dicovered. People who have live here for many years know these wolves are planted, where the wolf people really jumped up n down on their own parts is when they got caught releasing some more wolves on on the new game department land, (the golden Doe) same place where the cow was killed. They keep bring up the look-out pack this and look-ou pack that, I would like to ask the fools if this pack has 100 plus wolves in it, because there are a hell of alot of wolves in the valley and surounding okanogan for just one pack. Evan before they got caught releasing more wolves, someone had a game department friend who said that they had release some wolves in here quite some time ago. As you know wolves follow the game, in the methow valley all the game drops to the valley floor and surounding lowlands, so in the spring the pups are poping out in peoples backyard or real close. With the amount of tourists we get here in the summer time and the spandex infested cross country skiers in the winter, I think the wolf will have to be translocated agin to some other place. As far as Fitkin trying to say he don't know what killed the cow, well that is pure Bullsh--.
Back in the early 1990's the feds planted some grizzly bears in the Pasayten wilderness, never told anybody. Then they went back in and tried to catch them agin to prove we had the big bears here, but all they could catch were black bears. So this isn't a new thing for them. (plant then discover)
I believe it.
I can't prove it, but I am sure they did/are doing the same on the OP.
Post by: wolfbait on May 30, 2009, 10:44:35 AM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on May 30, 2009, 02:11:53 PM
Post by: Idabooner on May 30, 2009, 03:01:23 PM
Post by: wolfbait on May 30, 2009, 05:16:47 PM
QuoteTo report sightings of a wolf or wolf tracks, or suspected wolf depredation on livestock, contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the agency responsible for wolf management in Washington. In eastern Washington, the USFWS office can be reached at 509-891-6839; in western Washington, call 360-753-9440. Wolf sightings can also be recorded on the USFWS toll-free hotline, 1-888-584-9038.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/gray_wolf/fact_sheet.htmQuoteThere are no federal or state plans to reintroduce wolves into Washington. With the success of recent federal wolf-recovery efforts in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, it is likely that wolves will increasingly disperse into eastern Washington. State and federal wildlife authorities are monitoring the activity of resident wolves to learn more about their use of habitat and to reduce potential conflicts.
Well it seems this statement contradicts the study I posted above. Maybe they gave up on the idea or already introduced them where they could. :dunno: And it is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that is in charge of wolf management in Washington? Yet WDFW has created a working group to developed a state wolf plan.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/do/newreal/release.php?id=jan0807b
Lots of conflicting info here. Interesting.
I hope you all are doing your part to report your wolf related encounters, even tracks. (See phone numbers above). I would like to see a flood of real sightings to help get a management plan in action. If you SSS we may never see any wolf tags here in Washington. And just for the record I called DIBS on the first one. :chuckle: Now what to do with it...rug it, mount it or wear it?
They say whatever they think you might want to hear at the time. In the washington wolf management plan it says right in there that they will translocate wolves into Washington to speed the reintroduction up. They also say that if one of these wolves kills your stock they will pay you 50% of what they think it is worth.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 30, 2009, 05:33:53 PM
They say whatever they think you might want to hear at the time. In the washington wolf management plan it says right in there that they will translocate wolves into Washington to speed the reintroduction up. They also say that if one of these wolves kills your stock they will pay you 50% of what they think it is worth.
For my :twocents: I believe Wolfbait knows what he's talking about, I agree with everything he's said so far, very good reporting.
my :twocents: is that wolfbait doesn't have any facts at all to back up his arguments. Show me some evidence and I'll gladly believe what you're saying, but hearsay from the methow valley rumor mill will not cut it.
Translocate and introduce are different. Translocate means move them around w/in the state of Washington. It does not say 'into'.
From what I hear- the dead cow was a late calver. Cows don't live forever. Maybe wolves did kill it, but maybe they didn't...who knows?
Wolfbait- are you related to the whites in twisp? It's my suspicion that you are either a white or close associate trying to get a bunch of $hit stirred up to help your case. again- that's just my suspicion. :twocents:
Post by: wolfbait on May 30, 2009, 06:00:36 PM
They planted some more this spring on the new game department land they bought this spring. They were trying to claim that these wolves just move in on their own, but then KER-Blam they got caught let them out of crates. I don't know how many they have turn loose on us. The new wolves that were suppose to be fattening up on the deer at their new wolf habitat killed a cow last week, so I guess venison is gettin kind of old, or the deer are already ate up or run out of there. wolfbait
Hmmm- where do I start? Show us some evidence that the DFW planted wolves. pictures, documents,...? Anything other than 'word of mouth' which is unrelaible at best (particularly from some mouth's) Does anyone really think the WDFW could pull something that big off without word getting out? Also- they would need a permit and there would be a public paper trail. Go find it and show us.
While you're at it, show some evidence that wolves killed the cow. There were wolf tracks around a carcass...there have been hundreds of times I've seen coyotes eating on a dead carcass. That doesn't necessarily mean they killed it...you can probably see where I'm going with this line of reason. Had the carcass been fresh to determine method of kill you might have something. Until then, we have a dead cow and no idea what caused it.
I know that wolves kill dogs, but you should show some evidence that it has happened here before making the quantom leap between an urban deer population and wolves driving all the lions and deer into peoples living rooms.
Let's hear what sort of genius comments the SSS crowd has to offer up....
Well the last bunch that they planted in here was seen by some very reliable people when they were being released. Now you can beleive me or not. The cow that was killed, the people who owned the cow had heard the wolves howling about 2:00 in the morning, when they got up that morning the wolves were eating on the cow. Even if they hadn't seen the wolves that morning, if you know anything about how wolves kill, then there just isn't no question. You see wolves get ahold of the nose on an animal and they hang on, and then afew start tearing up the hindquarters, and it isn't long till what ever it is that they have ahold of is down, then they start eatin on it, and sometimes when they are filled up and leave, the animal still isn't dead. The guy who's cow it was, lost a horse last year also. This fellow was planning on taking care of the problem his-self, but he got talked out of it. I talked to one of the people who checked out the cow with the feds, they know what killed it, but they don't want anyone else to know. It won't be long and it will be happening more often and then I will be wanting to know what they have to say wbout it. This is just the beginning for us, we are just now getting elbow deep in wolves. As far as permits and what not, the feds don't need permits, permits are for everyone else. One of these days some of these wolves might be in your back yard, and then you will get to figure out how they got there, and if you are lucky maybe you will get some strait answers but it won't be from the feds or the wolf people. There might be some answers coming down the pike one of these days, on just how many they have actually released in here and when it all started, and if that info. comes through, I will be glad to share and tell. By the way, that cow was about to calve out, and yep they ate the hinquarters and the calf.
Post by: wolfbait on May 30, 2009, 06:17:20 PM
They say whatever they think you might want to hear at the time. In the washington wolf management plan it says right in there that they will translocate wolves into Washington to speed the reintroduction up. They also say that if one of these wolves kills your stock they will pay you 50% of what they think it is worth.For my :twocents: I believe Wolfbait knows what he's talking about, I agree with everything he's said so far, very good reporting.
my :twocents: is that wolfbait doesn't have any facts at all to back up his arguments. Show me some evidence and I'll gladly believe what you're saying, but hearsay from the methow valley rumor mill will not cut it.
Translocate and introduce are different. Translocate means move them around w/in the state of Washington. It does not say 'into'.
From what I hear- the dead cow was a late calver. Cows don't live forever. Maybe wolves did kill it, but maybe they didn't...who knows?
Wolfbait- are you related to the whites in twisp? It's my suspicion that you are either a white or close associate trying to get a bunch of $hit stirred up to help your case. again- that's just my suspicion. :twocents:
No you are right it doesn't say into, do you suppose they brought our wolves from spokane, or maybe deer park, I really doubt that. Personaly I don't care what you beleive or not. But everything that I have said is true and is happening, and it won't be long and things will really start turning sour.
No relation to the White's, but I know who they are. As far as their case goes, the courts will figure that one out, anything that I would have to say about the wolves in the methow wouldn't have a dam thing to due with their case. I am just one of many saying the same thing.
Post by: wolfbait on May 30, 2009, 07:36:32 PM
Well you're right on the money there. If I was charged with wolf recovery in Wa I would not tell anyone where the wolves were because I would be afraid of the SSS crowd.QuoteIdaho was begging to transport some somewhere.
Bingo..and that was right before ours blew up.
Fido gets in the crate with the USF&W they drop them off in twisp done deal. Hotel and gas $500 bucks.
The endangered species act provides all sorts of cover for them lying. They play dumb about Grizzly bears in the cascades and Wolves in Washington. There is no Benefit for them to disclose what they are up to especially in a sensitive area where the wolves could be hunted out really quick if the "folks" discovered what there plan was.
The wolves in ID are different than the ones in the methow. DNA evidence as well as their general appearance- different animals.
Them there wolves they hard released in Idaho came out of Canada, the wolves that are in the methow came out of Canada, via Idaho. Same DNA or maybe they are from one of there wolf pens and then to the methow valley. Methow Valley wolves are Canadian DNA wolves. If you don't beleive it, call Scott Fitkin. wdfw biologist
Post by: WDFW-SUX on May 30, 2009, 07:40:31 PM
Post by: jackelope on May 30, 2009, 09:25:42 PM
I think SF is a tool.
he may or may not be a tool, but the wolves are still canadian.
Post by: mossback91 on May 30, 2009, 10:16:26 PM
Post by: wolfbait on May 31, 2009, 07:16:17 AM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on May 31, 2009, 07:42:38 AM
Post by: wolfbait on May 31, 2009, 11:34:51 AM
I think SF is a tool.
I won't argue with you either way, but did you mean fool or tool? becuz SF is the one who said that there have been very few wolves killed by cattle in the lower 48. SF loves his wolves and thats fine, but with his job being what it is, he should be concerned about all wildlife. So something agin just dosen't smell to good.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on May 31, 2009, 02:29:21 PM
(thought I'd add stool to the list) Boneaddict
Post by: bearpaw on May 31, 2009, 02:46:54 PM
I've asked for various info from WDFW with a freedom of information act request and have been denied..........they are not an open and transparent operation especially when they have done something wrong.
This is very interesting, if they had not moved any wolves one would think they would be glad to say so.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 31, 2009, 03:08:29 PM
All I Know is if wolves killed my cow Id want more than 50 percent.......Id want what that cow was worth and money for every calf that it didnt get to have.......
Why didn't the owners of the cow call the DFW right away when they saw wolves on the cow???? Come on now... :rolleyes:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 31, 2009, 03:10:45 PM
I think SF is a tool.
I won't argue with you either way, but did you mean fool or tool? becuz SF is the one who said that there have been very few wolves killed by cattle in the lower 48. SF loves his wolves and thats fine, but with his job being what it is, he should be concerned about all wildlife. So something agin just dosen't smell to good.
They do say so...all the time, but too often it turns into conversations like this. People will belive exactly what they want to believe.I've asked for various info from WDFW with a freedom of information act request and have been denied..........they are not an open and transparent operation especially when they have done something wrong.
This is very interesting, if they had not moved any wolves one would think they would be glad to say so.
Post by: bearpaw on May 31, 2009, 04:30:58 PM
Many of us know that scattered wolves have been here for many years. There is documentation that the Idaho wolves are spreading rapidly into other states and it should be no surprise that some canadian wolves have moved in. Sooner or later individual wolves are going to mate and when that happens the wolf population is going to explode just as it did in Idaho, MT, and the midwest.
The DOW has even confirmed the photos of wolf pups in the Okanogan, so how many packs are there that they haven't confirmed? My guess is that there are several breeding pairs in WA and that in a few years we will be begging for management. As I have said many times before, we can live with them just like our northern neighbors live with them, as long as we are allowed to manage them at acceptable numbers for the available habititat.
Don't get me wrong, I wish they weren't here, but as someone else has said, and I agree "We must make the most of it." So let's be sure and get any sightings reported and documented so that management can take place when it is needed.
Post by: Kain on May 31, 2009, 08:25:13 PM
Everybody has good points here. Does anyone know if there is public anouncements anywhere when the game department transplants an animal. I'd like to have a link for it because it should be public information. The WDFW does not let everything they do out of the bag. If that was the case then there would still be a WDFW employee on this sight that could answer some of our questions for us.(someone called the guys boss and ratted him out)
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,27765.0.html
They post it when it is not an controversial animal.
Post by: Kain on May 31, 2009, 08:28:01 PM
This is from the Defenders of Wildlife website. There is a link to this group on the wolf section on the WDFW site.
http://www.defenders.org/resources/publications/programs_and_policy/wildlife_conservation/imperiled_species/wolf/places_for_wolves_2006.pdf
Quote
Another area once under consideration for potential wolf
recovery is Washington state’s Olympic Peninsula, particularly
the almost-1-million-acre Olympic National Park and adjacent
500,000-acre Olympic National Forest. Although gray wolves
from Canada probably could recolonize the Cascades as well
as the Selkirk Mountains in northeastern Washington on
their own, any wolf recovery in Olympic National Park would
require relocating animals. Too many people and too much
development in the Seattle-Tacoma area block wolf return to the
Olympic Peninsula without human intervention. A feasibility
study conducted for FWS by the University of Idaho found
that the Olympic Peninsula provides suffi cient suitable habitat
to support about 60 wolves (Ratti et al. 1999, Hosack 1997).
However, restoration efforts are not moving forward for several
reasons. These include concerns that proximity to people would
inhibit wolf dispersal, that the isolation of the area would limit
necessary genetic variability, and that wolves would have impacts
on deer and elk herds (see page 9).
Post by: jackelope on May 31, 2009, 08:35:47 PM
I've asked for various info from WDFW with a freedom of information act request and have been denied..........they are not an open and transparent operation especially when they have done something wrong.
This is very interesting, if they had not moved any wolves one would think they would be glad to say so.
i've asked and been told without hesitation. whether folks believe what they tell you seems to be the problem.
Post by: Kain on May 31, 2009, 08:47:33 PM
whether folks believe what they tell you seems to be the problem.
Yea I am finding it hard to trust a lot of what they say sometimes. I have found many instances where the information from WDFW conflicts with other statements from them. This could be intentional lies :dunno: or a case where they might know what they are talking about.
Post by: jackelope on May 31, 2009, 08:49:39 PM
Post by: wolfbait on May 31, 2009, 09:08:44 PM
I've asked for various info from WDFW with a freedom of information act request and have been denied..........they are not an open and transparent operation especially when they have done something wrong.
This is very interesting, if they had not moved any wolves one would think they would be glad to say so.
We have a game warden here in the okanogan, and he was told that they planted the wolves in the methow valley, he was some upset about it as he don't like them wolves at all, so this kind of puts him in the middle of things. I wouldn't want to be him these days. Nother fellow, paid the 50 bucks to get the freedom of information, they have 60 days to shovel all the info. over, and they are dragging their feet. One thing that I do know is the last 8 wolves were for sure release in here, and from information on the others they were also released. As far as beleiving what the feds say or the wolf people, I wouldn't trust them for a minute.
i've asked and been told without hesitation. whether folks believe what they tell you seems to be the problem.
Post by: wolfbait on May 31, 2009, 09:26:34 PM
whether folks believe what they tell you seems to be the problem.
Yea I am finding it hard to trust a lot of what they say sometimes. I have found many instances where the information from WDFW conflicts with other statements from them. This could be intentional lies :dunno: or a case where they might know what they are talking about.
It could be that the left hand don't know what the right hand is doing also. This game warden didn't know that they had planted them until it had already been done. There are more then a few biologist out there who disagreed with the wolf reintroduction as these wolves were coming into the lower 48 on their own, but they wouldn't have been established for another 30 to 60 years, which just wasn't fast enough for some peoples agenda.
Post by: Kain on May 31, 2009, 09:34:43 PM
or it could be people just have it set in their heads that it's all lies and won't ever believe anything, including them stating that the sky is blue.
Could be but I dont think I fall into that category. I know what you are talking about though. Like the WDFW "not being able to verify" wolves in Washington gets turned into them "denying" wolves here. But there are instances where they bring it on themselves. There is also things that just dont pass the smell test. Like wolves being confirmed in Washington and Oregon on the same day.
http://www.wolfhaven.org/northwestregion.php
Quote
Early Sunday evening, the wolf pups and the recently collared male adult were seen on camera. They also recorded sounds of wolf pup howls. Biologists call the pack the ‘Lookout Pack,” and genetic (DNA) evidence shows they likely have moved in from British Columbia or Alberta, Canada, and not from the northern Rocky mountain region where 1,455 wolves currently are believed to reside. The alpha male is older than biologist expected to see.
Quote
And Oregon too!
Oregon confirmed a wolf pack that includes both adults and pups in a forested area of northern Union County on Friday, July 18, the same day the Lookout Pack was confirmed in Washington. This is the first evidence of multiple wolves and wolf reproduction in Oregon since wolves were extirpated from the state back in the mid-1940s. Biologists will continue to monitor the area and may also try to capture and radio-collar the wolves. See www.dfw.state.or.us/ for details.
Keep in mind this also happened right as they were trying to delist them.
They believe the wolves came from Canada which is totally possible. But why hadnt they migrated sooner. Why has the majority of wolf activity happened within the last ten-fifteen years? Which is exactly when they started talking about reintroducing them on the peninsula and when they transplanted Canadian wolves to Yellowstone. I might be paranoid but it just seems too coincidental.
Post by: jackelope on May 31, 2009, 09:37:53 PM
the wolves here have canadian wolf dna...it's not that they believe or it's possible...it just is.
Post by: Kain on May 31, 2009, 09:43:45 PM
when was wdfw unable to confirm wolves here? how long ago?
the wolves here have canadian wolf dna...it's not that they believe or it's possible...it just is.
I only meant that they believe the migrated from Canada on their own. I was referring to the quote above.
http://www.wolfhaven.org/northwestregion.php
Quote
Wolves Among Us in Washington And Oregon!!!
July 18, 2008, will go down in history as the weekend for wolves in the Pacific Northwest! After hearing howls from both adult and juvenile wolves in early July in Washington’s Methow Valley, biologists captured and radio-collared two wolves on Friday, July 18. DNA testing confirmed that the animals are wolves and not hybrids, and they and their offspring represent the first wolf pack in Washington since they disappeared from the state in the 1930s.
I am not saying they didnt believe wolves were here. I am referring to statements like the highlighted quote. Makes it sound like there were no wolves here before that date.
Post by: wolfbait on May 31, 2009, 09:45:30 PM
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2009/0 … -solution/
Former Idaho Wildlife Biologist Ted Chu, Offers Wolf Management Solution
May 22, 2009
Ted Chu, a former wildlife biologist while living in Idaho, now resides in Oregon and offers an editorial at OregonLive about how to resolve the wolf management problems and keep landowners/ranchers happy.
The Legislature should make it legal for landowners to shoot wolves on their private property under any circumstances. Many wolf recovery supporters will knee-jerk howl at this notion, but it will ultimately work to the advantage of wolves. Had this approach been used right from the start in the Northern Rockies, I’m certain there would be just as many wolves alive as there are today, at much less taxpayer expense and social stress.
Individual wolves will still be killed, but under this approach the rest will get smart in a hurry and retreat to the public lands. This is where they belong and realistically is the only place they can survive and avoid trouble.
How dare anyone suggest such a reasonable solution!
Tom Remington
Post by: wolfbait on May 31, 2009, 10:03:20 PM
or it could be people just have it set in their heads that it's all lies and won't ever believe anything, including them stating that the sky is blue.
Could be but I dont think I fall into that category. I know what you are talking about though. Like the WDFW "not being able to verify" wolves in Washington gets turned into them "denying" wolves here. But there are instances where they bring it on themselves. There is also things that just dont pass the smell test. Like wolves being confirmed in Washington and Oregon on the same day.
http://www.wolfhaven.org/northwestregion.phpQuoteEarly Sunday evening, the wolf pups and the recently collared male adult were seen on camera. They also recorded sounds of wolf pup howls. Biologists call the pack the ‘Lookout Pack,” and genetic (DNA) evidence shows they likely have moved in from British Columbia or Alberta, Canada, and not from the northern Rocky mountain region where 1,455 wolves currently are believed to reside. The alpha male is older than biologist expected to see.QuoteAnd Oregon too!
Oregon confirmed a wolf pack that includes both adults and pups in a forested area of northern Union County on Friday, July 18, the same day the Lookout Pack was confirmed in Washington. This is the first evidence of multiple wolves and wolf reproduction in Oregon since wolves were extirpated from the state back in the mid-1940s. Biologists will continue to monitor the area and may also try to capture and radio-collar the wolves. See www.dfw.state.or.us/ for details.
Keep in mind this also happened right as they were trying to delist them.
They believe the wolves came from Canada which is totally possible. But why hadnt they migrated sooner. Why has the majority of wolf activity happened within the last ten-fifteen years? Which is exactly when they started talking about reintroducing them on the peninsula and when they transplanted Canadian wolves to Yellowstone. I might be paranoid but it just seems too coincidental.
Thats a dandy Kain, you arn't paranoid, you just think for yourself. The feds claim it has been 70 years since there was a pack in here, but they couldn't find their butt with both hans and a mirror, the only way they ever find out about anything is if they did it or someone told them. There are a few of us who saw wolf packs over the years in this country but they never stayed here, and they were nothing like these canadian wolves. There's a bunch of us here that know exzackly how these wolves got here and they didn't hoof it here I can tell you that.
Post by: jackelope on May 31, 2009, 10:25:09 PM
Post by: Kain on May 31, 2009, 10:36:21 PM
Guys have been seeing wolves for years now and statements from WDFW that said they were unable to confirm wolves were re-established in Washington made some guys think that they were denying they were here at all.
Post by: wolfbait on May 31, 2009, 11:08:18 PM
Post by: Kain on June 01, 2009, 01:58:42 AM
Everybody has good points here. Does anyone know if there is public anouncements anywhere when the game department transplants an animal. I'd like to have a link for it because it should be public information. The WDFW does not let everything they do out of the bag. If that was the case then there would still be a WDFW employee on this sight that could answer some of our questions for us.(someone called the guys boss and ratted him out)
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,27765.0.html
They post it when it is not an controversial animal.
Thanks Kain
No problem here are a few more.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/research/papers/sage_grouse/lewis_reintro08.html
http://wdfw.wa.gov/do/newreal/release.php?id=mar3109a
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/research/papers/seaotter/survey/index.htm
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/research/caribou/caribou.htm
Post by: boneaddict on June 01, 2009, 06:15:40 AM
So far what I know and what I have observed and what I believe conquers with wolfbait 100%.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 01, 2009, 07:35:14 AM
If we didn't already know that these wolves had been released in the methow, wouldn't it be just a little bit strange to have all of a sudden a large wolf pack, plus surplus singles tripping around. Thats what makes the feds and the wolf people laughable when they deny that they planted them here. For years you don't see any wolves and then ker-blam theres a pile of them. They say they just discovered them in 08, so they figure they have to jump on it when someone reports it to them and now its out in the open. all of sudden its this big surprise wolf pack,,now thats what doesn't smell to good.I'm still not sure that anyone can show that wolves have been released...there still has not been a single shread of evidence aside from everyones acute sense of smell to this horrible biologist conspiracy. i guess what I'm saying is SHOW ME THE MONEY. Where are the pictures, documents, proof of any kind aside from a "somthing's fishy" smell.
Post by: boneaddict on June 01, 2009, 08:07:55 AM
At this point it doesn't matter. *censored* has already hit the fan. If you don't recognize that, well then I don't know what to say to you. I can have my belief and you can think I am just one of the sky is falling guys, and in this case I'd love to be wrong. Oh I wish I was wrong.
Post by: boneaddict on June 01, 2009, 08:11:34 AM
Its amazing to me how fast they spread or exploded. Too bad sheep and antelope don't share the same success in this state if this has all been natural.
Post by: wolfbait on June 01, 2009, 10:21:47 AM
someone with all the right connections and not afraid to ask......I want to find out how many collared wolves are they currently tracking in the state of Washington. Think there is anyway to find out.
Its amazing to me how fast they spread or exploded. Too bad sheep and antelope don't share the same success in this state if this has all been natural.
Here's how it goes, canadian wolves can have up to 14 pups per litter, elk,deer,moose ect. 1 to 3 per year, very seldom three. The feds and the wolf people try to claim that the alfa male and female are the only ones that beed in the pack, all pure horseshi-. So you have all these wolves having all these puppies, then they have puppies, in the mean time ma n pa are killing the snot out of everything. Soon you have lots of wolves with nothing to eat. That is where you and I come into the picture as dam good food for the wolf, and they won't be killing the week and the old, it will be the ones who arn't packing. It's amazing the amount of people that become pro-gun owners in wolf county. Its like the people living in the city buying guns to protect themselfs from the gangs and crooks, out here in the brush people are buying guns to keep the wolves from eating them. It took along time to get rid of most of the wolves way back when, and they used the hell out of poisons. even here in the methow valley back in the 30's and 40's the feds would take a horse up on the game range, shoot it, let the coyotes and wolves get to feeding on it good than they would lace it with TD4, I think thats what it was, there would be dead coyotes and wolves everywhere, this was in the winter time. Its going to take along time to get control of the wolves that we have now. Anytime the wolves start bothering people down here in the lower 48, they say that it is becuz someone fed them, and thats probably partly right, they fed them before the turned them loose on us.
Post by: Kain on June 01, 2009, 10:25:11 AM
National parks service
http://www.nps.gov/archive/noca/wolf.htm
Quote
Are gray wolves reproducing in the North Cascades?
In 1990, adults with pups were seen in the Hozomeen area. This was the first known reproduction of wild wolves in Washington State in at least 50 years! Since 1990, biologists have seen three separate groups of adult wolves with pups in the Cascades. Wolves mate in February or March. About 63 days later a litter averaging six pups is born.
http://www.pacificbio.org/ESIN/MapImages/graywolf.jpg
Why are the possible wolf sightings marked with a gray circle on a grey map?
I am still not convinced that wolves have been released by any government agency but I am starting to think they may be down playing actual populations in Washington. Money, politics? It is these kinds of conflicting info that makes me distrust anything they have to say on these subjects.
Post by: boneaddict on June 01, 2009, 10:39:38 AM
I have said all along that control over these populations EVEN WITH a hunting season, which would be a move in the right direction, will be a little too late. Poision is essentially the only form of control that will work, and I am sure we are far from that. Our only hope now is for a Parvo outbreak.
Post by: wolfbait on June 01, 2009, 10:56:46 AM
someone with all the right connections and not afraid to ask......I want to find out how many collared wolves are they currently tracking in the state of Washington. Think there is anyway to find out.
Its amazing to me how fast they spread or exploded. Too bad sheep and antelope don't share the same success in this state if this has all been natural.
I don't think anyone will be able to find out the real trueth on how many, as that would kinda blow their boat outa the water. when you tell lies at the rate that they do, they sure don't want to slip up and tell something that we could git our teeth into. We can all sit around jawin on what they are telling us, an know that they are lie'n fools, and they know we know they are lie'n but unless we git the paper work or it goes to court when soneone gets ate, they can sit in the back of the class and snicker. I think that they were purely stupid to put them in this valley, as someone is going to get ate, their just isn't no getting around that. We have alot of not to bright people that come here from all over, and alot of them beleive the bullsh-- that the wolf is a shy creature, that just is not true with these canadian wolves, the ones we had here years ago were though, we hardly ever saw one and when we did it was there and it was gone. So when it happens and it will, I am sure that they don't want to be held responsible for something that they created. I have had wolves in around my place the last 2 nights, we heard them howling last night just before dark, and then about 1;00 in the morning the dogs went crazee, so we get in the truck and go check on our stock, 2 nights in a row makes for short nights. You can just bet your last dollar, I will be shooting first and asking quetions later if they come after any of mine. This old game of, "well we just can't tell" isn't going to fly.
Post by: jackelope on June 01, 2009, 10:59:12 AM
Post by: woodswalker on June 01, 2009, 11:02:34 AM
I have said all along that control over these populations EVEN WITH a hunting season, which would be a move in the right direction, will be a little too late. Poision is essentially the only form of control that will work, and I am sure we are far from that. Our only hope now is for a Parvo outbreak.
Or a SEVERE case of Hypervelocity-Plumbism and Exsanguination. :yike:
Post by: wolfbait on June 01, 2009, 11:29:26 AM
Post by: wolfbait on June 01, 2009, 11:48:45 AM
I have said all along that control over these populations EVEN WITH a hunting season, which would be a move in the right direction, will be a little too late. Poision is essentially the only form of control that will work, and I am sure we are far from that. Our only hope now is for a Parvo outbreak.
Or a SEVERE case of Hypervelocity-Plumbism and Exsanguination. :yike:
I heard something awhile back about some people plantin a dog of their own, I don't remember what state it was, but they had a plan. Sure is a dirty way to have to deal with the wolf problem. But if they won't manage them and supposable you can't shoot em, well shi- happens. I think that what they don't understand is people that don't live in the cities still have a mind of their own, and we don't follow along like the rest of the sheep, maybe they think they can make us tow the mark by sickin the wolf on us, I really don't think it will work. There are people buying more guns, people that never had guns before have them now. They try to take the guns away from people fightin off the wolves and I think then they will think about gittin rid of the wolves as that will be more easier.
Post by: Kain on June 01, 2009, 12:13:59 PM
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/northwest/story/737377.html
Quote
The report was presented by Idaho Fish and Game Department wildlife biologist Pete Zager.
"I'd like to tell you we have this ungulate-wolf thing figured out," he said as the audience of scientists eased into educated smiles. "But that's not the case."
While scientists are trying to gather data and study the options for finding a balance between wolf recovery and prey sustainability, wildlife managers are under public pressure to make decisions.
Zager said researchers don't have all the information they need, but they realize "we've got to get rolling and make decisions based on the information we have."
Here's what researchers know for sure about elk and wolves in Idaho, he said:
-- Elk herds are declining.
-- Wolf packs are growing -- well above original objectives.
-- The number of elk harvested by hunters has been declining, from around 25,000 in the mid-1990s, when wolves were reintroduced to the Northern Rocky Mountains, to roughly 15,000 last year.
-- Elk hunting seasons and quotas have been reduced for 2009, but the impacts of wolves are likely to go unchecked.
-- Wolf management through hunting is scheduled to begin this fall, but likely will be challenged in court by animal protection groups.
-- Wolves have become the most important factor in predation on elk.
However, they're not the only factor.
"Wolves have given cougars a huge favor by taking the spotlight. Cougars are still a significant factor (in elk mortality)."
-- Forest fire suppression also is a factor in elk declines.
-- The effects of wolves on elk vary dramatically in various game management units.
Bottom line: "We still need to be monitoring wolves and elk like crazy," Zager said.
Post by: boneaddict on June 01, 2009, 12:19:00 PM
If I were to guess, wolves go through the roof, herds decline, herds unable to recover due to everything else man has in the mix like range etc. Wolves run out of food and turn on each other and man. Wolves starve to death, now we have man. and NO HUNTING. I'm so bleek sometimes. :)
Post by: Hornseeker on June 01, 2009, 01:09:17 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 01, 2009, 01:09:46 PM
http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/endangered/endangered_species_act.htm
http://www.takingliberty.us/TLHome.html
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 01, 2009, 01:21:44 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 01, 2009, 01:29:47 PM
They'll find an equilibrium, nature has a lovely way of doing that, but man won't be part of it.
If I were to guess, wolves go through the roof, herds decline, herds unable to recover due to everything else man has in the mix like range etc. Wolves run out of food and turn on each other and man. Wolves starve to death, now we have man. and NO HUNTING. I'm so bleek sometimes. :)
Not so fast, we will still be huntin, and maybe we will get to hunt every day. they just won't have horns and they won't be good eatin, but just think of all the warm clothes we will be wearin, wolf slippers,wolf underwear, slip between the wolf sheets, wolf coats, and who knows the way things are going wolf stew might be the up an coming menue. I don't think there will be much of nature when the wolf gets done, if you think of the way that nature works when it is up and running smoothly, you couldn't ask for a better system, beavers hold the water back, elk and deer in what not keep things from over growing in spots, the list goes on an on, you slam the wolves in there with no management and everything is bound to go to hell.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 01, 2009, 03:19:37 PM
bring your camera.
Whoa...the first bit of reason on this post in a while...
These 'tame- unafraid- future man eating' wolves should be very easy to catch on film. And since the valley is clearly LOADED with them getting a few pictures should be childs play. Let's see those photos! I think there has been one post on here that actually had photos of a washington wolf...with all of our hours in the woods and the vicious nature of these animals it seems we can get them any time.
I'm laying on the sarcasm pretty strong- most of you probably understand that...but really- if "wolves are eating all our deer" as the post clearly states, why can't we seem to get any photos of this huge population of animals? common guys... :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: boneaddict on June 01, 2009, 03:21:29 PM
Post by: Kain on June 01, 2009, 03:24:05 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 01, 2009, 03:30:56 PM
I'd be sarcastic too. I haven't found any of the pet variety yet. :)Exactly- how is it that some people on here are rabble rousing saying that they're "Not the least bit scairt of me".... clearly that's not the case. If they're not scared of people- go take a picture of one.
Post by: boneaddict on June 01, 2009, 05:02:27 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 02, 2009, 06:39:56 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 02, 2009, 07:37:04 AM
The times I could have taken a picture of the wolves, the coyote fixer was what I ended up grabbing other than a camera, I think when you own livestock, and they might be indangers way, one doesn't grab the camera. But I think in the near future you will start getting more pictures of the famed wolves. The way I figure this wolf situation, is some people will have to git ate before any real action will be impimented in wolf control. Then the noe-beleivers, will become beleivers. The wolf will affect everyone in the near future in one way or another. well not the people who live in the big cities. But who knows, these wolves multiply like bunnies, and they seem to spread out quite rapidly.I'm not sure wolves on on their way to eating people, but you're right- they're here to stay and are likely to become a part of our outdoor experience. I disagree about them multiplying like bunnies- how many young survived this season from the lookout pack?
Post by: mossback91 on June 02, 2009, 11:05:13 AM
Post by: jackelope on June 02, 2009, 11:18:37 AM
Quote
By the 1980s, recorded confirmed observations were infrequent. While collecting grizzly bear data in 1989 for WDFW, Fitkin started getting wolf reports. Most of the reports, particularly the more credible and interesting ones, were from remote locations in the summer in the Pasayten, the Chelan-Sawtooth crest and Twisp River, said Fitkin. There were some good sightings at Ross Lake. He briefly glimpsed and heard the howling of wolves in Black Pine Basin, above Mazama.
In 1989, a team of Canadian biologists from British Columbia met with their American counterparts to let them know that more wolves were being sighted across the border and might show up in Washington, recalled Bill Gaines, forest biologist with the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest.
Confirming identification of a pure wild wolf was a problem before the recent introduction of DNA data and technology, said Gaines. He said there were incidents of people releasing hybrid wolf-dogs into the wild and people became skeptical. “It was always a clouded issue,” he said.
To confirm an observation of a rare species on the federal endangered species list, a verifiable record is required, according to forest biologist Bob Naney. With today’s technology, that means a DNA report, a clear photograph or a dead animal.
“Starting two to two-and-a-half years ago, there have been more consistent reports,” said Naney. Before that there were no reports during winter, when biologists thought the wolves would have been at lower elevations near deer winter range.
Most reports were anecdotal, but responses to a howling survey and remote camera photographs led wildlife agencies to radio-collar and monitor a pair of wolf-like canids in the Lookout Mountain area southwest of Twisp last July. DNA samples came back positive for pure gray wolf, genetically connected to wolves in Canada.
“As far as we know, nobody brought them in. They’ve been here since I came here in 1991,” said John Rohrer, biologist for the Methow Valley Ranger District. He said the DNA tests are consistent with wolf samples from southern coastal British Columbia.
“When people say someone drove to Canada to get the wolves, that’s impossible. I don’t buy the rumors,” said Gaines. He said there has been no agency effort to re-introduce wolves into the North Cascades. He said gray wolves are occasionally hunted and trapped just north of the border and have possibly been dispersing for many years based on sightings.
Re-introducing wolves or having no wolves were two options ruled out by the group of citizen and agency stakeholders who began working on Washington state’s draft Wolf Conservation and Management Plan in 2006, according to Fitkin.
“Those were the only two absolutes,” he said. If re-introduction of wolves had been an option, the animals would have been outfitted with radio collars and we wouldn’t have put them right next to people, said Fitkin
Post by: jackelope on June 02, 2009, 11:25:40 AM
Quote
Methow Valley residents adjust to living with wolves
Wenatchee World staff writer K.C. Mehaffey reports on Methow Valley residents response to living with wolves as the new Lookout Pack settles in.
By K.C. Mehaffey
Wenatchee World
May 16, 2009
TWISP - Despite the controversy that surrounds them, the gray wolves that made a home for themselves near Twisp are acting rather neighborly, so far.
No one has reported livestock killed, or pets carried off by the first confirmed pack of wolves to live in Washington state since the Great Depression, state officials say.
"Well-behaved," is how state Department of Fish and Wildlife biologist Scott Fitkin describes these wolves in their first official year of residency.
"I halfway anticipated we might have had an incident with somebody's dog by now," the Winthrop biologist said. "I've been surprised at how covert they've been."
This winter, less than a dozen wolves who are members of this pack weren't living far from people.
Some people who live on the outskirts of Twisp and Carlton have seen the wolves roaming in the hills behind their homes. More have heard their lonely cries from their porches and backyards.
They are likely to be the first in the state to deal with real encounters but not the last, as this pack may grow rapidly, and other wolves are already venturing into Eastern Washington from Idaho.
These neighbors to the wolves have a variety of thoughts about them: Some are utterly opposed to the comeback of what they call blood-thirsty vermin, while others unconditionally favor the return of what they see as a long-missing part of Washington's ecosystem.
But more seem to take a pragmatic view of the wolf's recovery. Their reactions to the return of this large predator are not black and white, but, like the wolf itself, in the gray area between the two extremes.
Take Monte Catlin, 36, a Seattle firefighter who also runs an airline charter business and lives on Alder Creek Road with his wife, Mishon, and two young children.
The Catlins said wolves have been checking out their little canyon for several years now, and this past year, they've been regular visitors.
For a period of time this winter, they saw fresh tracks in the snow daily. Wolves have come to within 100 yards of the house, and the family enjoys hearing them howl at night, a sound Monte Catlin describes as "absolutely magical."
Catlin said he has no fear of the creatures he and his wife have hiked and camped in parts of the country where many wolves live and have never been bothered. They feel completely safe leaving their children to play in the yard under the watchful eyes of their large dogs, and would be much more concerned about cougars, bears or just about any other wildlife.
But, Catlin said, his support of the wolf's return isn't absolute.
"Having a few wolves around seems to be intriguing and exciting something new. But if we have 10 times that amount, my opinion could change," he said. And he understands that even a few wolves could pose problems for people with livestock. "I'm very sympathetic to my neighbor that runs cattle. Obviously, I don't make my living off cattle," he said.
Most of the people contacted who live on the eastern edge of the wolf's territory said they aren't too worried about wolves venturing onto their property and they haven't made any changes to accommodate them. "It's just another animal, really," said Jennifer Edwards, 33, a homemaker who lives on the Twisp-Carlton Road just east of where the wolves are living. "We already have cougars and bears. We have coyotes wandering through all the time. They're the same thing in my brain," she said.
Edwards said she's not overly concerned about her two young children either at least not any more than she already worries about them. The other day at breakfast, they were talking about the rattlesnake they thought they saw. "You just deal with it. We have kids, and they don't go out at night. When you come to the country and live, that's just life."
Down the road a piece, Judy Hanley, 52, a retired homemaker, agreed. "I think it's a good thing if they come back, as long as they don't let it go overboard," she said.
Hanley said she thinks her cows, horses, dogs, cats and chickens are safe. The chickens are well secured, she said. "I don't think we have to worry about a wolf jumping over a 6-foot-high fence."
Blane Rogers, 57, a taxidermist, said he has friends on both sides of the issue. He agreed with many others, who said there's a huge split in the general community when it comes to wolves. "I'm just neutral," he said.
Rogers said he'd personally like to see one in the wild, and doesn't worry about hiking with his little dog which he keeps on a leash while on state land near his house. "I think cougars are more likely to jump on you than a wolf is, and I'm not scared of them," he said. But he knows many of his customers worry their hunting opportunities will be greatly diminished with the wolf's return.
Walter Parker, 66, retired from the Skagit County Public Works Department, said he's seen firsthand what the wolves have done in Idaho. "I go over there hunting, and 15 years ago, you'd see all kinds of elk and deer. They've completely wiped them out," he said.
He thinks it won't take long for the wolves in the Methow to wipe out the mule deer. "Then they'll go for the livestock and dogs and cats," he said. "In 20 years, this place will be overrun with wolves. I don't think we need them."
Some say they have nothing against the wolf, they just don't want them living so close to a rural neighborhood with lots of livestock, pets and children.
"I don't really like the idea of having them as neighbors right here," said longtime resident Larry Surface, 57, a carpenter. "Those of us who have been here for 50 years and longer, we just kind of like to keep the wolves away from the door."
Surface said the valley will change as wolves become more populous.
"All you have to do is go to Idaho or Montana to see what kind of an impact they're having. I don't want to have to build a wolf fence around my 20 acres so I can keep a dog and a cat," he said.
Surface echoed a few other residents who said they don't believe that the wolves made their way here from Canada on their own. He thinks a special interest group but not the game department brought them to the valley. It just doesn't make sense, he said, that the wolves would decide to make their home this close to Twisp.
Fitkin said he's heard the rumor that the state Department of Fish and Wildlife planted the wolves here, and that's absolutely not true.
He said it makes sense that wolves came down from Canada over a period of years, and finally chose one of the valley's best hunting grounds to make their home.
Although most people contacted say they haven't changed their lifestyles just because wolves are living nearby, some have.
John Richardson, 43, a Carlton orchardist, said he's happy that the wolves are returning, even though he has dogs, and knows that wolves have killed dogs in Idaho and Montana.
"Really, my only concern is for my dogs, and I'm choosing to take them up and go hiking in the woods," he said. When he hikes in wolf territory, he keeps a closer eye on them, and tries to keep them closer to his side. On occasion, he's gone hiking in a different place because he heard the wolves were in a certain area.
"As far as not going into the woods because there are wolves out there, that would be silly."
Willie Kemper, 73, a retired heavy equipment operator, said the wolves won't keep him out of the woods, either. But he worries about leaving his mules out overnight when he packs them into the hills near his house, knowing there's a wolf pack close by.
"I'm just not real enthused," he said of the wolf's return.
He said he doubts the wolves will come into his yard, but he has made one change since to prepare for a wolf encounter.
"I've been carrying a little shooter, just for rattlesnakes. Now I just carry a little bigger shooter," he said of the .357 revolver he now takes with him on his frequent backcountry trips. But, he added, "I don't know if I dare shoot one or not."
Tania Rapp, 34, a Carlton farmer, said she wouldn't mind learning how to use a gun, now that she's all too aware of the predators that come into her yard up Libby Creek. She has a 6-year-old son.
This winter, a cougar attacked one of their alpacas, and after that experience, she and her husband decided to sell all of their alpacas.
She said the attack raised concerns with her neighbors. "Quite a few people didn't want to have to relocate the cougar, they wanted the cougar around," she said.
There were also those concerned about safety, and felt the alpacas were attracting predators.
"It's definitely affected us in that we decided to just not have livestock at the moment, not until we have a really good fence and a really good barn." They kept a few sheep, which are in a more secured enclosure, she said.
Rapp said she isn't upset about losing the alpacas. "We live out in the wilderness," she said. "We just decided we didn't want to cause any more issues in the community."
Post by: boneaddict on June 02, 2009, 11:45:58 AM
Post by: jackelope on June 02, 2009, 11:49:12 AM
:dunno:
Post by: boneaddict on June 02, 2009, 11:54:18 AM
By the way, for sake of arguement, I expect other incidents to increase as well, as there is more competetion for food source. It wouldn't surprise me to see more cougar incidents.
Post by: jackelope on June 02, 2009, 11:55:36 AM
Quote
By the way, for sake of arguement, I expect other incidents to increase as well, as there is more competetion for food source. It wouldn't surprise me to see more cougar incidents.
pretty common thinking across the boards regarding this topic.
Post by: boneaddict on June 02, 2009, 12:01:20 PM
Post by: jackelope on June 02, 2009, 12:03:05 PM
i would think anyway.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 02, 2009, 12:03:39 PM
Post by: mossback91 on June 02, 2009, 12:11:00 PM
Quote
This winter, a cougar attacked one of their alpacas, and after that experience, she and her husband decided to sell all of their alpacas.
She said the attack raised concerns with her neighbors. "Quite a few people didn't want to have to relocate the cougar, they wanted the cougar around," she said.
There were also those concerned about safety, and felt the alpacas were attracting predators.
That right there cracks me up!!!
Post by: bucklucky on June 02, 2009, 12:30:37 PM
Post by: boneaddict on June 02, 2009, 12:42:36 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 02, 2009, 02:23:34 PM
QuoteBy the way, for sake of arguement, I expect other incidents to increase as well, as there is more competetion for food source. It wouldn't surprise me to see more cougar incidents.
pretty common thinking across the boards regarding this topic.
I didn't know this till early this morning, but a coyote came into a friend of mines yard this last sunday and killed his little dog, he happen to look out the window and the coyote had the dog in his mouth, he ran at the coyote, think that he would drop it, but nope. We was talkin about it this mornin, and it seems these coyotes are kind of bunching up in differant parts around here, I don't know if this is happening or not. Its like where there was lots a coyotes there ain't now, and where there weren't to many now there are alot. Most of them city folks that moved here, they can't say enough about how sweet the wolves are, people that have any brains don't argue with them, we just nod our heads, yep, yep yep. If you say one thing about what the wolves really do, (I did just one time) why they will claw yer eyes out.
Post by: jackelope on June 02, 2009, 02:39:23 PM
Quote
If you say one thing about what the wolves really do, (I did just one time) why they will claw yer eyes out.
whats worse..the wolves in your backyard or the city folks clawing your eyes out? it sounds like all in all you got it pretty rough over there living in paradise.
Post by: boneaddict on June 02, 2009, 02:50:15 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 02, 2009, 02:50:47 PM
He said it makes sense that wolves came down from Canada over a period of years, and finally chose one of the valley's best hunting grounds to make their home.
What a crock a horseshi- Yep, they saw a map, and said dis is where we will raise our schildren. Right after the game department anounced they had bought the golden doe this spring, the very same week, is when the folks saw them wolves being release outa crates on the golden doe. Around about the same time FS told the wenatchee world that the new deer habitat the golden doe had eight wolves on it that could fatten up on the deer. That would be our bran new wolves, not the ones that they been slappin in here over the years and never got caught. This time they got cot with their pants down, and they dam well know it. As for how many pups that survive, on average, they like to down play that figure also, the answer from them would be 1 to 2 pups. last year I think the look-out pack had 7 pups, and if there is more than 1 female in the pack it would be havin pups also.
Post by: boneaddict on June 02, 2009, 02:55:33 PM
"Some will say the Bible is just heresay too"
Post by: jackelope on June 02, 2009, 02:59:15 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 02, 2009, 03:01:34 PM
Post by: boneaddict on June 02, 2009, 03:02:23 PM
It is hard to figure out which I'd rather spend my time with.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 02, 2009, 03:03:36 PM
Post by: jackelope on June 02, 2009, 03:04:27 PM
Post by: boneaddict on June 02, 2009, 03:07:10 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on June 02, 2009, 03:12:09 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 02, 2009, 03:16:21 PM
First off this isn't paradise anymore. We have some of the werst road ragers you ever saw, we have houses stickin out on the ridge lines everywhere, the first thing them city folks do when they move here. is run to the store and buy as many of them keep out signs as they can and plaster them up around there 5 acre lot. But they sure don't mind driven through your pasture to get the buck they just shot from the dirt road, where the sign says no hunting. I have met plenty of folks that moved here from the city that were real nice folks, and like everywhere else there are a fair share of dinks that move in also. The wolf subject is a touchy one with folks, we have some friends that are from the westside, fact we bought a dandy stud colt few years back from em, anyway I figured they would know how the wolf works. So I said somethng to em one afternoon that didn't make the wolf look to good, anyway it will never happen agin, anymore I just say things to em like, yep, them wolves do like their shikmunks, yep there real purdy. Nother thing, if they live 10 minutes out of town, well they live in the wilderness.
Post by: jackelope on June 02, 2009, 03:23:21 PM
They tend to be more up front and let you know when they are going to nail you.
thats my point.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 02, 2009, 03:31:29 PM
From last encounters. The lookout pack was down to three post winter. Only one pup made it. Then all of a sudden 8 more showed up on the brand new golden doe property. (NOT pups) Still perplexes me. Biologist would have to describe how that packing behavior would turn out.
"Some will say the Bible is just heresay too"
When did the eight show up on the golden doe property? I'm not sure I heard about them.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 02, 2009, 03:33:17 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 02, 2009, 03:50:48 PM
They tend to be more up front and let you know when they are going to nail you.
You know that is generally true, but we have a couple of places here in the methow valley where the snakes are just plum mean, and I don't know why that is, and they are also way bigger than the average rattlesnake in here. Like fer instance back up there in that perrygin ridge country, we have rode through there and them snake would be 4 n 5 ft long and we'd be 20 ft from em and they go to buzzin and actual come at us. Lots of them snakes would still be alive if they wouldn't have been so mean. And then sometimes they won't make a sound, just haul off and bite at ya, Most the time if you arn't right up close to em, 10 ft er so why they will just let you ride right on by. but them that start mouthin off when yer out there 40 ft er so they have a problem. Up round mazama clear to lost river and that country through there has a ton of them big snakes, I killed one in there years ago that was 63 in long, right in there by early winters. I have a pictue of him somewhere, he stretched clear cross the hood of the truck an draped down both sides. All that country clear to lost river is wall to wall city folks, big fancy houses, I don't git it, they move to the country to git away from the city, then they build there house right next to each other. Some of the biggest bucks I ever saw was up in that country around monumant crick, and back in there robertson crick, real hard to hunt. But man there's some real nice bucks up there. Don't really matter anymore about telling folks where some of the nice bucks came from, very few bucks came out of there but the ones that did would have went in the record books.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 02, 2009, 03:57:37 PM
Fitkin said he's heard the rumor that the state Department of Fish and Wildlife planted the wolves here, and that's absolutely not true.
He said it makes sense that wolves came down from Canada over a period of years, and finally chose one of the valley's best hunting grounds to make their home.
Right after the game department anounced they had bought the golden doe this spring, the very same week, is when the folks saw them wolves being release outa crates on the golden doe. Around about the same time FS told the wenatchee world that the new deer habitat the golden doe had eight wolves on it that could fatten up on the deer. That would be our bran new wolves, not the ones that they been slappin in here over the years and never got caught. This time they got cot with their pants down, and they dam well know it.
Wolfbait- why can't you show any evidence at all that the DFW released wolves. You say they were caught with their pants down, show us...You have not produced one single statement on this entire (looong and painful to read) that was backed by evidence, documentation, or records. I'm not sure how I can make it any more clear, until you show ONE SINGLE PIECE OF LEGITIMATE EVIDENCE your statements are hearsay/rumor/possible outright lie/gossip/...whatever. You have not backed up anything you post.
Tell us the names of the ones who "got cot with their pants down" or perhaps the folks "saw them wolves being release outa crates on the golden doe". Tell us anything factual that you might be able to defend? Share some of the evidence with us- not just the gossip surrounding the wolves.
Post by: wolfbait on June 02, 2009, 04:03:28 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 02, 2009, 04:04:32 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 02, 2009, 04:12:06 PM
wacoyotehunte,,you can go fly a kite, I could care less what you beleive or don't beleive! Imformation that I get in confidence stays in confidence until other wise stated from said, see'rs of wolves being released. So put that in your pipe an smoke it!
Post by: jackelope on June 02, 2009, 04:21:40 PM
Post by: jackelope on June 02, 2009, 04:42:18 PM
i unlocked this thread...lets keep it civil and see if we can share some good information between us. if it goes south, i will nuke it and that will be the end of it.
Quote
June 2, 2009
FOIA Officer
Division of Policy and Directives Management
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 222
Arlington, VA 22203
FOIA REQUEST
Fee waiver requested
Dear FOIA Officer:
Pursuant to the federal Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, I request access to and copies of All documentation relating to Wolves in the Methow Valley Washington.
I would like to receive the information in electronic format.
Please waive any applicable fees. Release of the information is in the public interest because it will contribute significantly to public understanding of government operations and activities.
If my request is denied in whole or part, I ask that you justify all deletions by reference to specific exemptions of the act. I will also expect you to release all segregable portions of otherwise exempt material. I, of course, reserve the right to appeal your decision to withhold any information or to deny a waiver of fees.
I look forward to your reply within 20 business days, as the statute requires.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 02, 2009, 04:46:51 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 02, 2009, 04:54:21 PM
wolfbait agin
Post by: huntnphool on June 02, 2009, 05:11:35 PM
Post by: Kain on June 02, 2009, 05:20:59 PM
Quote
In the FYI 998 Interior Appropriations Act (H.R. 2107), the House has earmarked $300,000 for an EIS on the reintroduction of gray wolves into Olympic National Park, Washington (11.Rept. 105-163).
Can you do one to see if they used this money to release any on the peninsula? Or was it just for the study?
Post by: bearpaw on June 02, 2009, 08:38:30 PM
Post by: Ridgerunner on June 02, 2009, 08:39:43 PM
Post by: jackelope on June 02, 2009, 08:48:49 PM
http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Biodiversity/biodv-13.cfm?&CFID=6622718&CFTOKENQuoteIn the FYI 998 Interior Appropriations Act (H.R. 2107), the House has earmarked $300,000 for an EIS on the reintroduction of gray wolves into Olympic National Park, Washington (11.Rept. 105-163).
Can you do one to see if they used this money to release any on the peninsula? Or was it just for the study?
just copy and paste it, edit oly pen where the methow valley is, print it and send it in.
Post by: wolfbait on June 02, 2009, 09:50:26 PM
Post by: woodswalker on June 02, 2009, 09:54:56 PM
Maybe they migrated there from Idaho like ours did in those big white vans, kind of looks like aschwanns delivery truck cept there white.
isnt that how most do?
:beatdeadhorse: :stirthepot:
Post by: wolfbait on June 03, 2009, 05:34:49 AM
Post by: boneaddict on June 03, 2009, 05:38:25 AM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 03, 2009, 05:58:02 AM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 03, 2009, 06:08:24 AM
Quote
maybe one of their packages was leaking wolf.
:lol4:
Post by: wolfbait on June 03, 2009, 06:12:19 AM
Post by: wolfbait on June 03, 2009, 06:36:39 AM
by Valerius Geist, PhD., Professional Biologist, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science, the University of Calgary
Note: The following essay was originally sent to the Saskatoon Star Phoenix on Feb. 9th, but they have not printed it as yet. However, it was posted at Wolf Crossing today [here].
I am one of two scientists asked by the Carnegie family to independently investigate the death of Kenton, their son. The coroner’s inquest into this matter was narrowly focused on who killed Kenton Carnegie, to which the correct answer is: a wolf pack. It did not address wider policy issues such as conservation legislation, for the tragedy would almost certainly not have happened in British Columbia despite that province’s share of wolf attacks on humans, nor failures in scholarship that led to the wide and dogmatic acceptance of the view that wolves are not dangerous to humans. That myth has killed at least three persons in North America in the past decade, two of which were highly educated young people. Nor did it dwell on what circumstances lead to the habituation of wolves to humans, one of which is scarcity of natural prey, which could be due to risen wolf populations. In short, there is more to the story than has been addressed by the court or the press.
Nobody involved in the tragedy, including the wolf specialist working on behalf of the coroner’s office, noticed that the habituated wolves had been targeting humans. However, students of urban coyotes described a stepwise progression of behavior, which is shown by coyotes that are targeting children in urban parks. This pattern of increasing familiarization with potential prey is identical in wolves and coyotes. In short, the situation at Camp North Landing was a disaster waiting to happen. Ironically, while biologists studying coyotes affirmed that coyotes targeted humans as prey, wolf biologists denied that wolves were dangerous to people.
The view that – in the absence of rabies - wolves do not attack people has taken so solid a grip in current times, that even after an exploratory attack by two wolves on two camp personnel at Camp North Landing, the threat posed by wolves was not fully recognized. A captive pack of wolves destroyed their new keeper, a biologist with a master’s degree, within three days, a tragedy traceable to the belief that wolves do not attack people. A similar fate befell a lady keeping a pack of wolf hybrids for similar reasons. The view of the harmless wolf may have prevented North American wolf specialists from developing an understanding of the circumstances when wolves are very dangerous to people and when they are not. In North America, unlike in some European and Asiatic countries, the circumstances when wolves pose a danger to humans is rare, but is not absent.
http://www.mtechservices.ca/Kenton/index.php?topic=207.
Post by: wolfbait on June 03, 2009, 09:02:58 AM
Post by: wolfbait on June 03, 2009, 09:05:32 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 03, 2009, 09:09:33 AM
waiting patiently (?) :) for the reply you promised.
Post by: wolfbait on June 03, 2009, 12:15:38 PM
Glad yer back, nice when a feller don't stay mad to long, I done been taught some manners, yep I'm a quik learner, I don't ever smash my finger with the same hammer twice.
Post by: wolfbait on June 03, 2009, 12:38:37 PM
Actually I am not worried myself about any wolf gittin me, but I do know plenty of folks here that have little kids running around without a care in the world like I did when I was their age. Most of these folks couldn't tell you the differance between a fir tree and a pine tree, and most of them think the wolf is a shy creature and they howl so beautifully. Is there a certin barrel length, that is required?
I might dig my bows and arrows out and bow hunt this year as the huntin season is way longer, I use to hunt with a bow quite abit, but I got hurt real bad on a job, so mostly all I do now is shoot wolves off the back porch and dragem in the house.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 03, 2009, 01:39:42 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 03, 2009, 02:16:36 PM
I guess I don't know if there's a barrel length requirement or not. I'm still uncertian about the white van carrying all these wolves- if so many people saw it and saw the agency folks dumping wolves, it seems that one of them would have come forward by now... particularly in light of how excited some folks are about wolves in the valley. weird that there have been no actual first hand accounts.
Here is how it goes, there were wolf lovers
that saw the same thing as the people who really ain't infavor of the wolves eating their livestock and family pets. Now the people who love the wolf won't say anything outloud, you know, put it in the paper. but they are saying they saw the same thing down the hippy coradoor. The people who don't like the wolves, well, I know one of them personally and he has a great job, that he could lose over such a conservercial issue. And there are a few others that are just watching the ball bounce around. I have run into a few real time wolf lovers and if you say the wrong thing about the wolf, well you are in for a dam good screemin. This valley is growing but it still isn't like the bigger towns, lot of people know each other here, and there is no since in loosing good friends over the wolf issue which is going to go to the point where people finally git way past mad, and the wolves have lotsa holes, or the wolves start eating some spandex and the wolves have some more holes. what the people behind the wolf don't understand, is that you can only push people so far! And then, Ker-Blam, all hell breaks loose, and then they will wonder just where they lost control, only you and I will know...what "reload" really means.,...How do you make that little line underneeth yer werds, thats cool.
Post by: Kain on June 03, 2009, 03:01:33 PM
Post by: jackelope on June 03, 2009, 03:06:04 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 03, 2009, 03:26:25 PM
Just playing devils advocate here but is possible that what these people saw was the capture collar and release? I would think a project like that would require a van that would be able to take the wolf to the vet if something turned sour. :dunno:
I really don't think so, as the people who really like wolves said "We now have a fresh pack of wolves" No collars! -Our new wolves will insure that there will be less inbreeding with in the lookout pack.,, And there ya go!
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 03, 2009, 03:41:57 PM
Just playing devils advocate here but is possible that what these people saw was the capture collar and release? I would think a project like that would require a van that would be able to take the wolf to the vet if something turned sour. :dunno:
I really don't think so, as the people who really like wolves said "We now have a fresh pack of wolves" No collars! -Our new wolves will insure that there will be less inbreeding with in the lookout pack.,, And there ya go!
I don't know the answer to that Kain. I would say that the state would have made a press release similar to last years had they captured and collared any animals, however, that was before the Whites decided to start killing wolves shipping bloody boxes to canada. I suspect the agencies will be a bit more careful about who knows what, and I don't blame them. The that wolf getting poached (yep- it's poaching) was a bad thing for everyone involved.
Post by: wolfbait on June 03, 2009, 03:46:34 PM
Post by: Kain on June 03, 2009, 03:51:09 PM
I have no idea how credible this info is. Conservation groups or tribes could have done this also. Idaho use the tribes to get around some of the roadblocks with planting wolves. I have found no proof of any of them doing it here. Just an idea for new directions to look in. So far I remain skeptical that any of the government agencies have released wolves in Washington, although I have mentioned my distrust of them.
http://spectator.org/archives/2002/03/05/wolves-on-the-loose
Quote
As for the Washington female, some would say she had a head start. She is an Alpha female (dominant and the only female in a pack to breed) that has participated in thirty-five sheep attacks in Montana's Madison Valley, and she is an alumnus of media mogul Ted Turner's halfway house for recidivist wolves that habitually attack livestock.
In the spring of 2000 Turner -- in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks -- had a large holding pen and related facilities built on his Flying D Ranch south of Bozeman, Montana. They've kept dozens of captured wolves there and have tried -- using Pavlovian behavioral methods -- to get them off the drug of attacking cattle and sheep. Turner also hired his own wildlife pointyheads to assist in this project.
A calf or lamb is placed in the pen, and as the wolves -- wearing electro-shock collars -- approach within a few feet, they receive a rude electric shock (PETA call your office!) that discourages further curiosity. Many wolves that went through this program (that plainly doesn't work) have been released back into the wild, where they have resumed their livestock depredations in nearby Paradise Valley. The Washington state female was part of a small pack relocated to the remote Yaak Valley of northwestern Montana, hard against the Canadian border and hundreds of miles from Turner's ranch. From there she made her lone eighty-mile migration to the Colville, Washington area: "To a wolf, that's like an afternoon walk," Ed Bangs, wolf recovery team leader for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, told the AP.
Post by: Kain on June 03, 2009, 03:53:13 PM
http://www.wolfhaven.org/
Post by: wolfbait on June 03, 2009, 04:05:29 PM
The whites did git caught, but do you really beleive everything that the news media puts out. When all this goes to court, that is when everyone will know what is what. As Far as people shootin wolves, I have talk to more'n a few people that said,if they even see a wolf on the their place, it will have a hole in it. There are still a few old timers in this part of the country that reamember what the wolves do. There are a whole lot of people that really like deer and other wildlife. So things just are not as cut n dryed as some would have you beleive. Not everyone wants the wolves in here as is flanted through the media. In Idaho, where they spent several dollars managing their elk herds to where they had some to hunt every year and a future in their wildlife, well they have killed several wolves that noone knows about, and the game department has killed several that we know of. The wolf population has not slowed down one drop. At this point you could open the season on wolves and you wouldn't even dent em.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 03, 2009, 04:12:44 PM
The whites did git caught, but do you really beleive everything that the news media puts out. When all this goes to court, that is when everyone will know what is what. As Far as people shootin wolves, I have talk to more'n a few people that said,if they even see a wolf on the their place, it will have a hole in it. There are still a few old timers in this part of the country that reamember what the wolves do. There are a whole lot of people that really like deer and other wildlife. So things just are not as cut n dryed as some would have you beleive. At this point you could open the season on wolves and you wouldn't even dent em.Yes they did get caught, and rightfully so( I mean come on...the bax was leaking blood :chuckle: ) I don't need to know all the details of the case to understand that they got caught poaching a protected animal. I guess we should expect some of the SSS crowd to actually do it, I hope they get caught too. Hopefully the White's are made an example of and people get the idea that the law has some teeth- but you're right, we shall see what the court has to say. :dunno:
Post by: wolfbait on June 03, 2009, 04:16:10 PM
There was rumors floatin around that the rig had gov. plates on it, but who really knows. I would bet that the feds know just about how many that has been put in here. SF was the first to spout off about the 8 wolves on the new deer fattening grounds in the wenatchee world, some of the locals here new about it way before it hit the papers.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 03, 2009, 04:22:58 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 03, 2009, 04:31:19 PM
(Box)
There agin that is what you heard from the media!!!!! Give me a break, these people are not slow people, they are dam quik thinkers. Bottom Line, No blood leaking from BOX.
:bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: Kain on June 03, 2009, 04:38:59 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 03, 2009, 04:41:20 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 03, 2009, 04:41:57 PM
Quite frankly I think Wacoyotehunter knows exzackly what is coming down the pipe, and he is for el wolf. And that is fine and dandy. But I wish that he would explain to me just what the wolf is going to add to the ecosystem. And how the wolf is suppose to balance the ecosystem. Cuz I don't see it happening anywhere that these wolves have been turned loose.
Post by: jackelope on June 03, 2009, 04:46:23 PM
I don't think a lot of people realize the difficulty in hunters managing wolf populations.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 03, 2009, 04:47:13 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 03, 2009, 05:05:22 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 03, 2009, 05:14:24 PM
Hunters can't really do it alone........we need airplanes and poision :IBCOOL:
We need helicopters, and 243's, maybe some 270's for the slower pilots. :chuckle:
Post by: wolfbait on June 03, 2009, 05:33:30 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 03, 2009, 05:46:46 PM
Post by: Kain on June 03, 2009, 07:22:26 PM
Regardless of whether they were planted or not, we have a problem, and we are stuck with it. I think that what bothers some of us the most is being lied to, or not having anything to say about the future of our game and wildlife. When and if the real trueth comes down the pike, it won't matter one whit, we will still be stuck with the wolves. Its what we do today and tomarrow that may have some kind of impact on our situation. So here's an idea, lets all drop the subject on who done what to who, and try an figure away out of this. I'm sure there are plenty who have some ideas! How bout it?
Read this.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/gray_wolf/conservation_plan.pdf
:twocents:
Find what is good and what is not. Go to the meetings and make the emails and phone calls. I would recommend using as many facts and sources for your arguments as you can. Try not to be so doom and gloom because that will only diminish any valid points you have. You can have passion but try not to be chicken littles. Pictures, videos and first hand statements that have actually been investigated will be gold for your side. They are not going to kill all the wolves so dont ask them to and they are not going to look the other way if you do it. :chuckle:
Contacts
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/gray_wolf/members.htm
Post by: boneaddict on June 03, 2009, 07:22:39 PM
Quote
I suspect the agencies will be a bit more careful about who knows whatIn his own words.......
Makes it kind of hard to know the truth don't you think.
Schwan van has govt. plates, at least the one with all of the antenaes attached to it.
Post by: ratherhunt on June 03, 2009, 09:14:01 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 04, 2009, 06:04:50 AM
I know for a fact that the SF, and the rest that saw the cow also saw the cow had been pulled down by wolves, I also know their was one guy there that didn't want to lie about it, but one guy amongst the wolves, doesn't have much of a chance. When they lie to us, I think thats what really makes me mad. But they been doin it for along time now in other places, its just our turn. I sure hate to see all our deer killed off, I'm going to miss the big bucks that come into the hay stacks in the winter, and I will really miss horn huntin. Year before last we fed over 60 head, last year we hardly saw any. Around November we had 5 nice bucks in here one day, never saw em agin. Friend of mine sent me this dvd and it shows plenty about our new wolves. Well worth the money.
http://www.prosts.com/Documentary-Undue-Burden.htm
While a government report has found no conclusive evidence that wolves were involved in the death of a Methow Valley cow last month, the rancher who owned the animal is certain that his new canine neighbors are responsible.
Preliminary results of an investigation into the cause of the cow’s death near the home range of Washington state’s first confirmed wolf pack in 70 years said the carcass was too old and scavenged to determine the cause of death. Investigators said the cow was dead too many days to determine what caused its death.
The rancher said he saw a wolf twice near the spot where the cow died, and the cow wasn’t the first livestock he believes he has lost to wolves.
Investigators could not find any obvious signs of what killed the cow, and the hide had no puncture wounds or claw marks, according to Tom Buckley, spokesperson for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There were no signs of a struggle that would indicate a predator such as a cougar, bear or wolf caused the death, he reported Friday (May 29).
http://www.methowvalleynews.com/story.php?id=1520
Post by: boneaddict on June 04, 2009, 06:09:33 AM
I didn't understand what you said. Someone saw this cow being pulled down........?
Post by: boneaddict on June 04, 2009, 06:20:48 AM
Quote
I sure hate to see all our deer killed off, I'm going to miss the big bucks that come into the hay stacks in the winter, and I will really miss horn huntin. Year before last we fed over 60 head, last year we hardly saw any. Around November we had 5 nice bucks in here one day, never saw em agin.
This is what is really bothering me. I can't believe how bad it is compared to what it has been. I've seen population swings before with bad winters and stuff like that, but have never seen the population the way it is. Couple that with other life experiences with wolves and the hatred runs deep. I wish/hope I am wrong.
Post by: wolfbait on June 04, 2009, 06:25:38 AM
WOLF IMPACTS
Wolf impacts underestimated
According to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service grossly underestimated the impact of a reintroduced population of wolves.
• The wolf population in the Greater Yellowstone area in 2005 was at least 3.3 times the original environmental impact statement prediction for a recovered population.
• The number of breeding pairs of wolves in the GYA in 2005 was at least twice as high as the original EIS prediction and the number of breeding pairs in 2004 was at least 3.1 times the original EIS prediction.
• In 2005, the wolf population in Wyoming outside Yellowstone National Park exceeded the recovery criteria for the entire region and continues to increase rapidly.
• The estimated annual predation rate (22 ungulates per wolf) is 1.8 times the annual predation rate (12 ungulates per wolf) predicted in the EIS.
• The estimated number of ungulates taken by 325 wolves in a year (7,150) is six times higher than the original EIS prediction.
• The percent of the northern Yellowstone elk harvest during the 1980s currently taken by wolves (50 percent) is 6.3 times the original estimate of eight percent projected in the EIS.
• The actual decline in the northern Yellowstone elk herd (more than 50 percent) is 1.7 times the maximum decline originally forecast in the EIS.
• The actual decline in cow harvest in the northern Yellowstone elk herd (89 percent) is 3.3 times the decline originally forecast in the EIS.
• The actual decline in bull harvest in the northern Yellowstone elk herd is 75 percent, whereas the 1994 EIS predicted bull harvests would be “unaffected.��
• Since wolf introduction, average ratios of calf elk to cow elk have been greatly \depressed in the northern Yellowstone elk herd and in the Wyoming elk herds impacted by wolves. In the northern Yellowstone elk herd and in the Sunlight unit of the Clarks Fork herd, calf:cow rations have been suppressed to unprecedented levels below 15 calves per 100. The impact of wolves on calf recruitment was not addressed by the 1994 EIS.
WG&F stated: “Despite research findings in Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone Area, and monitoring evidence in Wyoming that indicate wolf predation is having an impact on ungulate populations that will reduce hunter opportunity if the current impact levels persist, the Service continues to rigidly deny wolf predation is a problem.��
The 1994 EIS predicted that presence of wolves would result in a 5-10 percent increase in annual visitation to Yellowstone National Park. On this basis, the EIS forecast wolves in the region would generate $20 million in revenue to the states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. WG&F reports that annual park visitation remained essentially unchanged after wolf introduction, and has decreased 2.6 percent since the wolf population reached recovery goals in 2000.
“ Since park visitation did not increase as originally forecast, the Service cannot legitimately conclude presence of wolves has had any appreciable effect on net tourism revenues,�� WG&F stated.
WG&F stated: “Wolf presence can be ecologically compatible in the GYA only to the extent that the distribution and numbers of wolves are controlled and maintained at approximately the levels originally predicted by the 1994 EIS –100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs.�� WG&F maintained that FWS “has a permanent, legal obligation to manage wolves at the levels on which the wolf recovery program was originally predicated, the levels descri
http://www.pinedaleonline.com/wolf/wolfimpacts.htm
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 04, 2009, 06:28:44 AM
Quote
The 15 successful breeding pairs needed to achieve delisting should not be interpreted as a population “cap” at which the population will be limited. This plan does not attempt to set a limit on the numbers of wolves that will be allowed to live in Washington.
Welcome to the end of hunting in washington.
Quote
1. The gray wolf will be considered for downlisting from state endangered to threatened in Washington when 6 successful breeding pairs are present for 3 consecutive years, distributed as follows:
•
2 successful breeding pairs in the Northern Cascades Region, 8
•
2 successful breeding pairs in the Eastern Washington Region, and 9
•
2 successful breeding pairs in the Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast Region.
2. The gray wolf will be considered for downlisting from state threatened to sensitive in Washington when 12 successful breeding pairs are present for 3 consecutive years, distributed as follows:
•
2 successful breeding pairs in the Northern Cascades Region,
•
2 successful breeding pairs in the Eastern Washington Region,
•
5 successful breeding pairs in the Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast Region, and
•
3 successful breeding pairs anywhere in the state.
3. The gray wolf will be considered for delisting from state sensitive to game animal status in Washington when 15 successful breeding pairs are present for 3 consecutive years, distributed as follows:
•
2 successful breeding pairs in the Northern Cascades,
•
2 successful breeding pairs in the Eastern Washington Region,
•
5 successful breeding pairs in the Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast Region, and
•
6 successful breeding pairs anywhere in the state.
Post by: wolfbait on June 04, 2009, 06:32:50 AM
no surprise.... No punture wounds or claw marks, yet too scavenged. Kind of conflicting....
I didn't understand what you said. Someone saw this cow being pulled down........?
One of the people who investigated the cow said that they could definately tell that something had a hold of the cow by the nose, and the hindquarters was what was mostly ate. The ranch hand that takes care of the place when the owner isn't there heard the wolves in the AM hours of the morning and saw the wolves the next moenin on the cow. The owner planed on taking care of things on his own, but got talk out of it, that is how the wsgd happen to git involved.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 04, 2009, 06:41:46 AM
Regardless of whether they were planted or not, we have a problem, and we are stuck with it. I think that what bothers some of us the most is being lied to, or not having anything to say about the future of our game and wildlife. When and if the real trueth comes down the pike, it won't matter one whit, we will still be stuck with the wolves. Its what we do today and tomarrow that may have some kind of impact on our situation. So here's an idea, lets all drop the subject on who done what to who, and try an figure away out of this. I'm sure there are plenty who have some ideas! How bout it?Good Idea Wolfbait- Here's one solution. Hunters and others interested in maintaining adequate prey populations work together with the managing agencies and try to help them understand the range/population/and prey availablity for wolves in Washington. At the same time we all have to understand that wolves in washington are here to stay. We have to deal with them one way or another. Meanwhile, we work towards delisting. We have to document the breeding animals, the reproduction success, and the locations of packs in the state. Take pictures of animals, tracks, collect scat...whatever... Once we have met the goals outlined under the WA wolf management plan they can delist and control (hunting?) can begin. The longer this takes the more wolves we will have in certain populations across WA. (ie. methow/NE)
So, in the meantime we can do a few other things(things we should try to do anyway!)- one improve range conditions so winter kill is not so severe. Spray weeds and manage pastures to increase the carrying capacity of our lands. Maybe push the WDFW to cut doe tags.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 04, 2009, 06:44:23 AM
It does make it hard. I think we are/were getting the truth before the White's moved ahead with their grand scheme. LikeI said before- the agencies job and the jobs of the bios involved (and federal law) require recovery. I don't blame them for clamming up when the yocals start killing endangered species.QuoteI suspect the agencies will be a bit more careful about who knows whatIn his own words.......
Makes it kind of hard to know the truth don't you think.
Schwan van has govt. plates, at least the one with all of the antenaes attached to it.
Post by: wolfbait on June 04, 2009, 06:45:08 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 04, 2009, 06:49:02 AM
I mean come on...the bax was leaking blood
(Box)
There again that is what you heard from the media!!!!! Give me a break, these people are not slow people, they are damn quick thinkers. Bottom Line, No blood leaking from BOX.
:bash: :bash: :bash:
You're not really correcting my typo...you're kidding right?
How did they get caught if the box wasn't leaking blood?
Quite frankly i don't think wacoyotehunter is a fan of the wolves. i think he is of the mind that he would love to see proof of all the talk on here, thats all.
I don't think a lot of people realize the difficulty in hunters managing wolf populations.
Thanks Jackelope- You're right on the money. Like I've been saying, show me some sort of evidence. All these people saw a white van and all these people saw a cow being killed, not one has come forward and not one photo has been produced....
Post by: FrankDown on June 04, 2009, 06:52:05 AM
Its unfortunate that they agencies have had to spend so much money in court about this whole thing. It just seems to me that the waterheads have backing and the others do not. I am not sure why any other groups have not taken the matter to court about any predation on deer and elk or what impact they may have on any protected species. It just seems to me that someone else would have taken the matter to court in defense of the other wildlife that is mismanaged and under populated. Who is standing up for the reduced numbers of elk? Who is responsible for managing the wolves when they put even more stress on the reduced herds?
My friend makes the argument that wolves were here before we were. Perhaps the whites, but I have read that wolves were brought across the Bering Strait with the same people that are indigenous to North and South America now. My argument is that if they cant manage the base populations of food like deer and elk, why introduce a predator that they can't manage properly? We have destroyed the natural layoput of th eland. We have pastures and houses and roads everywhere now. He have altered the ecosystem beyond being able to restore it to pre settlement times.
Post by: wolfbait on June 04, 2009, 07:00:15 AM
I don't thiink you git the jist of it all. When winter comes, things just git 50% werce for the deer. The deer are not as strong in the winter time, harder for them to make it. If it snows alot the wolves just wipe the deer out, unless you have one hell of a big heater to melt all the snow that is where it stands. As you know the wsgd dont like people feeding the deer. As far as cutting doe tags, There won't be any huntin here in another year. People don't go hunt in places that don't have any game.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 04, 2009, 07:02:22 AM
Quote
Like I've been saying, show me some sort of evidence. All these people saw a white van and all these people saw a cow being killed, not one has come forward and not one photo has been produced....
were working on it.
Post by: wolfbait on June 04, 2009, 07:05:59 AM
Come on git real, they been planting these wolves in here for along time, how many per year did they put in here? they lied, sneaked, shoved it down our throats. And you want to blame the locals. I am sorry but that just don't fly!!!!!!!!
Post by: wolfbait on June 04, 2009, 07:13:18 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 04, 2009, 07:21:34 AM
So, in the meantime we can do a few other things(things we should try to do anyway!)- one improve range conditions so winter kill is not so severe. Spray weeds and manage pastures to increase the carrying capacity of our lands. Maybe push the WDFW to cut doe tags.
I don't thiink you git the jist of it all. When winter comes, things just git 50% werce for the deer. The deer are not as strong in the winter time, harder for them to make it. If it snows alot the wolves just wipe the deer out, unless you have one hell of a big heater to melt all the snow that is where it stands. As you know the wsgd dont like people feeding the deer. As far as cutting doe tags, There won't be any huntin here in another year. People don't go hunt in places that don't have any game.
You asked for solutions so there you are- increase range productivity and increase deer winter survival to help offset the effect of wolf predation...
You're right, I probably just don't "git the jist of it" it must be more prudent to sit online and bitch about how screwed we all are and how hunting in Washington has effectively been eliminated...maybe we should make up some big unfounded stories about a conspricy....whatever. We still have an opportunity to help the situation- if we decide to make the best of it is our choice.
I'm going hunting this year, even with the wolves. You asked for some solutions, I gave a couple. What are your ideas to help the problem?
BTW- you remind me of this guy "longshot" on this board. Are you familiar with this forum? http://www.methownet.com/bulletinboard.html
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 04, 2009, 07:24:43 AM
The damage that has all ready been done to the ecosystem, would take years to recover if you got rid of most of the wolves today. It is way to late, to even start thinking that we will recover from this, all we can do is try to save what we have left.
Do you still hunt? I'm not sure I believe that there had been all that much damage done. There are wolves up here, in fact I see their tracks where I elk hunt. I still see elk... I don't believe this doomsday scenario that you're suggesting. Again, show some eveidence. I'm still waiting on you to show evidence (even one single shread...common....anything) that proves a transplant has occured.
Post by: bearpaw on June 04, 2009, 09:25:34 AM
There is quite a bit of emotion occuring concerning this topic. I would suggest we look at the facts and at history for some guidance.
1. A managed population of wolves has co-existed with deer and elk in BC and Alberta for decades which are still two of the most sought after hunting destinations. :dunno:
2. An unmanaged wolf population has really devastated game populations in some areas of Idaho, etc. :bdid:
3. The feds are going to force resident wolf populations into the designated recovery states and the only way that management will occur is when population levels are proven to exceed the minimum target. :dunno:
4. The F&W Service and the courts are not going to allow management until the target number of wolves has been proven to exist. :(
5. I believe the State of Washington still has wolves listed in all areas. :dunno:
OK, with all these considerations and if you are a progressive thinker it should be fairly obvious what must happen. ;)
A. Get a reasonable management plan in place.
B. Plan needs to designate suitable wolf zones, buffer zones, and no-wolf zones.
C. Establish management to maintain wolf numbers that are compatable with zones.
C. Report and Document Wolf Sightings.
D. Collect proof of sightings such as photos, droppings, tracks.
E. Report all incidents of Predation.
F. Prove that wolves are responsible for the predation.
G. Lobby your legislators and the F&W Service to establish and implement the plan.
Disclaimer: I don't want wolves and wish they weren't here. ;)
But wolves are here and more are coming so we all better plan for it and try to make the most of the situation. There are people that are trying to get a plan in place, we need to try and help them out in any way we can so a management plan gets implemented sooner. :twocents:
Post by: wolfbait on June 04, 2009, 09:36:37 AM
So, in the meantime we can do a few other things(things we should try to do anyway!)- one improve range conditions so winter kill is not so severe. Spray weeds and manage pastures to increase the carrying capacity of our lands. Maybe push the WDFW to cut doe tags.
I don't thiink you git the jist of it all. When winter comes, things just git 50% werce for the deer. The deer are not as strong in the winter time, harder for them to make it. If it snows alot the wolves just wipe the deer out, unless you have one hell of a big heater to melt all the snow that is where it stands. As you know the wsgd dont like people feeding the deer. As far as cutting doe tags, There won't be any huntin here in another year. People don't go hunt in places that don't have any game.
You asked for solutions so there you are- increase range productivity and increase deer winter survival to help offset the effect of wolf predation...
You're right, I probably just don't "git the jist of it" it must be more prudent to sit online and bitch about how screwed we all are and how hunting in Washington has effectively been eliminated...maybe we should make up some big unfounded stories about a conspricy....whatever. We still have an opportunity to help the situation- if we decide to make the best of it is our choice.
I'm going hunting this year, even with the wolves. You asked for some solutions, I gave a couple. What are your ideas to help the problem?
BTW- you remind me of this guy "longshot" on this board. Are you familiar with this forum? http://www.methownet.com/bulletinboard.html
heres how I see it, these wolves grow faster than the deer ever will, they eat lotsa deer, and about anything else that they run across. we had the biggest mule deer herd in the country it has been said here in the okanogan county. even with the amount of coyotes we have which is a ton of em, cuz people don't hunt them like they use to, plus the big cats, we still had a good herd. But now with the added wolves we are losing deer 24-7-365 days a year. how do you think we can expand the deer range? how would you sugjest we make it easier on the deer in the winner time? I know this county and how things work here in the great outdoors I ben through Idaho, an montana, and I know what is goin on there with there game, they have been battlein this fight a hell of alot longer than us. lot of us locals that ben here since who flung the chunk, we git together and talk about things going on here with the wolves, and we all have bout the same idea.
Post by: wolfbait on June 04, 2009, 09:55:45 AM
Post by: boneaddict on June 04, 2009, 09:56:30 AM
Post by: boneaddict on June 04, 2009, 09:59:46 AM
Post by: Kain on June 04, 2009, 10:19:58 AM
Quote
One study found that grey wolves increased by 800% over six years following the cessation of a wolf control program in Alaska.:yike:
And that is an area that is used to wolves. Imagine how fast that could happen with areas that have never had wolves before. Well I guess we dont have to imagine, just look at Idaho and Yellowstone.
You guys have to start reporting sightings and evidence. Get yourself some trail cams if you can.
Post by: Machias on June 04, 2009, 10:22:09 AM
Post by: groundhog on June 04, 2009, 10:23:22 AM
Post by: bearpaw on June 04, 2009, 10:42:00 AM
Maybe we could use a white van, let's drop off a couple of packs in OLY and SEA and see how they like it.... :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: boneaddict on June 04, 2009, 10:44:30 AM
Post by: bearpaw on June 04, 2009, 10:51:02 AM
Quote
I believe sportsmen would have been much more open to the wolves as a whole if we had even an inkling of trust with the USFW or the courts, which we don't since they keep moving the goal line while we watch the elk numbers in ID and MT plummet.
You hit the nail on the head Machias. ;)
The antis are actually hurting themselves by pointlessly protesting management. It is eventually going to happen wheather they like it or not, the wolves are forcing us into management. The antis have proven that their main objective is to oppose hunting, period.......
If the antis were half as smart as they think they are and had some common sense they would have agreed that wolves have recovered in the mountain states and the upper midwest, offered to accept a reasonable management plan that everyone could agree to, and then worked on bringing back another specie. But, stupid is as stupid does.......
In the end thier own arrogance is their downfall.
Post by: boneaddict on June 04, 2009, 10:54:37 AM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 04, 2009, 10:55:52 AM
"They're magical." heavy on the sarcasm
I think it was the
Im thinking of changing my avatar what do you think?
(https://hunting-washington.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10069/dream.jpg)
Post by: boneaddict on June 04, 2009, 10:56:21 AM
Post by: boneaddict on June 04, 2009, 10:57:14 AM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 04, 2009, 10:57:49 AM
Post by: bearpaw on June 04, 2009, 10:59:47 AM
Post by: bearpaw on June 04, 2009, 11:01:26 AM
Post by: magnanimous_j on June 04, 2009, 11:05:05 AM
Im thinking of changing my avatar what do you think?
That is the gayest thing I have seen all week. And I work on Capitol Hill
Post by: wolfbait on June 04, 2009, 11:07:01 AM
Post by: jackelope on June 04, 2009, 11:08:20 AM
Post by: Machias on June 04, 2009, 11:09:04 AM
Bearpaw I think they believe the wolf will ultimately do what they have been unable to do all these years and completely replace man's harvest of game animals. I think they know full well if the herds crash there will be no need for man to harvest the surplus as there will be no surplus to harvest at some point if management is continued to be postponed. That is the goal after all.
Post by: bearpaw on June 04, 2009, 11:16:40 AM
Quote
I think they believe the wolf will ultimately do what they have been unable to do all these years and completely replace man's harvest of game animals. I think they know full well if the herds crash there will be no need for man to harvest the surplus as there will be no surplus to harvest at some point if management is continued to be postponed. That is the goal after all.
In the end they will have to ask us to shoot wolves when they start coming into town...so they still lose.... :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: wolfbait on June 04, 2009, 11:24:42 AM
I agree Bone. They need to translocate some to the wetside!! All the non hunting city folks over there think wolves are great as long as they are not in their back yard!
I would't spend much time worryin about the people over on the westside, as our wolf packs here grow, they will be pushed into new country. If the city folk think coyotes are bad in their neighborhood wait till a few of these start tramp through the alley's. I wish that we could find some deer that multiply as fast as our wolves have, say like a doe starts out with just 2 fawns and by the end of summer she has had 12 fawns, then by garsh we might be able to make a go of er.
Post by: FrankDown on June 04, 2009, 11:31:17 AM
Machias is correct in his reasoning. The antis see the wolf as a hunter stopper. The antis dont care about your horses, cattle, or pets that you suppress, hold dominion over, and belittle by giving them names and making them hang out with you. They dont want you to have a pet, beast of burden, or meat animals. No animals at all. So what do they care of they eat your horse, dog, or cow. If they eat your kids, that many fewer people to pass on a legacy of brutality. Its a win win they think. In the end they will have to be managed one way or another.
Post by: wolfbait on June 04, 2009, 11:53:35 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 04, 2009, 11:56:03 AM
These people won't be happy until we all get off the planet so thier wolves can play in thier anti access, anti hunting, wilderness areas.
What many need to realize is that where they can divide all public land users that don't see things EXACTLY thier way, and get us all pointing fingers at each other (Hunters, ATVers Snowmobilers, Horsemen, Mountain bikers, Trappers,and on) they will win, slow and steady......deserting each user group as they are not needed any more.
It would be good if we could all stand together to fight all thier agendas...but can we? I would bet the majority of posters here have more in common with the land use groups I listed before than any of these desk dwelling people who want these wolves to be undisturbed in thier utopia that is thier goal.
Now I have seen timberwoves up close and personal in my years of hunting this state and I have no problems with them, but the transplanted Canadian greys will exterminate them.
Here is a link to a thread on Snowest regarding problems with wolves in the transplanted areas. You will find it interesting how passionate these people are about what needs to be done to put an end to the problems they are enduring.
Wolves with Safesearch on. (0.25 seconds)
powered by
Wolves! - SnoWest ForumThere was only supposed to be 8-10 wolves in the pack by gov't count, they ended up killing close to 20 or more. Government doesn't even know how many out ...
www.snowest.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1282854 - Similar pages
How wolves affect snowmobiling.... [Archive] - SnoWest Forum
Sorry about the double Pic!
Post by: hogsniper on June 04, 2009, 12:17:38 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 04, 2009, 12:46:22 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 04, 2009, 03:12:46 PM
http://www.ussportsmen.org/Page.aspx?pid=2021&srctid=1&erid=3148720 (http://www.ussportsmen.org/Page.aspx?pid=2021&srctid=1&erid=3148720)
Post by: Machias on June 04, 2009, 04:07:09 PM
Post by: hogsniper on June 04, 2009, 04:13:02 PM
Post by: jackelope on June 04, 2009, 04:28:38 PM
What is the Sierra club?? I thought they were on our side???
yeah no...definitely not on our side.
Post by: jackelope on June 04, 2009, 04:37:21 PM
Post by: cabin308 on June 04, 2009, 04:38:58 PM
What is the Sierra club?? I thought they were on our side???Nope. Sierra Club is not on our side. They encourage the moving of wolves to other areas to speed up the "recovery timeline".
http://cascade.sierraclub.org/node/2031
Post by: Kain on June 04, 2009, 04:40:52 PM
What is the Sierra club?? I thought they were on our side???
yeah no...definitely not on our side.
Definitely not on our side. They get the same pass as the humane society. Most people think that the humane society just adopt and rescue pets but they are very anti hunting. Sierra Club is a very powerful environmental group and close up land from development but also close it to hunting.
Here is the section on wolves in Washington.
http://cascade.sierraclub.org/node/2031
Post by: cabin308 on June 04, 2009, 04:46:52 PM
What is the Sierra club?? I thought they were on our side???
yeah no...definitely not on our side.
Definitely not on our side. They get the same pass as the humane society. Most people think that the humane society just adopt and rescue pets but they are very anti hunting. Sierra Club is a very powerful environmental group and close up land from development but also close it to hunting.
Here is the section on wolves in Washington.
http://cascade.sierraclub.org/node/2031
We were thinking the same thing :chuckle:
What is the Sierra club?? I thought they were on our side???Nope. Sierra Club is not on our side. They encourage the moving of wolves to other areas to speed up the "recovery timeline".
http://cascade.sierraclub.org/node/2031
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 04, 2009, 04:47:53 PM
"They're back and they need a leg up!"
Glad I could help.
Post by: jackelope on June 04, 2009, 04:50:15 PM
i bet that wouldn't hold true anymore.
Post by: Kain on June 04, 2009, 04:57:51 PM
Post by: FrankDown on June 04, 2009, 05:04:18 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 04, 2009, 05:05:46 PM
Quote
What is the difference from the Canadian wolves and the wolves that were originally here
About a 100lbs
Post by: FrankDown on June 04, 2009, 05:23:07 PM
Post by: Kain on June 04, 2009, 05:39:16 PM
I am not an expert but I also think the Washington wolves travel less. Large quantities of game usually keep animals from moving around. The northern wolves are constantly moving because that is what they are use to doing to find game.
Post by: FrankDown on June 04, 2009, 06:29:49 PM
Seems from the info that I have its a dump and run operation. The same as in the other states. Lets let them go and wee what happens sort of thing.
Post by: Kain on June 04, 2009, 06:54:08 PM
Does anyone have any information about what the departments did to prepare the ecosystem for the release of the wolves? It seems taht releasing another strain on an unprepared ecosystem would have ben thought of and other methods to prepare the other elements in their foodchainwould have been managed ina dvance for their release, such as programs to be implemented inthe event theat they caught on well. Projections of game animals or food animals rather and how they would be affected by the new (although I realize they arent new here spare me the rhetoric, for all intents and purposes wolves havent been involved in this ecosystem for some time however).
Seems from the info that I have its a dump and run operation. The same as in the other states. Lets let them go and wee what happens sort of thing.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/180758_wolf05.html 2004
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008016031_wolves24m.html 2008
The way they make it sound there wasnt any wolves here in the first place. Why would they look into more aggressive planted wolves migrating into Washington and taking out the native wolves if they didnt believe they were here. Of course they did know they were here, there just isnt any money for them if you already have wolves.
National parks service
http://www.nps.gov/archive/noca/wolf.htm
Quote
Are gray wolves reproducing in the North Cascades?
In 1990, adults with pups were seen in the Hozomeen area. This was the first known reproduction of wild wolves in Washington State in at least 50 years! Since 1990, biologists have seen three separate groups of adult wolves with pups in the Cascades. Wolves mate in February or March. About 63 days later a litter averaging six pups is born.
http://www.pacificbio.org/ESIN/MapImages/graywolf.jpg 1998
http://wdfw.wa.gov/do/newreal/release.php?id=oct1698a 1998
Quote
Research studies earlier this decade indicated that wolves had reappeared in the North Cascades. A federal proposal to reintroduce wolves to the Olympic National Park is also being studied.
They did do an environmental impact survey for the peninsula and decided not to release wolves there.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/research/papers/wolf_intro/
http://www.defenders.org/resources/publications/programs_and_policy/wildlife_conservation/imperiled_species/wolf/places_for_wolves_2006.pdf
Quote
Another area once under consideration for potential wolf
recovery is Washington state’s Olympic Peninsula, particularly
the almost-1-million-acre Olympic National Park and adjacent
500,000-acre Olympic National Forest. Although gray wolves
from Canada probably could recolonize the Cascades as well
as the Selkirk Mountains in northeastern Washington on
their own, any wolf recovery in Olympic National Park would
require relocating animals. Too many people and too much
development in the Seattle-Tacoma area block wolf return to the
Olympic Peninsula without human intervention. A feasibility
study conducted for FWS by the University of Idaho found
that the Olympic Peninsula provides suffi cient suitable habitat
to support about 60 wolves (Ratti et al. 1999, Hosack 1997).
However, restoration efforts are not moving forward for several
reasons. These include concerns that proximity to people would
inhibit wolf dispersal, that the isolation of the area would limit
necessary genetic variability, and that wolves would have impacts
on deer and elk herds (see page 9).
Post by: wolfbait on June 04, 2009, 07:29:00 PM
http://www.prosts.com/Documentary-Undue-Burden.htm This dvd tells it all, same thing is what the Northwest states are going through.
With the hunting shut off, it makes things all the more easier.
The illusion of the endangered wolf has gone on for 26 years. This is in spite of the fact that there is much information available to show that wolves are far from being an endangered species. Other information shows that wolves are not needed in the ecology of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan and that the three states are better off ecologically and economically without wolves. The benefactors of the wolf situation we have are the bureaucrats of the USFWS and the state DNRs as they spend the taxpayer's money on their very counterproductive wolf restoring activities. Support from misguided animal rights, anti hunting, environmental organizations together with not enough people getting informed and involved makes this possible. http://home.centurytel.net/PAW/illusion.htm
We all sit back in the brush and argue about who, and how come, and what about,, which is just what they want us to do. They dam sure don't want anyone to find out the real reason for the wolves till its to late. I think that we need to form our own club, that includes, all the people we can find that enjoy outdoor activities. From the amount of people out there that enjoy the outdoors as much as we do, we should be able to come up with a plan. This won't be solved by shootin every wolf we see, Idaho already tried that.
Congress didn't want this wolf reintrodution, thats why they didn't set enough money aside for it to go through, I think they allowed $65000.00, so the enviromantalist raised the rest of the money to go get the wolves and start reintroducing them. And the USFWS pushed it through illegally. And now with it all going to hell they can't delist because the enviromentalist sue and get them relisted.. The feds were thinking of $, the enviromentalist had a plan of their own.
The fact that FWS allowed the state game agencies
to provide unrealistic impacts based on inaccurate data
does not excuse Bangs’ failure to correct that
misinformation once he knew it was false. On that same
day, September 24, 1993, I provided Bangs with three
pages of testimony, with exhibits documenting the gross
exaggerations in the central Idaho ungulate prey base.
Because Idaho’s Wolf Oversight Committee
approved communications from Conley to Bangs, I urged
them to correct the misinformation contained in the EIS
and in Conley’s draft letter. Instead they simply directed
Conley to substitute the words “reasonable estimate” for
“realistic picture” in the final version of his letter dated
October 12, 1993 – thereby allowing F&G’s false
information and erroneous predictions to remain in the EIS.
“Nothing Wrong With Lying to the Public”
In a February 17 1994 meeting with Sandy Donley
and me, Oversight Committee member Don Clower told us
the Committee knew the prey population figures were
highly inflated when they were given to FWS but said that
was necessary to support the rapid build-up of wolves that
would occur in the Nonessential Experimental recovery
option. Then he said he saw nothing wrong with lying to
the public to accomplish that goal.
In a March 9, 1994 letter to Bangs signed by its
Co-Chairman Jack Lavin, the Idaho Wolf Oversight
Committee formally supported the “Nonessential
Experimental” recovery option over the “No Wolf
Introduction” option. Although three of the seven voting
Committee members, including Co-Chairman George
Bennett, withdrew their support for that option in a letter to
Bangs dated October 17, 1994, their letter was ignored.
The IDFG 1993 and, later, the 1994 big game
census information I provided to Bangs indicated there
were only about 40,000 total post-hunting-season ungulates
in the central Idaho primary analysis area instead of the
241,400 claimed in the Wolf EIS. In a private conversation
with me Bangs admitted that the claimed populations were
“probably exaggerated” yet in the August 16, 1994 Federal
Register he wrote, “Millions of acres of public lands
contain hundreds of thousands of wild ungulates (Service
1994) and currently provide more than enough habitat to
support a recovered wolf population in central Idaho.”
(emphasis added).
Oversight Committee Bias
But even if FWS and IDFG were willing to lie
about the declining prey base in central Idaho, the Wolf
Oversight Committee was formed by the Legislature in
1993 to protect Idaho’s interests in the formation of a wolf
plan. Why did that Committee fail to do its job?
One answer is that four of the seven voting
members on the Oversight Committee supported the
FWS/IDFG plan to import Canadian wolves and protect
and manage them as a new big game species. Jack Lavin
and Don Clower were hand-picked by IDFG to support its
agenda and both Resource Committee chairmen had a
history of supporting IDFG agendas that were unpopular
with grassroots sportsmen and other natural resource users.
Senate Resources Committee Chairman. Laird Noh
was also actively involved in The Nature Conservancy
whose goal to restore wolves and grizzly bears in a
network of core roadless areas was already being
implemented. But regardless of its members’ personal
agendas, the Oversight Committee was required by law to
develop a plan that included consideration of local
economies, custom, culture and private property rights.
Instead it virtually copied the FWS Plan and
several of its members publicly ridiculed county
government efforts to include protection of domestic
livestock and pets on private property. The October 17,
1994 letter signed by Bennett, Ted Hoffman, Stan Boyd
and non-voting member Lois Van Hoover, listed multiple
violations of the ESA in the proposed FWS Rule and
declared those members’ intent to recommend the Idaho
Legislature refuse to approve the wolf plan approved by
the Committee.
F&G Illegally Agreed To Canadian Transplants
I.C. Sec. 36-715(2) expressly prohibited IDFG
from entering into any agreement with any entity of the
U.S. Government concerning wolves unless expressly
authorized by state statute but that law had already been
brazenly violated by IDFG Director Jerry Conley. On
September 27, 1994, without authorization from the
Legislature or even the full Oversight Committee, Conley
signed a letter to Bangs supporting the FWS Experimental
Rule and agreeing to work with FWS to reintroduce wolves
from British Columbia and Alberta into the Idaho
experimental population area.
On that same day, Conley also delivered a Special
Permit to Bangs in Boise, signed by IDFG Wildlife Bureau
Chief Tom Reinecker, authorizing FWS to “release a
maximum of 15 Canadian wolves in Central Idaho for up
to five years or until 2 breeding pairs are each documented
to produce 2 or more pups that survive until 31 December
for two consecutive years.” The permit stated that the wolf
releases would be conducted in accordance with the Idaho
wolf management plan.
Idaho AG, Congress Ignore False EIS Info
Although the plan was soundly rejected by the
Legislature, Bangs and FWS went ahead and conducted the
wolf release – legally from their standpoint – with the
signed agreement endorsing the Nonessential Experimental
Option and Rules and the signed Wolf Release Permit both
in their possession. On January 25, 1995, Idaho Attorney
General Alan Lance was provided with documentation of
the misinformation and Code violations but no action was
taken against Conley or any of the Oversight Committee
members who authorized illegal issuance of the
agreements. www.saveelk.com
http://wolfcrossing.org/2009/05/26/wild-earth-guardians-launches-rural-cleansing-campaign-against-gila-residents-and-ranching/
Wild Earth Guardians launches rural cleansing campaign against Gila residents and ranching
Protecting the Gila
WildEarth Guardians wants to secure lasting and landmark protection for the endangered wildlands and wildlife of the Gila Bioregion in southwestern New Mexico and southeastern Arizona. Our vision is a healthy population of wolves surrounded by millions of acres of newly designated wilderness. Eventually we believe that America’s first Wilderness Area should become its next great National Park or National Monument. How could such a bold vision come to fruition? Come find out about WildEarth Guardians’ strategy to lead the way in protecting the Gila. We look forward to a great conversation! Please RSVP to Carol Norton, 505-988-9126, ext. 1150 or cnorton@wildearthguardians.org.
You really want to know whats, what. well this is it, and its been happening for along time. So what do we do?
http://www.takingliberty.us/TLHome.html
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 04, 2009, 07:41:57 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 04, 2009, 09:16:05 PM
The reason for the canadian wolf introduction is they, the enviromantalist wanted wolves that would desimate the elk and deer herds and what ever else. with nothing to hunt, where would the hunter be? In Minnasota and that country, they did a study and found that these wolves were killing the native timber wolves and that they were also interbreeding with coyotes. Now we don't know when they started putting wolves in washington, how long was it? But the more people that you talk to around Washington, the more you realize that there are a hell of alot more wolves than we know about. I would bet the feds and the pro-wolf people don't even know by now, as you can bet that everyone of the female wolves did't just have 1 or 2 pups. who wants to make a bet that they are already in the Olympic Peninsula, but of corse they migrated there on their own.
Post by: bearpaw on June 04, 2009, 09:20:11 PM
Lots of interesting things on this page, like the video of Spokane News reporting about possible misuse of F&G property.....be interesting to see where that goes.
Here is another very interesting website: http://westinstenv.org/wildpeop/2008/12/26/corruption-featherbedding-and-looting-the-idaho-treasury/ (http://westinstenv.org/wildpeop/2008/12/26/corruption-featherbedding-and-looting-the-idaho-treasury/)
Post by: wolfbait on June 04, 2009, 10:23:24 PM
http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2008/07/10/krichert/feds_new_wolf_policy_not_our_problem
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2009/01/06/programmed-failure-in-wolf-relisting/
Programmed Failure In Wolf Relisting
January 6, 2009
http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/press_releases_folder/1996/01_22_1996_defenders_helps_fly_wolves_to_yellowstone.ph
Defenders Helps Fly Wolves to Yellowstone
Historic Reintroduction Continues Despite Budget Cuts
A U.S. Forest Service airplane with nineteen wolves on board is leaving British Columbia tonight bound for Yellowstone National Park and wilderness areas of central Idaho, financed in large part by Defenders of Wildlife and other private wildlife conservation organizations rather than the government.
Despite funding freezes and near-record cold in the Canadian Rockies, the second stage of the historic reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone, begun a year ago, is underway. The wolves are scheduled to arrive in Yellowstone either late tonight or Tuesday and in Idaho on Tuesday. The endeavor was temporarily stalled by a $200,000 funding reduction and the government shutdowns until Defenders of Wildlife and two other private organizations came forward to help finance the capture and transport of the latest set of wolves.
PRESS RELEASE
Broad-Based Wolf Coalition Serves Notice of
Intent to File Civil Suit
On April 3, 2009, a coalition of associations and entities which are directly affected from the impact of introduction of non-native Canadian gray wolves into Wyoming filed a formal 60 day notice of intent to sue the federal government over its refusal to delist wolves in the state. The coalition, currently comprised of the Wyoming Wool Growers Association, Wyoming Stock Growers Association, Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts, Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, Wyoming Association of County Predatory Animal Boards, Niobrara County Predatory Animal Board, Wyoming Outfitters & Guides Association, Cody Country Outfitters and Guides Association, and Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife Wyoming, (hereafter collectively referred to as the “Wolf Coalition”), served their notice of intent to commence a civil lawsuit against the Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, USFWS Acting Director Rowan Gould and Stephen Guertin, USFWS Acting Regional Director for the Mountain Region.
The Wolf Coalition intends to seek injunctive relief for violation of the Endangered Species Act and its related regulations and policies. The Wolf Coalition’s claims arise from the FWS’s continued rejection of the Wyoming Wolf Management Plan, its failure to delist the gray wolf population in Wyoming, and from its decision to proceed with delisting in Montana, Idaho and parts of Oregon and W ashington.
The Wolf Coalition’s Notice of Intent summarizes at least sixteen different ways in which the FWS has violated the Endangered Species Act or other federal law. One of the primary violations relates to the FWS’s failure and refusal to follow and implement the Recovery Plan that formed the basis for introduction of non-native Canadian gray wolves into the Yellowstone Recovery Area. The Notice also points out that the FWS violated the ESA by rejecting Wyoming’s Plan, despite the fact that the gray wolf population has not only met, but has exceeded the recovery criteria set forth in the Recovery Plan and other FWS documents.
In way of example, the FWS previously defined a “viable recovered wolf population” as “ten breeding pairs in each of the three recovery areas for three consecutive years.” The FWS anticipated that a “recovered” population would total approximately 300 wolves. It was expected that ten of those breeding pairs (or approximately 100 wolves) would be located in the Yellowstone Recovery Area. In 2007, the FWS estimated that there were a minimum of 1,531 wolves, including 107 breeding pairs, within the Northern Rocky Mountain Area. By the end of 2007, there were at least 171 wolves in 11 packs living inside of Yellowstone Park and 188 wolves in 25 packs living in Wyoming outside of Yellowstone Park. The total number of breeding pairs within the state of Wyoming in 2007 was conservatively estimated at 24, 2.4 X’s the number needed for delisting. Despite having exceeded their own goals by more than double, the FWS refuses to allow Wyoming to manage the exploding Canadian gray wolf population. In fact, the FWS is not only demanding that Wyoming protect the Canadian gray wolf throughout the entire State, but is also insisting that Wyoming assume a larger share of the load than either Idaho or Montana.
The Wolf Coalition is also challenging the FWS’s decision to reject the Wyoming Plan, despite the fact that ten of the eleven peer reviewers hand-picked by the FWS concluded that it provided the necessary regulatory mechanism to protect and preserve the Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf population.
The Coalition notes in its 60-Day Notice, “The FWS’s decision to reject the Wyoming Plan violates the Endangered Species Act, which requires the Secretary and Directors to base decisions ‘solely upon the best scientific and commercial data available…’ Rather than support and defend Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan-a Plan that meets all of the requirements of the ESA- the FWS has hung the State of Wyoming out to dry ” (emphasis added).
The Coalition’s Notice calls further attention to one of the most frustrating aspects of the Obama Administrations handling of the wolf delisting issue when it states, “…the FWS continues to allow itself to be hijacked and controlled by certain organizations that have no intention of allowing the Canadian gray wolves to be delisted, regardless of what the “best scientific and commercial data available” may show.”
Harriet Hageman, attorney for the Coalition, points out that the FWS is also seeking to dramatically expand the geographic region for the gray wolf. “The deal from the beginning was that the gray wolf would be introduced into and managed in the Yellowstone area. The FWS is now trying to force Wyoming to adopt a management plan that ensures that the wolves move throughout the State. That is directly contrary to everything that the FWS told us when they brought the wolves into Yellowstone.”
The Notice of Intent has started the 60-day period for later filing a civil lawsuit against the FWS.
While the Coalition was initially comprised of 10 groups when the 60-day Notice was sent, additional groups have been added since that time and more groups are anticipated to join prior to the actual filing of the lawsuit in federal district court in Cheyenne.
.
For further information, please contact Harriet M. Hageman, Attorney for the Wolf Coalition:
Harriet M. Hageman
Hageman & Brighton
1822 Warren Avenue
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001
(307) 635-4888
Post by: FrankDown on June 05, 2009, 12:10:41 AM
Post by: boneaddict on June 05, 2009, 05:51:03 AM
I've told this story on here before about NM.........So I dabooner and I were headed to our elk hunt down in 16, which as some of you may know is the Gila and one of the most premier elk hunts in the world. So we are driving into the unit out of Socorro and we kept seeing these cages alongside the road. It was at every bus stop as much as we could figure out. A couple days later a warden stopped to chekc on us and we invited him into the camp to sit next to the fire and BS. We asked him what the cages were for. They built them to protect kids waiting for the bus. Apparantly a pack of thos enice desert wolves decided they liked school kids. :chuckle: We were camped right in one of their hotspots, "story of my life the last couple years). Saw lots of crap and a few tracks, but no wolves. They ripped the backend out of a cow on the far side of our unit right after Idabooner and I was there, but we didn't see anything. Cages for your kids.....lovely. He said three wolves tormented two kids getting off the bus in broad daylight earlier that week. :o
Post by: wolfbait on June 05, 2009, 06:16:13 AM
This is a sore subject for some of the peopel that I know. Some just think that wanting to manage wolves make syou a bloodthirsty killer. Mismanaged ecology is not good practice. I cannot get some of these people to udnerstand that if you are not building the base of prey fo rthese wolves, then they are going to make the ecosystem even more taxed. You cant build a house on the sand. They just dont get it.
Everytime delisting comes into veiw for any of the states, the enviromentalist run these adds throughtout the net. that the states will start massacring all the wolves, I think its a big donation catcher. After all thats where the enviromentalist get plenty of money, they are not the most honest monkeys in the barrel. Anywhere that these wolves are released you can expect to lose most of your game. For the people who don't beleive you, find the facts on the web, and show them what these wolves are doing, You can probably talk till yer blue in the face and they won't beleive you, but if you have enough facts, and it is stareing them in the face and they don't see the light, well then they already know more about where this wolf agenda is going. Most people wouldn't beleive that the enviromentalist could be such a chicken sh-t bunch, as to have no care for all the wildlife that these wolves will kill off or the people that the wolves will ruin their lifestyles and their change their way of life that they and their families have enjoyed for years.. But if you march back through the enviromentalist history you will see what kind of organization they really are, I know I have a special spot I would like to send the whole dam bunch of them. The trueth on the wolf management is the enviroentalist don't want these wolves managed, becuz it would screw their plans up.
http://blog.sunvalleyonline.com/index.p … er/page/2/
In 40 years of living in the West, Wyoming and Idaho, I personally saw and admired many trophy class bucks and bulls in winter prior to them dropping their horns, whereupon I hunted those sheds in both states along with the occasional Buffalo skull which thrilled me to find one, and I found a few. Now we often hear the anti hunter pro wolf person spreading the falsehoods they some how have come to believe in, by misguided political agenda most likely, it is sad, often these people stubbornly refuse to examine the real facts. The fact is this. With no American Conservation pro management model with hunts to harvest and control ungulates with a historical growth rate which during those decades showed a 15% minimum growth, There would Be no foundation, or prey base for the wolf to stand on period. Hunting, hunters, Sportsmen financed this foundation, Including the demonized trophy hunter.
My family still raised a wolf for 14 years, and I am often tempted to do it again, I also travel to winter ranges and look at elk, and glass for deer, it is the worst populations I have ever seen in 40 years, especially in Idaho, and our elk are in collapse, Wyoming’s four largest elk herds are in full collapse..Anti hunters and over protectors of wolves would have you believe hunters are to blame, their lying to you, they are guilty of using an animal as their political football to destroy hunting and gun ownership..A lot of folks have their heart in the right place but are misinformed..
Now I am packing some gear and heading out to the Middle Fork Boise Drainage, to look at the winter herd in there, I still am stunned when I do not find 8000 elk where they for decades wintered, and I dream of those trophy class bucks I used to watch over that way in winter..And proudly realizing the North American Model of Conservation I supported for 40 years did far more to support wolves than any other group in history…We built the foundation for the wolves to stand on..It is being destroyed by others…for their own personal agenda’s..
The only biologist getting this wolf program predicted correctly is Valerus Geist. He layed this out and predicted the outcome, the only thing he miscalculated was the time frame in which wolves would destroy Idaho’s herds..It is happening much faster than he warned it would. Only ten years to wipe out what hunters established with great success over eight decades in Idaho.. History proves the right people have been managing wild animals all along…
The New Model of lies is crashing.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 05, 2009, 06:32:40 AM
Quote
Lots of interesting things on this page, like the video of Spokane News reporting about possible misuse of F&G property.....be interesting to see where that goes.
Must see video...I cringe when I think about WDFW and simmular abuses........ :yike:
I can't believe that the F&G guy actually tried to claim that IDFG was not a a publicly funded entity...talk about stupid.
Post by: wolfbait on June 05, 2009, 06:41:18 AM
The original natives were often referred to as Red wolves. Wacoy would know more about species stuff. They were indeed smaller and often had red shading on their legs and such. A little harder to distinguish between coyote and wolf. Size and color. I had the pleasure of seeing a Ma and Pa and one pup in a den entrance back in the 80's up the Twisp River. I actually thought that was pretty cool. These big greys are amazing though for their size. Amazing isn't a term of flattery by the way...more like :yike:
I've told this story on here before about NM.........So I dabooner and I were headed to our elk hunt down in 16, which as some of you may know is the Gila and one of the most premier elk hunts in the world. So we are driving into the unit out of Socorro and we kept seeing these cages alongside the road. It was at every bus stop as much as we could figure out. A couple days later a warden stopped to chekc on us and we invited him into the camp to sit next to the fire and BS. We asked him what the cages were for. They built them to protect kids waiting for the bus. Apparantly a pack of thos enice desert wolves decided they liked school kids. :chuckle: We were camped right in one of their hotspots, "story of my life the last couple years). Saw lots of crap and a few tracks, but no wolves. They ripped the backend out of a cow on the far side of our unit right after Idabooner and I was there, but we didn't see anything. Cages for your kids.....lovely. He said three wolves tormented two kids getting off the bus in broad daylight earlier that week. :o
The wolves down in that part of the country are actually pen raised. So what you have is wolves that are not afraid of people. Its no accident, that they are shoving these wolve on to the people there. When the wolves that we have up in our part of the country run out of game to eat, its going to get a bit exciting around here also. The longer that these wolf are not managed the more game we lose, and the more wolves there are. In Idaho they put wolves on top of wolves, the same as what they have done in Washington. Now they are sitting in the back of the classroom snickering.
In these hunting forums the enviros. have one of their buddies posing as a hunter. his job is to keep an eye on the real hunters, make sure they don't get on the war path, and if he, she can steer them in a more faverable way. (the wolf is a beautiful creature, very shy, only kills the weak) No Bullsh-t, I didn't beleive it meslf at first.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 05, 2009, 06:42:28 AM
:fire.:
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 05, 2009, 06:44:06 AM
Quote
In these hunting forums the enviros. have one of their buddies posing as a hunter. his job is to keep an eye on the real hunters, make sure they don't get on the war path, and if he, she can steer them in a more faverable way
Yup we definitely have some Pollyanna's around here.
Post by: wolfbait on June 05, 2009, 06:47:45 AM
QuoteLots of interesting things on this page, like the video of Spokane News reporting about possible misuse of F&G property.....be interesting to see where that goes.
Must see video...I cringe when I think about WDFW and simmular abuses........ :yike:
I can't believe that the F&G guy actually tried to claim that IDFG was not a a publicly funded entity...talk about stupid.
The more we learn the worse it smells!!!! >:(
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 05, 2009, 06:49:46 AM
The way they make it sound there wasnt any wolves here in the first place. Why would they look into more aggressive planted wolves migrating into Washington and taking out the native wolves if they didnt believe they were here. Of course they did know they were here, there just isnt any money for them if you already have wolves.With all the wolves in MN it's amazing how many deer there are left...what gives? How is it that (as the thread title implies) "Wolves eating all our deer" but they haven't eaten all the deer in the Great Lakes region? Weird?
The reason for the canadian wolf introduction is they, the enviromantalist wanted wolves that would desimate the elk and deer herds and what ever else. with nothing to hunt, where would the hunter be? In Minnasota and that country, they did a study and found that these wolves were killing the native timber wolves and that they were also interbreeding with coyotes. Now we don't know when they started putting wolves in washington, how long was it? But the more people that you talk to around Washington, the more you realize that there are a hell of alot more wolves than we know about. I would bet the feds and the pro-wolf people don't even know by now, as you can bet that everyone of the female wolves did't just have 1 or 2 pups. who wants to make a bet that they are already in the Olympic Peninsula, but of corse they migrated there on their own.
This thred gets better every day.I disagree. But now that I look at these links I can see where wolfbait is finding all his unfounded information. I guess that's the beauty of the internet....WMI central seems pretty reliable :P :rolleyes:
Post by: boneaddict on June 05, 2009, 07:27:44 AM
maybe another factor is site hunting in wide open sage and escapement.
Animals also respond differently if they have been accustomed to it for years versus throwing a new game animal into the mix. Sort of like the caribou issue in the NE corner with Cats.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 05, 2009, 07:43:06 AM
Post by: jackelope on June 05, 2009, 07:49:42 AM
Post by: wolfbait on June 05, 2009, 08:17:43 AM
http://www.hpj.com/archives/2007/aug07/aug6/Wheregoesthewolf.cfm
Where goes the wolf?
By Michael White
President, N.M. Farm and Livestock Bureau
In the more than two decades of the ill-fated "Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery Program" I cannot remember even one printed or broadcast sentence of good publicity about this boondoggle. That should tell you something. So let's face facts and declare the program a monumental failure that is continuing to cascade out-of-control.
Even through the fluctuating drama of daily events, some things have remained constant during the course of this government-mandated fiasco. One is the fact that the New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau has continuously had a grassroots policy against this program from day one. Through the years the hand-wringers have called on us to compromise and to capitulate. We haven't and we won't. Another constant is the solid opposition to this program in the agricultural community and in the cities, towns and rural areas where these predators are being perpetuated. I'm guessing the reason some high-dollar, politically correct pollster has not done an opinion survey in western New Mexico and eastern Arizona is that they know what the results would be. The individuals and groups supporting this mess are a small band of folks who would not make a demographic dent in such a poll. Residents, business people, ranchers, outfitters and tourism-related industries in most cases would give a resounding thumbs down to this program that brings nothing but negative publicity, maulings and death to the area in question.
Certainly one of the tactics of the pro-wolf people has simply been to wear us down. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain if the politicians look the other way, if ranch families go out of business and if the state and federal government continue to cater to their radical agenda which is always anti-agriculture. We must resist their efforts in every way. We must continue to pressure the people who can put a stop to this insanity including state legislators, our congressional delegation, the U.S. Department of Interior and the current administration in the White House. Unfortunately, failure is not a criterion for stopping a government program. In fact, in the twisted world of these fanatics, within and outside the government, failure is every reason to expand within the scurrilous vacuum of in-accountability that is their dark badge of dishonor.
Remember when the government bureaucrats and their apologists in the so-called environmental movement were standing on boxes and telling us the depredation (their word for killing) of cattle would be minimal. We knew that was bovine scatology then and it's an unwelcome, daily fact of life now out in the Gila Forest and the Apache-Sitgrave on the Arizona side. These, pen-raised, human-habituated wolves have been killing cattle, calves and bulls (in the 1,200 pound range) since the first day the feds sicked them on their own citizens. They kill deer, elk, turkey, cats and prized ranch dogs. Recently, wolves killed one of Mark and Mary Miller's horses in its corral. It was the horse their eight year old daughter learned to ride on and now she has trouble sleeping at night. It was a good thing she wasn't on the animal at the time.
And now they want to expand the program in boundary and scope. The Farm Bureau and its members will oppose this at every turn. The hunting, hiking and fishing community had better get on board big time or their pursuits of happiness will be another victim out in the killing country.
We now have to ask then, what is the cynical end to this deadly game? Where do the wolf lovers want this wreck to end up? In ten years... 200 wolves? In 20 years... 1,000? Such a result will be tragic by any measure especially for the one thing the pro-wolf groups never mention and that is the people who live in the affected areas. The children that now must watch their backs at school bus stops, the businesses and ranches that will fail. We therefore have established that the wolf lovers don't care what happens to the citizens of New Mexico or Arizona.
So if the wolf camp wants their program at any cost we must conclude that the deadly, unthinkable equation at work here is that all risk is acceptable including the killing of men, women and children. Do the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the N.M. Department of Game and Fish agree with that conclusion? They must since they continue to perpetuate this morally bankrupt program.
Based on all we know, and the experiences we have had to date with these mega-predators, the day will come when a child or another person is maimed or killed by government-sponsored wolves.
Will that stop this madness? If the answer is "no" then our nation, and our state are upside down. And to what end? To appease a small minority of environmentalists who will stop at nothing to take down their own country and return it to a pre Columbus environment?
In the community of Reserve, New Mexico, concerned citizens are right now making plans to build enclosures for students waiting at school bus stops. We have come to the point where we are putting our children in cages to protect them from government wolves.
When these sad structures are built, I doubt we will see bureaucrats from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the N.M. Dept. of Game and Fish show up for this photo-opportunity. However they know, as we know, they have an unsavory rendezvous with destiny from which they cannot run nor hide.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by: boneaddict on June 05, 2009, 08:26:56 AM
Post by: jackelope on June 05, 2009, 08:33:12 AM
This thred gets better every day.
if you like reading posts or seeing links to every wolf story on the net, then yeah...i would say so.
Post by: boneaddict on June 05, 2009, 08:39:04 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 05, 2009, 08:39:24 AM
QuoteIn these hunting forums the enviros. have one of their buddies posing as a hunter. his job is to keep an eye on the real hunters, make sure they don't get on the war path, and if he, she can steer them in a more faverable way
Yup we definitely have some Pollyanna's around here.
As I monitor and recieve alerts from some of thier sites .
Environmentalism as a religeon is NOT a good thing and thats how the extreme zeolots see it.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 05, 2009, 08:41:17 AM
It gets pretty frustrating when you see something so nice, just disappear in front of your eyes and there isn't a whole lot you can do about it, and there are folks that should know better but don't. Then the only recourse is going to be ....told you so. :(
:yeah:
Post by: jackelope on June 05, 2009, 08:46:48 AM
1-how may wolves do you all figure are running around up there? 10? 20? 8?
2-the lookout pack has been around and established for how long...a couple years? how many wolves? do you guys think the wolves decimated the deer herds in the methow in the course of a couple years? or does it have to do with a series of bad winters, poor winter range, development, etc plus now the wolves.
last year this time we were talking about how much winter kill there was because of the snow, the year before the same thing....etc.
this point of view is not meant to reignite this topic, i don't think it needs it, and i am also not in favor of wolves here at all, but i think it's a legit question.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 05, 2009, 09:00:12 AM
Quote
1-how may wolves do you all figure are running around up there? 10? 20? 8?
20 this year 30 next and 50 the year after.
Quote
2-the lookout pack has been around and established for how long...a couple years? how many wolves? do you guys think the wolves decimated the deer herds in the methow in the course of a couple years? or does it have to do with a series of bad winters, poor winter range, development, etc plus now the wolves.
The issues are hunting seasons through the end of October for several years, Loss of winter range (on going), and Bad winters of recent years....then wolves all of which have a negative impact and have pushed the population to a point that it will not be able to have enough recruitment for future non permit only hunting seasons.
WHEN the wolf population doubles and it will there will be almost no fawns to replace the older deer harvested by cars hunters and Wolves.
The Vally winter range is too small and there will be too many wolves camped on the deer for the population to replace itself its an awful situation...Picture putting a wolf pac in the Oak creek parking lot and expecting the elk to fair well.
In five years the entire valley will be a permit only deer hunt. :twocents:
Post by: boneaddict on June 05, 2009, 09:14:48 AM
Quote
1-how may wolves do you all figure are running around up there? 10? 20? 8?
I wish I could answer that, but you can't get a straight answer form anyone so you have to do all the legwork on your own. What "I know" was there were three(the two adults and one pup that "made it" and 8 more showed up. None of those included any black wolves which everyone keeps talking about. Haven't seen him myself and figured it was heresay (skeptical). I figure there is enough lore that every coyote, dog etc or even now shadow is going to be considered a wolf. That puts you in the 10-12 range. Now there was a pack running up in anotehr area that had at least 3 in it. There have been wolves in that area for some time....could easily be in the range of the parents and pup I had seen earlier...and I have seen sign in another portion of the valley. Some believe its the same ones, don't know. Pics show up on here from Sooperfly and such and they "look different than the ones I had tabs on. Now are they some of the new ones ??? some from different area in the state like the Lincoln county ones or Ferry/Stevens ones......
Quote
2-the lookout pack has been around and established for how long...a couple years? how many wolves? do you guys think the wolves decimated the deer herds in the methow in the course of a couple years? or does it have to do with a series of bad winters, poor winter range, development, etc plus now the wolves.
The Libby creek pack was there in the late 80's, early 90's. I saw my first one about 88 I suppose, somewhere in there. The government wanted to keep it a big secret. Fish and wildlife informed us to not tell anyone but our supervisor if we saw anything while cutting thinning etc. I believe these were the smaller wolves, though up close and personal at 20 feet or so, they look pretty damn big. There was limited wolf sign all through that time period. The biggest game population change I witnessed at that time was while hunting and I ran into the before mentioned pack. An area I loved to hunt and would see TONS of deer, almost none. I didn't panic, figured they would move on and the deer would come back. I then started playing tag with wolves over in Ferry. These were Greys. You want to talk about a big animal. Alta was my premier tag choice as I grew up next to it ans saw some ungodly lovely bucks, and so forth. I saw a huge decline in the last year and chalked it up to winter, but it was still my top choice. I drew for it and was absolutely amazed of the acute lack of deer. I had the best hunting weather possible with high mountain snows etc. The animals never showed up. I didn't even go shed hunting where I normally do as when I went and scouted it, there wasn't a trail or track, where there is normally hundreds. Then in ana area that Sky is familiar with that I go I will see anywhere from 1000 to 500 deer. The fluctauation being the normal winter, harsh winter etc and how they fair. This year was under a 100 deer. Can I blame it on the winter...not all of it. It was a harsh enough winter that all the animals WOULD BE THERE. I found where they denned last year and there were fawn carcasses stacked like cord wood. I thought that was interesting. I'm not sure I understood all of the bones in that particular spot, but it was certainly an eye opener. At that time, I didn't see any fresh wolf sign, and I was told they had moved intot he Sawtooth to find more game. Made sense to me. In the meantime other Alta tag holders were having mass encounters with them. :dunno:
Quote
last year this time we were talking about how much winter kill there was because of the snow, the year before the same thing....etc..
this point of view is not meant to reignite this topic, i don't think it needs it, and i am also not in favor of wolves here at all, but i think it's a legit question
Well, if you believe a guy that gets around more than most, and has 30= years of intense experience in the area, and we are looking at a range that has lots of winter range, there is something different than just winters now. A tough winter helps the herd out a lot in the long run. It softens the abuse the range takes. Twins are often absorbed and one STRONG fawn is raised. Genes blah blah are weeded out. Back to back bad winters are more easily handled as the animals go in with more reserves, stronger deer etc. Unless catastrophic, they will recover. They aren't recovering. Talk about evidence, that isn't just hearsay, look at tag numbers and population densities in areas like Idaho and Wyoming. Animals like moose can't stand up to a pack. Once in their site, neither can the healthiest mule deer. That isn't just emotion talking.
Post by: bearpaw on June 05, 2009, 12:06:38 PM
Sometimes it's hard to separate facts from here say. I want to help you decide!!!
If you look at all the info there are some undisputable facts from state agencies and news sources that verify under hunted populations of wolves are destroying ungulate populations in the Mountain West, the upper Midwest, Canada, and Alaska.
This info shows what has happened in other wolf areas and demonstrates what will likely happen as wolves populate Washington. I would like to see the reasoning that would demonstrate why wolves will not have the same effect in Washington
I made it easy for everyone to look at this info by clicking on the links; I would suggest copying and pasting all this info in an email message to all hunters and concerned landowners that you know:
http://www.saveelk.com/ (http://www.saveelk.com/)
http://www.saveelk.com/wolf_003.htm (http://www.saveelk.com/wolf_003.htm)
http://rliv.com/wolf/AP-Wolf%20Kills.pdf (http://rliv.com/wolf/AP-Wolf%20Kills.pdf)
http://rliv.com/wolf/Wolf-Lolo.pdf (http://rliv.com/wolf/Wolf-Lolo.pdf)
http://rliv.com/pic/bergerid%20and%20elliot%2098.pdf (http://rliv.com/pic/bergerid%20and%20elliot%2098.pdf)
http://rliv.com/pic/Palin.pdf (http://rliv.com/pic/Palin.pdf)
http://rliv.com/pic/LewisClark.pdf (http://rliv.com/pic/LewisClark.pdf)
http://rliv.com/pic/Wolves%20And%20Hunting.pdf (http://rliv.com/pic/Wolves%20And%20Hunting.pdf)
http://rliv.com/pic/Selected%20Quotes.pdf (http://rliv.com/pic/Selected%20Quotes.pdf)
http://rliv.com/pic/Need%20For%20Wolf%20Mgt.pdf (http://rliv.com/pic/Need%20For%20Wolf%20Mgt.pdf)
[url]http://rliv.com/wolf/AnchorageDaily.pdf]http://rliv.com/pic/propertyrights.pdf[url]
[url]http://rliv.com/wolf/AnchorageDaily.pdf (http://rliv.com/pic/propertyrights.pdf[url)
http://rliv.com/wolf/Alaska%20Peninsula.pdf (http://rliv.com/wolf/Alaska%20Peninsula.pdf)
wwwsaveelk.com (http://wwwsaveelk.com). I ask you to review the other info this website.
Please note the dozens of wolf killed elk photos, all the news reports, scientific documents, and news articles from many sources? Watch the video posted on this page about the Idaho F&G Commission meeting showing facts of F&G studies, "look for the flashing star on this page" http://www.saveelk.com/wolf_006.htm (http://www.saveelk.com/wolf_006.htm).
The author of the Outdoorsman has worked extensively with ID F&G, he used to fly helicopters for them on their game counts and was involved in studies. Here's the info he shares on his pages:
http://www.blogger.com/profile/15185092008265237203 (http://www.blogger.com/profile/15185092008265237203)
http://rliv.com/pic/The%20Outdoorsman%20Sept.pdf (http://rliv.com/pic/The%20Outdoorsman%20Sept.pdf)
http://westinstenv.org/wibio/2008/04/06/what-they-didn%E2%80%99t-tell-you-about-wolf-recovery/ (http://westinstenv.org/wibio/2008/04/06/what-they-didn%E2%80%99t-tell-you-about-wolf-recovery/)
I found this letter about the "OUTDOORSMAN" on www.saveelk.com (http://www.saveelk.com).
Quote
• Wolf introduction –fraud and deception
TO ALL:
THIS WELL RESEARCHED ARTICLE OF THE OUTDOORSMAN IS AN ACCURATE AND FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE DECEPTION INVOLVED IN THE WOLF “REINTRODUCTION.” IT NAMES “NAMES,” DATES, AND PROVIDES PRECISE DOCUMENTATION OF THE OUT AND OUT FRAUD THAT HAS BEEN PURPETRATED ON THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO. THE ARTICLE LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT THE MEDIA HAS BEEN COMPLICIT IN THIS DECEPTION. THIS IS THE BEST SUMMARY OF THIS TRAGIC STORY THAT I HAVE SEEN TO DATE.
IF EVER THERE WERE REASON FOR THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO TO STAND UP AND REJECT THIS ENTIRE MESS, THIS IS IT. THE WOLF INITIATIVE PETITION CURRENTLY CIRCULATING PROVIDES THAT OPPORTUNITY. IT REQUIRES THE STATE OF IDAHO TO SEVER ITSELF FROM THIS FEDERAL DISASTER AND BOYCOTT ANY PARTICIPATON IN WOLF REINTRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT. IF PASSED, THE TAXPAYERS OF IDAHO WOULD BE FREED FROM PAYING FOR MANAGEMENT OF THIS FEDERAL PROGRAM BY IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME. BEING NO LONGER INVOLVED, THE STATE OF IDAHO WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO ACT INDEPENDENTLY ON BEHALF OF ITS CITIZENS REGARDING WOLF DEPREDATIONS AND DISEASE.
BEST REGARDS,
John L. Runft
Runft & Steele Law Offices, PLLC
1020 W. Main St., Suite 400
Boise, Idaho 83702
Post by: wolfbait on June 05, 2009, 12:12:27 PM
Post by: boneaddict on June 05, 2009, 12:33:21 PM
Sent you a pm wolfbait.......
Post by: JackOfAllTrades on June 05, 2009, 12:56:22 PM
There's been the black ones sighted on an off for a while, and the stories of the Grey's in Ferry county go back to at least the early 70's.
Quote
I figure there is enough lore that every coyote, dog etc or even now shadow is going to be considered a wolf.
I'm no wildlife biologist but I'm pretty sure I've encountered at least one Wolf south of Packwood lake in the late 70's and a couple up near Billy Goat pass in the early 90's. I've heard of Wolves in the Granite Lakes, Jordan Lakes area too.
I am betting that there are more Wolves in this state than the WDFW knows about.
-Steve
Post by: boneaddict on June 05, 2009, 12:59:21 PM
Post by: Kain on June 05, 2009, 01:19:39 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 05, 2009, 01:26:39 PM
Post by: JackOfAllTrades on June 05, 2009, 01:35:49 PM
Quote
Indian Heavens Wilderness area...
Well, I've seen some big-ass tracks down there, but never a set of ears to confirm anything. So many people hike that area, as the crest trail perimiters part of that boundry, with large dogs so it's tough to say.
Testar77 and I have a story about criss-crossing Indian Heavens for about 5 hours of darkness one night. He was gimpin a bit, we were worried about his dad's health, I beat feet (alone) out for miles of cross country and trail to go get the rig back at camp. Hiking in the dark brings new perspective to when you stop to take a drink, 'you feel like you're being watched'. But what, and how many of them are watching you?... That's the question.
-Steve
Post by: Ridgerunner on June 05, 2009, 01:41:27 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 05, 2009, 01:44:12 PM
We have confirmed wolves in Stevens and Pend Orrielle county. There are also more than F&W know about, but I guess we can't count them until F&G confirms them.
If you look at all the info links in my previous message it gives you the history of what will likely happen in Washington via what has already happened in numerous other states.
The really scarey part is that there are not enough country minded residents in Washington to overcome the loud voice of the 3 county concrete jungle in the voting booth and in the legislature.
Post by: boneaddict on June 05, 2009, 01:45:14 PM
Quote
I am sure there have been wolves here in Washington for around 20 years
They have always been here, but they were a different critter.
Post by: Kain on June 05, 2009, 02:06:04 PM
QuoteI am sure there have been wolves here in Washington for around 20 years
They have always been here, but they were a different critter.
I am sure you are right but I just meant twenty years ago it was confirmed by a government agency. NPS
Post by: boneaddict on June 05, 2009, 02:08:36 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 05, 2009, 02:16:29 PM
Yer right as rain on that, But if we can inform more people, and show them just what is going to happen, who knows, there are a pile of people here in the valley that are from over on the westside who don't want these wolves also. Then their are some that just don't know the real trueth about whats going to happen. what we need is someone to donate their life to the cause, some one important, if these wolves killed someone say, right out of down town Twisp or Winthrop, well that would give us the edge. I would do it, but I am not that important.
Post by: wolfbait on June 05, 2009, 02:24:14 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 05, 2009, 08:14:07 PM
Wolves have been hammering the deer herds in the Methow Valley for the past 3-4 years, and these idiots think it's "great news" that the
wolves are back.
Playboypenguin
Is there a deer shortage now?
Yes, there most assuredly is. We have hunted deer in the Methow Valley for over 20 years. We have not seen a legal buck the last three seasons, and we hunt hard. The number of deer in the area is way down, overall. Many people I have talked to, including game wardens, attribute a large percentage of the decline to wolves. You may call that anecdotal evidence, but people who actually hunt in the area believe it to be fact.
__________________
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=344456&page=3
http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/photo_essay/photo_essay/moosekill.html
http://s84.photobucket.com/albums/k6/waha338/?action=view¤t=TheKillingSportbyRWalters.flv
http://wolfcrossing.org
http://www.theoutdoorlodge.com/features/articles/outdoors/yellowstone_wolf_experiment.html
November 22, 2002
Yellowstone Wolf Experiment Out of Control
http://timberwolfinformation.org/info/archieve/newspapers/viewnews.cfm?ID=2216
Post by: Slider on June 06, 2009, 09:12:26 AM
I talked to a gun dealer in Billings (he was from the Spokane area)that told me he took his family to Yellowstone last summer for a camping trip. Him and his wife in a tent and his 2 children in a tent next to them. They stayed 5 nights and the Wolves came into their camp two nights!!! :yike: He told me he had a pistol with him. But he had a hard time sleeping!!!
Post by: wolfbait on June 06, 2009, 09:52:39 AM
Post by: wolfbait on June 06, 2009, 10:13:34 AM
http://www.methownet.com/bulletinboard.html
Pages: 1
Wolves--- livestock, dogs, hunting, snowmobiles, Where is this going
#2 Today 7:55 AM
run-a-muck
Member
Registered: 06/06/09 Re: Wolves--- livestock, dogs, hunting, snowmobiles, Where is this goinghttp://spectator.org/archives/2002/03/0 … -the-loose
"Wolves and livestock can't coexist. Period," Sharon Beck, a rancher and past president of the Oregon Cattlemen's Association, told the AP. "Their [environmentalists] agenda is to get us off the public lands".
Brooks Fahy, executive director of the Predator Defense Institute in green Eugene, doesn't deny it: "Fifty percent of Oregon is prime wolf habitat…that has essentially been trampled.…The West is being treated like it was a giant feedlot.…We don't see any gray areas.…We want livestock off of public lands
As "experimental" wolves expand their ranges in the Northern Rockies and Pacific Northwest, environmental groups are cynically using such tools as the Endangered Species Act to limit commercial activity on and access to public lands, and they have allies in the federal agencies. We have seen this recently in the infamous lynx study scandal involving the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and in the lately published report by the National Academy of Sciences on the erring of federal officials in cutting off irrigation water to protect three species of fish in last summer's Klamath Falls, Oregon "farmers vs. suckerfish" struggle
Who's running this experimental wreck?
Online
Delete | Edit | Quote
#3 Today 8:41 AM
run-a-muck
Member
Registered: 06/06/09 Re: Wolves--- livestock, dogs, hunting, snowmobiles, Where is this going
If any of you are wondering why this post is in here twice, I was practicing my translocating techniques.
Online
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 07, 2009, 07:28:41 AM
Post by: wolfbait on June 07, 2009, 07:56:57 AM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 07, 2009, 08:39:10 AM
Post by: FrankDown on June 07, 2009, 01:30:47 PM
How many people have filed lawsuits against the environmentalist that are pushing for these things? It seems that they arent founded in science, but emotion. The impact it has is detrimental and counterproductive to conservation efforts in many areas. If these groups were sued or held accountable perhaps things will change. I cant see how they come up with the money that they do. It all comes down to money, and the power follows. Regardless whether or not it is sound conservation or emotion.
Post by: wolfbait on June 07, 2009, 09:28:34 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 08, 2009, 09:25:03 AM
authorized illegal issuance of the agreements. www.saveelk.com
American Alps Legacy Project envisions a bigger, better national park:
American Alps Legacy Project envisions a bigger, better national park, “We will not cut people out of areas of traditional use,�� said Davis. “We’ll make sure lots of areas are left for hunting.�� Harts Pass, a popular snowmobile area, is not included in the study area. More hiking trails will be available in the park, isolated from hunting. “People think the scenic corridor is protected, but it could be developed,�� said Jim Davis, executive director for NCCC. He said, “it might not change in the next 10 to 20 years, but as the social structure changes, the land now under Forest Service management could support mining, downhill ski areas and small hydroelectric projects. As energy prices go up, it becomes more economically feasible to develop renewable energy that could de-water streams and string power lines to the west,��
Statements like these are scare tactics that the environmentalists use to deceive people. As most of you may know, it is very hard to do anything to state, federal, or even private property without the environmentalists interfering
The American Alps project would protect critical watershed landscape features; extend wildlife corridors and non-motorized recreation opportunities to the growing population from the Puget Sound area. Environmentalists’’ statements like these woo people away from reality. The environmentalists pick these wolves to gain control of the land with rulings through the ESA. They have done it with the spotted owl, the salmon, and the list goes on. NOTE: The area being studied for more protection includes land on both sides of Highway 20 just a few miles past Mazama.
http://wolfcrossing.org/2009/05/26/wild … -ranching/
Wild Earth Guardians launches rural cleansing campaign against Gila residents and ranching
Protecting the Gila
WildEarth Guardians wants to secure lasting and landmark protection for the endangered wildlands and wildlife of the Gila Bioregion in southwestern New Mexico and southeastern Arizona. Our vision is a healthy population of wolves surrounded by millions of acres of newly designated wilderness. Eventually we believe that America’s first Wilderness Area should become its next great National Park or National Monument. How could such a bold vision come to fruition? Come find out about WildEarth Guardians’ strategy to lead the way in protecting the Gila. We look forward to a great conversation! Please RSVP to Carol Norton, 505-988-9126, ext. 1150 or cnorton@wildearthguardians.org.
You really wanted to know what’s what, well this is it. Take it seriously, because they are playing for keeps and we don't have a lot of shots at this. If we mess this up, we will be royally messed up. longshot
http://www.takingliberty.us/TLHome.html
Online
Delete | Edit | Quote
#26 Today 6:18 AM
Through the ESA rulings the environmentalists, anti-hunting groups, etc. are using the wolf to gain control of more land, parks, etc. These groups are all bound together, they use each other to gain the same. The environmentalists are supposed to be the group that cares about animals and endangered species. Who would have thought that they would actually do harm to so much wildlife in order to control more land, stop hunting rights, etc. and the list goes on. These groups give a whole new meaning to the phrase, "what do skunks really smell like?" Now we know!
longshot
http://www.methownet.com/bulletinboard.html
Post by: FrankDown on June 09, 2009, 10:59:30 AM
Quote
"We've already screwed up all sorts of things with human-caused changes to wildlife habitat, and wolves will simply have to be managed just like everything else," Petrie said. "The sooner we get to it, the better off we'll all be, including the wolves."
I agree with this...
Post by: wolfbait on June 09, 2009, 01:03:28 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 09, 2009, 01:24:04 PM
"Before starting, I read six wildlife biology-type books to try to educate myself beyond what I already know from hunting archery seasons in Idaho where wolves have been established for a long time," he said, noting that he has catalogued more than 400 books in his personal hunting and wildlife library.
Petrie also has documented wolves in Pend Oreille County with photos and by snowshoeing into areas where he's found their tracks and kills.
"I'm not making excuses for wolves – they're not out there eating Alpo – but there's no evidence that they would devastate big-game populations," he said.
So do any of you know this guy? Pay check must be a dandy.
http://www.saveelk.com
http://s84.photobucket.com/albums/k6/waha338/?action=view¤t=TheKillingSportbyRWalters.flv
http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/endangered/wolf_pics.htm
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2009/0 … dont-bite/
http://www.wmicentral.com/site/printerFriendly.cfm?brd=2264&dept_id=505965&newsid=17108302
http://www.prosts.com/Documentary-Undue-Burden.htm
http://rliv.com/wolf/09NFpred.pdf
Post by: wolfbait on June 10, 2009, 05:54:23 PM
This is a really sad story........................
Close encounter raises concerns about wolves
By Scott Richards - For the Idaho Press-Tribune
For as long as I can remember, when you were in the mountains for any reason, a dog by your side was a great defense to warn you of predators. I used to believe in this. But now a dog is nothing more than bait to lure wolves.
Recently, while cougar hunting, an associate of mine, who is a licensed guide like myself, had a wolf encounter. He was cougar hunting with a dog on a leash when three wolves charged up on him. With waving arms and a screaming voice, he was able to persuade them to leave, but what if they had been a little hungrier? Your natural instinct will be to defend your companion. I am not saying you should leave your friend at home, but be prepared.
Put a bell or a beeper on him or her so you know where they are at all times.
The most important thing, in my opinion, is to pack a firearm. I personally believe pepper spray will not work in
a pack attack. Keep your dogs quiet when you are walking — no barking. If they are tied up in camp, no barking. And don’t let your children play with your pets and have them barking while they’re playing.
My personal belief is that the war has been lost. It’s too late to save our big-game herds in my lifetime.
What I have loved to do for most of my life is over, so enjoy it while you still can. Be prepared. I pray you never encounter a pack of Canadian gray wolves.
http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/tm.aspx?m=1558821
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 12, 2009, 07:26:36 AM
So do any of you know this guy? Pay check must be a dandy.
I do know him and what he is saying is true. He actually has facts to show his truthfulness. You, on the other hand, have not provided us with a fact yet, just a bunch of redneck sensationalism. I think I remember you promising me some evidence of your claims; I'm still waiting patiently. waiting......
Post by: wolfbait on June 12, 2009, 07:40:48 AM
So do any of you know this guy? Pay check must be a dandy.
I do know him and what he is saying is true. He actually has facts to show his truthfulness. You, on the other hand, have not provided us with a fact yet, just a bunch of redneck sensationalism. I think I remember you promising me some evidence of your claims; I'm still waiting patiently. waiting......
when this fellow says he doesn't see where these wolves have devastated big game, I winder just where he has done his research.
So do any of you know this guy? Pay check must be a dandy.
http://www.saveelk.com
http://s84.photobucket.com/albums/k6/waha338/?action=view¤t=TheKillingSportbyRWalters.flv
http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/endangered/wolf_pics.htm
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2009/0 … dont-bite/
http://www.wmicentral.com/site/printerFriendly.cfm?brd=2264&dept_id=505965&newsid=17108302
http://www.prosts.com/Documentary-Undue-Burden.htm
http://rliv.com/wolf/09NFpred.pdf
And you have a wonderfull day MR. Wacoyotehunter
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 12, 2009, 08:05:47 AM
Hunting success is down in ID and in places the elk #'s a lower, but if a person knows where to go and how to hunt they can be quite successful. The elk are there- they're just lay low a little better now.
Post by: wolfbait on June 12, 2009, 10:58:13 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 12, 2009, 11:50:50 AM
Post by: denali on June 14, 2009, 09:02:43 AM
priority 1 in the methow valley, wolves ranchers and outdoorsman are way down the list.
Post by: bearpaw on June 14, 2009, 03:08:39 PM
Quote
He spends more time in the woods than anyone I know. I think mostly in NE Washington. There have been wolves here for a long time and they have not devastated the big game. How can you explain that, other than by saying it's possible that wolves are not going to devastate the big game... it seems intuitive.]He spends more time in the woods than anyone I know. I think mostly in NE Washington. There have been wolves here for a long time and they have not devastated the big game. How can you explain that, other than by saying it's possible that wolves are not going to devastate the big game... it seems intuitive.
I also happen to spend a fair amount of time in the woods here in all three NE counties. I agree that some wolves have been here for a long time, but they were before the canadian transplants and they were not as big or near as quick at reproducing as the Canadian Grey's which were transplanted in Idaho.
Quote
I do know him and what he is saying is true. He actually has facts to show his truthfulness. You, on the other hand, have not provided us with a fact yet, just a bunch of redneck sensationalism. I think I remember you promising me some evidence of your claims; I'm still waiting patiently. waiting......
I have to wonder how anyone following this thread can say no evidence has been presented. I say a heck of a lot of evidence has been shown if you only click on the links you will see plenty of proof of what is happening in areas where the canadian wolves are thick. Not only is there significant reduction of game, the government hunters can barely keep up with all the livestock and pet predation.
My question is, Please show us your proof that canadian wolves have not had the devastating impact in the areas of idaho that everyone (including local residents) say the elk and deer herds have been decimated, including many F&G employees.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 14, 2009, 06:13:44 PM
[
My question is, Please show us your proof that canadian wolves have not had the devastating impact in the areas of idaho that everyone (including local residents) say the elk and deer herds have been decimated, including many F&G employees.
Great question.
Response??
Post by: wolfbait on June 14, 2009, 09:04:51 PM
The wolf became the darling of the deep ecology movement that got its legs in the 1960s, partially because of the wolf's mythical status as a top predator. The deep ecology philosophy formed a look-don't-touch view of humankind's rights concerning nature, and when Farley Mowatt published his book "Never Cry Wolf" in 1963 -- which many scientists disdained for its lack of evidence -- wolf mythology changed overnight to embrace a new vision of wolf as "ideal father," "feisty mother," and "dependable pup sitter," according to Karen Jones in "Never Cry Wolf: Science, Sentiment, and the Literary Rehabilitation of Canis Lupus."
Critics charged that Mowatt had only observed wolves for a total of 90 hours, "an indictment of his research credibility and scientific commitment," Jones said. "Never Cry Wolf" was fiction, but its pretense as science undermined the credibility of biological research itself, she said.
Predicting that the book would influence many, reviewer A.S.F. Banfield concluded, "It is certain that not since Little Red Riding Hood has a story been written that will influence the attitude of so many toward these animals. I hope that the readers of 'Never Cry Wolf' will realize that both stories have about the same factual content."
Anthropomorphism -- which ascribes human traits to non-human species -- was used heavily by Mowatt, but no more than others like Disney or Aesop. Scientists, however, contend that there is no place for anthropomorphism in science.
The ecology movement applied terms like "loyal," "intelligent," "fun-loving," and "good parents" to wolf traits, implying they were superior to humans, Jones said. Canadian wildlife advocates adopted an "animal rights and human wrongs" view of nature, which emerged in the U.S. as Cleveland Amory's Fund for Animals in 1967 along with others like Defenders of Wildlife.
Most of these groups try very hard to dispel what they claim to be centuries-old "misinformation" about wolves.
"The state governments of both Wyoming and Idaho have taken strong stances against wolves based on emotionally laden misinformation that wolves are threatening state livestock and hunting industries," Stone said.
Nathan Varley, a wildlife biologist who took part in the DoW media teleconference, said, "Wolves will naturally go after the weak, vulnerable and sick animals first -- not the strong, healthy ones which are mostly invulnerable to wolf predation."
That view is hokum, say others.
"Wolves are opportunists, meaning they kill whatever is convenient. This may be old or sick animals or a pregnant female, but most significantly they prey on the young," Mader stated.
Wolves kill for food but they also kill for sport, said Nelson.
"Elk and deer populations are decreasing steadily, where the wolves are spreading," Beers said.
The North Yellowstone elk herd stood at more than 19,000 before the time of the "reintroduction" in 1994. As of 2004, with not much else changed, except the addition of wolves, the herd was estimated at 8,335 animals. The winter count conducted on Dec. 30, 2006 was 6,738 elk.
Montana State University ecology professor Scott Creel launched a study in 2002 to delve into the decline. To their surprise they found that elk cow's pregnancy rates had declined and that lower levels of progesterone were present.
Another side effect of the presence of wolves in elk country is that wariness levels go way up, making them much harder to find by hunters or others who just want a look, said Mike Stark of The Billings Gazette in an article dated Feb. 16, 2007.
Other alleged historical "misinformation" concerns the dangers of wolves to humans. Claiming that centuries-old European stories of wolves attacking humans is nothing more than fear-based mythology, deep ecology groups using the new mythology of Mowatt and others contend there is nothing to fear.
Will Graves, who has traveled extensively in Russia, is writing a book on the history of wolves in Russian literature in recent centuries. The great Canadian wildlife biologist Dr. Valerius Geist is editing the book for him.
"Russia has documented wolf attacks on humans better than any country in the world," Graves said. "In the Ural Mountains, many old folks and children were killed by wolves during the Napoleonic Wars, during the Bolshevik revolution and during World War II."
He claims that church documents back this up and that they're one of the most reliable forms of documentation.
"Centuries-old reports (churches, archives, etc.) of high rates of human life lost to wolves in Europe, Asia, and North America are ignored, demeaned and rejected by bureaucrat biologists, and all their partners in universities and the media," Beers said.
Graves' research shows that wolves lose their fear of humans if not hunted.
"If prey is scarce, then sometimes the wolves move in close to towns and search for dogs, cats, garbage, etc.," he said. "This is when there is danger."
In a recent letter to The Press on the subject of land planning, Coeur d'Alene resident Unus Vocate challenged readers to envision "green belts crisscrossing the entire nation; nature preserves of the different types of environments ... a society living in harmony with nature: How wonderful."
His plea is to drive the decision-making for land planning to much higher levels -- out of local hands.
Actually, there is a plan to do just that called the Wildlands Project, part of the U.N.'s Convention on Biological Diversity, which together with Agenda 21, a global plan for sustainable development, supersede the U.S. constitution and the property rights of its citizens.
The map of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, which is envisioned by these global planners can be viewed here. A map of the whole U.S. showing these plans was developed by Dr. Michael Coffman and was used to stop the ratification of the U.N. treaty by the U.S. Congress. Subsequently, the plan was essentially put in place by Executive Order 13158 of President Clinton and later President Bush did not revoke it.
So what does this have to do with wolves?
Finnish outdoorsman Magnus Hagelstam, who has studied the European Union's efforts to "reintroduce" wolves in eastern Germany and other parts of Europe, said, if depopulating the West is on the agenda of wolf aficionados, wolves can be very helpful.
"They are truly the ideal bioweapon for transforming ranchland into wilderness."
http://www.freedomadvocates.org/articles/wildlands_project/wolves_in_our_backyard_20070530234/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Satren lives in Idaho and writes for the Hagadone News as their Outdoor News Editor. Email msatren@cdapress.com This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For additional information on the dangers of wolves, please see this informative website http://www.prosts.com
Post by: boneaddict on June 14, 2009, 09:10:08 PM
Wolves have been in the NE corner for awhile. I thought they just got here. Like last year. :chuckle:
Post by: Slider on June 14, 2009, 09:45:46 PM
I would say look at tag numbers. Specifically moose. They tend not to be factored as much by bad winters as the rest of the game. So its not as easily dismissed as a bad winter. Look at wyomings tags and Idahos. Then keep a keen eye on Washington. By the way, I don't spend any time in the woods, just sit behind this computer all day and night. :chuckle:
Wolves have been in the NE corner for awhile. I thought they just got here. Like last year. :chuckle:
Last year? Yea I heard they got there in the back of a truck!!! :chuckle:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 15, 2009, 09:02:01 AM
His plea is to drive the decision-making for land planning to much higher levels -- out of local hands.
Actually, there is a plan to do just that called the Wildlands Project, part of the U.N.'s Convention on Biological Diversity, which together with Agenda 21, a global plan for sustainable development, supersede the U.S. constitution and the property rights of its citizens.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you say Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act? Yellowstone to Yukon? All goals of the wildlands project bunch
Post by: boneaddict on June 15, 2009, 09:05:22 AM
Post by: bearpaw on June 15, 2009, 09:46:15 AM
Post by: boneaddict on June 15, 2009, 09:50:16 AM
Look deep into his eyes and tell me what emotion you think he feels, LOL
Post by: Kain on June 15, 2009, 09:59:24 AM
Idaho Fish and Game Department wildlife biologist Pete Zager
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/1234/story/573471.html
Quote
Zager said researchers don't have all the information they need, but they realize "we've got to get rolling and make decisions based on the information we have."
Here's what researchers know for sure about elk and wolves in Idaho, he said:
-- Elk herds are declining.
-- Wolf packs are growing -- well above original objectives.
-- The number of elk harvested by hunters has been declining, from around 25,000 in the mid-1990s, when wolves were reintroduced to the Northern Rocky Mountains, to roughly 15,000 last year.
-- Elk hunting seasons and quotas have been reduced for 2009, but the impacts of wolves are likely to go unchecked.
-- Wolf management through hunting is scheduled to begin this fall, but likely will be challenged in court by animal protection groups.
-- Wolves have become the most important factor in predation on elk.
However, they're not the only factor.
"Wolves have given cougars a huge favor by taking the spotlight. Cougars are still a significant factor (in elk mortality)."
-- Forest fire suppression also is a factor in elk declines.
-- The effects of wolves on elk vary dramatically in various game management units.
Bottom line: "We still need to be monitoring wolves and elk like crazy," Zager said.
Post by: bearpaw on June 15, 2009, 10:06:18 AM
wolfbait did you look at kains link.......
Post by: boneaddict on June 15, 2009, 10:07:45 AM
Post by: Kain on June 15, 2009, 10:13:55 AM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wildlife/management/conferences/2009-deer-elk/index.html
Post by: bearpaw on June 15, 2009, 10:15:24 AM
If the electricity to a town is suddently disrupted....a car is found sitting dead next to a broken off electric pole....the front of the car is all smashed in.....but no one will confess to the actual impact....I still think it is pretty safe to assume the car knocked out the electricity to the town....... :twocents:
That is my scientific explanation for the idaho trilogy.......wolf/elk/idaho..... :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: boneaddict on June 15, 2009, 10:25:08 AM
Post by: Kain on June 15, 2009, 10:30:15 AM
I apologize for this, but I have to be a smart a$$.
If the electricity to a town is suddently disrupted....a car is found sitting dead next to a broken off electric pole....the front of the car is all smashed in.....but no one will confess to the actual impact....I still think it is pretty safe to assume the car knocked out the electricity to the town....... :twocents:
That is my scientific explanation for the idaho trilogy.......wolf/elk/idaho..... :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Ahh common sense and logic. To bad they have no place in our court system. That is where this will finally be decided.
Post by: bearpaw on June 15, 2009, 10:39:20 AM
1. The "G" is getting fed up with "AR's" extreme, unreasonable, uncompromising positions.
2. Wolves will be managed in ID & MT very soon.
3. WA is too fuzzy to tell, there is a haze over western WA that I cannot see through.
:yike: :o
Post by: wolfbait on June 15, 2009, 12:34:18 PM
Kain thankyou, I don't know if your link qualifies as proof to everyone, but it speaks volumes when researchers and F&G personnel are pointing out the obvious, and all of central Idaho is screaming the very same thing.
wolfbait did you look at kains link.......
Yep sure did. Idaho has been hit hard from these wolves, same as the other states. But Washington is now just starting to come out of the dark, and begin the battle against these wolves. Each state can be managed differantly through said stated game department, so in reality, each state is a whole new ball game in which the powers that be, can manipulate their course as they see fit at the time. The only way that we can make a differance in the outcome is if we stick together, alone on this wolf issue, we don't stand a chance. Everyone needs to stand-up on this one if you ever want to hunt agin in Washington. The powers that may be could think that Washington will be a push over conpared to what they have had to fight in other states. I would like to giive them a run for the money and our wildlife. We may have an edge in the facts that have come from the flop of the wolves in other states. We have more info. on what these wolves have done to other states wildlife. The History of the wolves so far and what they have done is not flattering to anyone except the people who have forced this killer on us. we are already behind the starting line, as these wolves were planted in here and other places quite some time ago and have multiplied quite well. Anytime the environmentalists put words out there that include hunting wolves as a big game animal, they are hanging the carrot in front of you, to apeeze you. they will not control these wolves in Wa. that is their plan. As you can see with the cattle grazing permits. Everything will revolve around protecting and promoting the wolves and the wolves will put our wildlife in the animal pit. the talk about the cougars on a killing spree, I find hard to beleive in the fact, that now with the wolves involved these elk are even hard to hunt than before. So if anything the cougars are killing less elk or deer than before. Cougars are nothing like the wolves for running down game, they do not pack-up and hunt, nore do they the lung capacity to run their prey down, the reason that hounds work so well. I have read this same speech form others before, about how they are still studing the affects of the wolves on elk and moose and deer herds, I think it is a delaying action, (we think we see what we think is happening but lets study it more). Have you ever met people who spent their lives going to collage, only to be over qualified for every job? The end results is they do nothing with all that they have learned.
Post by: Kain on June 15, 2009, 01:06:46 PM
I still think not enough people are reporting their wolf sightings. I understand there are reasons some dont want to report. I just think a paper trail of complaints and sightings would be a huge tool in a "proactive" plan. Right now they can just say there are not that many wolves and there is no evidence that they are wrong.
:dunno: :dunno:
Post by: wolfbait on June 15, 2009, 01:25:04 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 15, 2009, 01:28:17 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 15, 2009, 02:06:05 PM
I agree with kain, F&G must operate on facts and show studies that can substantiate everything to the public and courts.
At the same time I totally agree with wolfbait, we need to spread the word and continue to be proactive about this issue.
There is more good material from more sources in this thread than I have ever seen in one place, let's keep it going for all to read.
Post by: wolfbait on June 15, 2009, 02:14:05 PM
Folks there is good progress being made, 2 years ago the ID F&G would not have said half as much as they are saying now.
I agree with kain, F&G must operate on facts and show studies that can substantiate everything to the public and courts.
At the same time I totally agree with wolfbait, we need to spread the word and continue to be proactive about this issue.
There is more good material from more sources in this thread than I have ever seen in one place, let's keep it going for all to read.
Well alright then, take shell back out of barrel and go back to computer. :chuckle:
Post by: Kain on June 15, 2009, 02:37:32 PM
Well you may be right on all of that Kain. But here is an example of someone that actually saw 2 wolves go across the road in front of him just below the new wolf habitat. This guy not only took pictures of the wolves, which were as tame as housecats, but he reported his sightings to the proper people, and they turned it into an, I don't beleive him. People here in the valley, said there ya go. As far as I can see they still want to contend that there is just one little ol wolf pack here with a couple of pups. When in reality more people than I know have seen these wolves in more places to be just 6 er 7 wolves. I really wish there was only 6 or 7, it would sure make things a hell of alot easier deciding just where to dig one big hole. I probably shouldn'y say things like that, but they brought these wolves into this country illigally, and I know 2 wrongs don't always make a right but I think this time it would.
I think that kind of backs up my argument. Not enough people are reporting. It is easy to discount one or two reports a year. But if everyone that saw some tracks or saw a wolf reported it. They would not be able to discount them all. Could you imagine if it came up in court that there were hundreds of reported sightings and most of them were not checked or were written off as unreliable. They would be in big trouble if it became public that they were covering up wolf populations. Make sure they dont have that option.
Post by: wolfbait on June 15, 2009, 03:23:06 PM
Good point Kain, I never thought of it in that light.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 15, 2009, 04:19:35 PM
I never said they're not having an effect, but I'm not so sure that the wolf effect on elk is a devastating as some might say. Aside from anecdotal evidence (which goes a long way if you are anti wolf :P) there are some studies showing that wolves are not eating themselves out of prey.[
My question is, Please show us your proof that canadian wolves have not had the devastating impact in the areas of idaho that everyone (including local residents) say the elk and deer herds have been decimated, including many F&G employees.
Great question.
Response??
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/manage_issues/ung/elkupdate.cfm
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/apps/releases/view.cfm?NewsID=3156
Roadkill...malnutrition...lions... why isn't anyone screaming about that?
Post by: bearpaw on June 15, 2009, 05:57:13 PM
Very good points..............that should be addressed.
Roadkill
Primarily a deer problem in most areas. I have not seen too many elk in DOT roadkill depositories. Has anyone else????
Malnutrition
F&G depts have pretty well answered this by stating that elk are below carrying capacity.
Lions
Dang I love hunting these critters. As I am sure you are aware with your close DOW connections, the lion populations have been greatly reduced in most areas of the west, including Idaho and E. Washington and for verying reasons. For some time Idaho F&G has offered extra lion and bear tags in central Idaho to reduce those populations. There is more lion and bear hunting occuring than ever before in Idaho and harvest data has indicated reduced populations in most areas.
These were good points, but as I think you probably know, they are really not valid arguments at this time.
I believe all the photos of wolf kills, F&G arial surveys, expanding wolf numbers, decreasing elk numbers, new attitudes of ID/MT F&G, etc. all indicates wolves are most likely the problem.
Can you argue that any evidence shows otherwise????
Post by: Kain on June 15, 2009, 06:32:03 PM
I am not calling for eradication of wolves in Washington, only responsible, proactive management. That goes for any of these issues.
Post by: sooperfly on June 15, 2009, 06:46:41 PM
Well you may be right on all of that Kain. But here is an example of someone that actually saw 2 wolves go across the road in front of him just below the new wolf habitat. This guy not only took pictures of the wolves, which were as tame as housecats, but he reported his sightings to the proper people, and they turned it into an, I don't beleive him. People here in the valley, said there ya go.
Wolfbait - What are you basing this statement on ? Can you clarify this please ? Especially the "tame as housecats" comment ( sounds like you were there, or you have talked to the person directly ?? ) And how do you know the sightings were/were not reported to the proper people, and they "didn't believe him". Help me out here.
Post by: bearpaw on June 15, 2009, 07:01:13 PM
Quote
I am not calling for eradication of wolves in Washington, only responsible, proactive management. That goes for any of these issues.
Excellent Remark
I totally agree...............
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 16, 2009, 06:46:38 AM
coyote, I can't quite read if you are just making constructive conversation or if you really love wolves. I guess it doesn't really matter.
Very good points..............that should be addressed.
Roadkill
Primarily a deer problem in most areas. I have not seen too many elk in DOT roadkill depositories. Has anyone else????
Malnutrition
F&G depts have pretty well answered this by stating that elk are below carrying capacity.
These were good points, but as I think you probably know, they are really not valid arguments at this time.
I believe all the photos of wolf kills, F&G arial surveys, expanding wolf numbers, decreasing elk numbers, new attitudes of ID/MT F&G, etc. all indicates wolves are most likely the problem.
Can you argue that any evidence shows otherwise????
Someone asked me to show that elk #'s can sustain a wolf population, that is why I posted that data sheet.
It's not that I love wolves at all, in fact I enjoy elk far more. The roadkill data is important with regard to deer, not so much so for elk. But it shows pretty clearly that cars and deer dont get along(or lions!)- wolves are not as big an impact as cars...I guess an obvious assumption (obvious to me) is that wolves are not eating all of our deer, as the post title indicates. There are other factors at work and until wolves are managed, there are things we can do to support more deer/elk for hunters.
The data sheet shows that elk numbers are above or within population objectives in 8 of 11 units. It looks like wolves are pounding them in the Lolo, but all in all there are still lots of elk in ID.
My point is that a managed population of wolves can coexist with deer/elk/people just fine. I think we'll see more elk units above population goals when the wolves start being killed.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 16, 2009, 07:01:53 AM
Washington state is like a fish bowl its far too small and the deer/elk are concentrated in to a very small area most of the year and when you add a wolf pack into the equation it doesn't take a genius to figure out that it will be a disaster. The winter range in the methow is so small that one pack of wolves could easily kill 500+ deer from November to February and that will totally cripple the herd for decades to come.
This concept that wolves need to exist in every place that they existed 500 years ago is beyond crap....wolves are not an endangered species there are plenty of them in places that are capable of handling them.......washington is not one of them even if the wolf loving wacko's want to have field trips once a year to listen to them howl.
I really don't understand why some of the Pollyanna's around here think that we need wolves...we dont...go to wolf haven if you want to cuddle with one. They dont belong in our Eco system especially the non native species that we are getting shoved down our throats.
Post by: wolfbait on June 16, 2009, 07:08:25 AM
Well you may be right on all of that Kain. But here is an example of someone that actually saw 2 wolves go across the road in front of him just below the new wolf habitat. This guy not only took pictures of the wolves, which were as tame as housecats, but he reported his sightings to the proper people, and they turned it into an, I don't beleive him. People here in the valley, said there ya go.
Wolfbait - What are you basing this statement on ? Can you clarify this please ? Especially the "tame as housecats" comment ( sounds like you were there, or you have talked to the person directly ?? ) And how do you know the sightings were/were not reported to the proper people, and they "didn't believe him". Help me out here.
There was an article in the Wenatchee World about the man who saw the wolves and that he did not have any problem taking the pictures. Of course, there was a lot of discussion about the event and the resultant hearsay as people spoke with him about it. Some are credible, some are not and that is pretty easy to wade through and discern. I was not there. The "tame as housecats" comment was a product of all the discussions (I regret inserting that bit of levity into a heavy and serious subject). However, my personal experiences with the wolves contributed to that humor. I have been shocked as we have encountered them how unafraid they were of us. In fact, they seemed to be very curious and actually kept approaching us at a very close distance. Sorry about the humor that may have caused any misunderstanding.
Post by: wolfbait on June 16, 2009, 07:56:31 AM
I never said they're not having an effect, but I'm not so sure that the wolf effect on elk is a devastating as some might say. Aside from anecdotal evidence (which goes a long way if you are anti wolf :P) there are some studies showing that wolves are not eating themselves out of prey.[
My question is, Please show us your proof that canadian wolves have not had the devastating impact in the areas of idaho that everyone (including local residents) say the elk and deer herds have been decimated, including many F&G employees.
Great question.
Response??
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/manage_issues/ung/elkupdate.cfm
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/apps/releases/view.cfm?NewsID=3156
Roadkill...malnutrition...lions... why isn't anyone screaming about that?
The history of the Canadian gray wolves show that whenever these wolves move into an area they decimate the wildlife. As far as the anti-wolf comment, most of us like the wolves that were native to the lower 48. We do not like the wolves that were brought in because of the damage that they are doing. The ecosystem was balanced fairly well, and when it became one-sided it could be helped along with more hunting or less hunting. But with the introdution of the Canadian wolves, it is an ongoing slaughter. These wolves reproduce at a very successful rate. With no management of these wolves as there are with other wildlife, it does not take a genius to figure out where the wolf will be in the near future. The wolves, in the end, will eat themselves out of wildlife prey if they are not managed responsibly.
Post by: boneaddict on June 16, 2009, 08:05:30 AM
By the way, they are also commenting that the wolves are increasing the roadkill because the deer feel safer on or near the road. I never thought of that.
Post by: wolfbait on June 16, 2009, 08:23:14 AM
If the wolves don't start getting some management, the only road kill you will soon be seeing is people's livestock and wolves. Maybe at a later date we will be discussing our malnutritioned wolves. When the wolves get done with what's left of our elk, deer and moose, they will eat all the lions. How's that? :chuckle: :chuckle: Mr. Wacoyotehunter, I believe I understand where you are with the wolf issue on this forum, here is an example: if your fingers were the wolves and somebody slammed the door on your fingers, you would argue till hell froze over it wasn't the door that smashed the hell out of your fingers! :yike:
Post by: Kain on June 16, 2009, 09:58:38 AM
WAcoyotehunter pointed out some credible links and asked good questions. What do we do when we get two reports from credible sources that contradict each other? Pete Zager says that elk hunter harvest is down 10000 elk per year since wolves were introduced and they had to reduce the number of tags for 2009. But the report WAcoyotehunter posted says elk populations are above objectives. What does this mean? This is good for us to figure out.
Post by: boneaddict on June 16, 2009, 10:09:02 AM
Post by: Kain on June 16, 2009, 10:10:18 AM
Post by: boneaddict on June 16, 2009, 10:15:19 AM
Post by: wolfbait on June 16, 2009, 10:42:54 AM
Personally I like WAcoyotehunters comments and questions. He is asking for exactly the same thing that the WDFW and any other organization and public will want. Facts and proof. Rumors and personal feelings will have no weight with the government and public. The AR's will actually use them against you and say you have no proof and are just afraid of superstitions and wives tails. They will diminish any valid point you have by pointing out any weakness in your argument.
WAcoyotehunter pointed out some credible links and asked good questions. What do we do when we get two reports from credible sources that contradict each other? Pete Zager says that elk hunter harvest is down 10000 elk per year since wolves were introduced and they had to reduce the number of tags for 2009. But the report WAcoyotehunter posted says elk populations are above objectives. What does this mean? This is good for us to figure out.
When I first started in on the this wolf issue, People questioned what I said about the wolves. Therefor I spent several hours digging up all the facts that I could to back up what it was I was saying. The same, as is with Wacoyt, brings out new ideas, it is good.
Post by: wolfbait on June 16, 2009, 11:02:35 AM
The impact of wolves on elk varies around the state. Some units and zones show increasing elk populations. Other areas are of concern because elk numbers are decreasing rapidly. The Lolo Elk Zone in north-central Idaho is an area where wolves are definitely impacting prey populations. Long-term research on elk in this zone has scientifically demonstrated that wolves are responsible for 79 percent of mortality on cow elk. Wolves kill 67 percent of calf elk over six months of age. Over time, habitat conditions have deteriorated in this zone and management objectives have been reduced to reflect habitat changes. However, the elk population has continued to decline at about 13 percent each year. This zone is an example of an area where more liberal regulated hunting would be allowed to help reduce predation pressure on elk. In addition, control actions may also be implemented.
Depredation control has been used to manage wolves since their re-introduction. This type of control deals with problem animals killing cattle, sheep, or dogs. It does not, however, address the increasing number of wolves in or near the towns and subdivisions found along the edges of core wolf habitat. Prey animals wintering along these edges attract wolves, potentially leading to conflicts with people. Conflicts such as those seen in Sun Valley this winter are bound to be most significant in this type of setting, and will always require some control action. In spite of control actions, the overall wolf population is quite resilient. Last year, 151 wolves in Idaho died through control actions or other causes. Yet the population still increased roughly 15 percent from 732 to 846 because of their high reproductive rate.
The idea of a control action may be viewed unfavorably by some, but it is often the best management tool in some specific instances. When problem animals habitually kill livestock, control is often the only option available. When wildlife become habituated to humans, control may become necessary because habituated animals are a danger whether they are wolves, bears, deer or even waterfowl.
The Canada goose is a good example of a species that has increasingly come into conflict with people. In metropolitan areas, city parks, golf courses, and other open spaces, geese have become habituated and aggressive. In addition, they pose a potential health risk from their droppings. Overpopulations of geese even pose a threat to air travelers as Captain "Sully" Sullenberg can testify.
While regulated hunting can help with wildlife conflict, certain conditions necessitate a stronger management action. Regulated hunting will remain the preferred option because it provides opportunity for sportsmen but also because it is much less expensive. Additionally, regulated hunting can help reduce the need for control actions overall.
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/news/fg_news/manage.cfm
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 16, 2009, 11:17:55 AM
Post by: bearpaw on June 16, 2009, 11:37:26 AM
Quote
Someone asked me to show that elk #'s can sustain a wolf population, that is why I posted that data sheet.
The data sheet shows that elk numbers are above or within population objectives in 8 of 11 units. It looks like wolves are pounding them in the Lolo, but all in all there are still lots of elk in ID.
My point is that a managed population of wolves can coexist with deer/elk/people just fine. I think we'll see more elk units above population goals when the wolves start being killed.
Wacoyote….thanks for the clarification....points well taken…..I’ll put a few comments on my next post….
Quote
When I first started in on the this wolf issue, People questioned what I said about the wolves. Therefor I spent several hours digging up all the facts that I could to back up what it was I was saying. The same, as is with Wacoyt, brings out new ideas, it is good.
Wolfbait….you are right….it is good that all this info has been presented….thanks for your research and input….just one question….what happened to your redneck language….
Quote
Personally I like WAcoyotehunters comments and questions. He is asking for exactly the same thing that the WDFW and any other organization and public will want. Facts and proof. Rumors and personal feelings will have no weight with the government and public. The AR's will actually use them against you and say you have no proof and are just afraid of superstitions and wives tails. They will diminish any valid point you have by pointing out any weakness in your argument.
WAcoyotehunter pointed out some credible links and asked good questions. What do we do when we get two reports from credible sources that contradict each other? Pete Zager says that elk hunter harvest is down 10000 elk per year since wolves were introduced and they had to reduce the number of tags for 2009. But the report WAcoyotehunter posted says elk populations are above objectives. What does this mean? This is good for us to figure out.
Kain….you have made some very good statements….that I agree with fully…. ;)
Quote
I've got all sorts of fresh data from geist. It will jsut take me some time to get it on here when I am not at work.
Quote
I think people also need to realize the wolves have been primarily targeting elk in other states because they are the most abundant prey.....in the methow there are no elk which are harder to kill so that leaves the deer hung out to dry...or be eaten in this case. Think of how awful the damage will be once the wolves really zero in on the areas that the fawns are dropped......I could see a 90% mortality on fawns.
I thank everyone else who is participating in this thread…..it is all good for Washington…. :hello:
Post by: wolfbait on June 16, 2009, 11:47:49 AM
Sometimes My WIFE types things for me. She is working at getting the way I says things, to be more understandable to the rest of the world. Up to this point I never realized I had redneck language, I am learning so much talkin to y'all :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on June 16, 2009, 11:54:34 AM
Post by: wolfbait on June 16, 2009, 12:05:41 PM
Wolf delisting faces new court challenge
From Staff Reports
June 11, 2009
The Greater Yellowstone Coalition filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging the removal of gray wolves from Endangered Species Act protection in Idaho and Montana.
The lawsuit, filed in Montana, is separate from a suit Earthjustice attorneys filed earlier this month for 12 groups, including the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance and the Natural Resources Defense Council. The state of Wyoming and some livestock and sportsmen groups followed with a lawsuit in Wyoming.
While Greater Yellowstone Coalition officials say they support eventual state management of wolves once adequate standards and safeguards are in place, they say the delisting fails to ensure thriving populations in the northern Rockies and undermines efforts to find sound, science-based solutions to wolf-management issues. Further, the group says delisting lifts wolf protection before achieving the necessary level of connectivity between populations in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and central Idaho. The group also faults Idaho’s aggressive plans to reduce its wolf population
http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/article.php?art_id=4698
No offense was meant, your posts just seemed like they were written by two different people. No offense taken, the wife and I both have spent hours working on this wolf issue.
Post by: bearpaw on June 16, 2009, 12:14:43 PM
Has any court injunction been issued yet? :dunno:
Post by: boneaddict on June 16, 2009, 12:16:34 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 16, 2009, 12:35:37 PM
Not sure how that works. I knwo it sure screws up timber sales say after a burn. A fire occurs and the timber can be slavaged if done QUICKLY,....well inevetibly they file a suit and it stops the timber from being harvested. Then by the time the court thing has happened the wood is all buggy or rotting.
Wouldn't this be the same as tying it up in court? Which would limit what could be done as far as any wolf managment. Which is what I read somewhere would happen when delisting time finally came around.
Post by: boneaddict on June 16, 2009, 12:43:40 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 16, 2009, 01:00:12 PM
I think people also need to realize the wolves have been primarily targeting elk in other states because they are the most abundant prey.....in the methow there are no elk which are harder to kill so that leaves the deer hung out to dry...or be eaten in this case. Think of how awful the damage will be once the wolves really zero in on the areas that the fawns are dropped......I could see a 90% mortality on fawns.
They have already zeroed in on the fawns, thats why we have the wolves down here in the valley floor now. There was a fawn servey done last year in the new wolf habitat that show most of the fawns never made it. My thoughts on this, is the wolves were planted in the Twisp River dranage among others, these wolves have been thinning our deer hards for quite some time now. The deer are getting rather few and far between. So they followed the game to the lower elevations which is in our backyards, the same reason that we are seeing more wolves, lack of game up higher. Last winter and this spring really showed just where all of our deer have gone. After this coming winter people will really wake up and see whats, what. The people for the wolves do not care one whit about anything else other than their beloved wolves.
There is one thing that I don't quite understand, and that is the WSGD biologist and the USFS bioligist are both all for the wolves, are they not suppose to care for the other wildlife also. Who is responsible for the deer,elk and so on?
Post by: boneaddict on June 16, 2009, 01:09:25 PM
What bothers me is that hunting is NOT an effective way to control wolves. Even Geist said it. Mostly hunting only get the ones that are kicked out of the pack due to age and sickness. What BC is doing well is reducing conflict with man because of their season of each hunter being able to shoot 3 of them. All of the ones that pattern man or are humanized are SHOT. All the wild ones stay out in the wild. Isn't helping their deer and elk any, but at least they control that part of the equation. Once a wolf starts patterning man, Lick the lips..... lunch. We are sitll in deep with no trapping and other means of control.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 16, 2009, 01:18:04 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 16, 2009, 01:36:49 PM
So if the fawn surveys start showing up blank how long until we are on a permit only / closed hunt in the valley?
Don't have an answer to that but I would say it won't be long. The only reason I know about the fawn servey is through a friend who knows a certain wildlife biologist, the infromation was not put out to the public that I know of. back in the 80's I found a spot back in the Coal crick area where it was a fawn killing ground for the black bears, same with Bromus crick. Now with the wolves diggin in, it's anyones guess.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 16, 2009, 01:39:28 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 16, 2009, 04:00:54 PM
Crying Wolf Again - The Federal Cover-Up
Rep. Joe Balyeat
"Truth is violated by falsehood, but it is outraged by silence" (Henri
Frederic Amiel)
Federal wildlife biologists have taken much criticism lately for their sins
of commission-falsifying lynx evidence where there were no lynx. But even
more disastrous than their sins of commission, are their sins of omission.
MT House FWP Chairman Dan Fuchs has obtained hard evidence of the following:
1)The Feds have known since 1997 that elk calf ratios were being totally
decimated in areas of high wolf concentration.
2)When MT FWP personnel attempted to release this evidence to the public,
the Feds aggressively barred MT FWP from doing so.
Beginning in 1997, Carrie Schaefer did a study of Yellowstone wolf/elk
interaction entitled "Spatial and Temporal Variation in Wintering Elk
Abundance and Composition, and Wolf Response." Amongst other things, her
study revealed that areas of high wolf concentration inside Yellowstone had
calf ratios dropping precipitously - 0 to 10 calves per 100, even while the
ratio outside high wolf concentration areas remained at 46 calves per 100!
When MT FWP biologist Tom Lemke and others made written request for
permission to release this data to the public; the Fed response to suppress
it was swift, aggressive, and sustained. On 2/18/99, Yellowstone
Supervisory Biologist Glenn Plumb wrote: "It is my position, after
reviewing Ms. Schaefer's investigation, that her raw data do not warrant
full distribution to the public" On 3/18/99, in an interoffice Memo, Plumb
again denied the request: "Regarding your request for elk classification
data generated through Carrie Schaefer's ongoing research.we were remiss in
presenting Ms. Schaefer's.data in the Yellowstone Wolf Project Annual
Report." And they were able to hide this striking wolf predation in the
annual reports because they only gave averages for the entire northern herd
- when the 0 calf ratios in high wolf areas were averaged with the 46 calf
ratios from elsewhere, the average was still up near the 30 calf ratio
needed to sustain herd viability.
Of course, the Feds rationalized their suppression by saying that
Schaefer's study was just raw data and still ongoing. Yet even after her
report was completed the Feds never publicized nor (to our knowledge) ever
gave permission to MT FWP to release the information. In fact, one MT FWP
biologist who is directly involved with decisions related to Yellowstone
elk has stated that the data was so well suppressed that he hasn't even
seen it. Rep. Fuchs only got a copy of Schaefer's study and the related
inter-agency letters after aggressively demanding copies of all documents
related to the incident.
Last winter when Fuchs, myself, and other officials did our own elk calf
survey we discovered the calf ratio had plummeted. The initial response
from amateur wolf advocates and some professional biologists was, "These
guys are hacks and don't know how to count". After the official elk census
came out and totally substantiated our claims, they changed their tune.
They said, "OK, they're right about the drop, but we can't prove it's due
to wolves. It could be drought or hard winters, etc."
Yet the Schaefer study strongly implicates wolves as the significant factor
in two different ways. First, geographically - during the course of the
same winter, she observed alarmingly low calf ratios in high wolf areas
even while calf ratios remained above average outside high wolf areas. This
mitigates against the notion that the low calf ratios are caused by drought
or hard winters.
Secondly, when coupled with current data for the entire Northern
Yellowstone elk herd; an alarming pattern is revealed. In 1997 and 98, the
low calf ratio was confined to areas of high wolf concentration - the Lamar
Valley, etc. In this last year or so, as dense wolf populations have
reached critical mass across the entire northern Yellowstone Range; we
"surprisingly" see the area of low calf ratio also expand to encompass the
entire herd.
Let's cut to the chase (pardon the pun). Our ancestors realized long ago
that the wolf is a unique critter - a killing machine and a breeding
machine all rolled into one. Alaskan studies reveal wolf population
increases of 34% annually, even while being aggressively hunted. Data from
the first few years of our Tri-state wolf experiment also verify this same
34% annual increase. It doesn't take a CPA (or a professional wildlife
biologist) to figure out that this rate results in a 1000% increase in
population size every 8 years!
If the Feds continue to break promises, suppress evidence, and drag their
feet for 3-5 more years; our wildlife and livestock may need to be placed
on the Endangered Species List by then (never mind our pet dogs, llamas,
and small children). I repeat - we are not calling for eradication of
wolves. We are simply saying that NOW is the time for the Feds to move
immediately to de-list the wolf; so that MT, Wyoming, and Idaho state Fish
& Game Departments can manage wolves like any other species. It's time for
the Feds to make up for past sins (of commission and omission) by turning
over wolf decisions to more trustworthy managers.
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/may_2002/crying_wolf_again.htm
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 16, 2009, 04:02:29 PM
Post by: jackelope on June 16, 2009, 04:16:31 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 16, 2009, 04:20:33 PM
I think this issue of low fawn ratio's is going to become really apparent in reduced or closed seasons very soon. The same people who are pro wolf in the Vally won't shed one tear about it either. Sucks but I don't think there is anything that is going to be done to stop any of this either. :twocents:
Post by: sooperfly on June 16, 2009, 04:54:21 PM
Well you may be right on all of that Kain. But here is an example of someone that actually saw 2 wolves go across the road in front of him just below the new wolf habitat. This guy not only took pictures of the wolves, which were as tame as housecats, but he reported his sightings to the proper people, and they turned it into an, I don't beleive him. People here in the valley, said there ya go.
Wolfbait - What are you basing this statement on ? Can you clarify this please ? Especially the "tame as housecats" comment ( sounds like you were there, or you have talked to the person directly ?? ) And how do you know the sightings were/were not reported to the proper people, and they "didn't believe him". Help me out here.
There was an article in the Wenatchee World about the man who saw the wolves and that he did not have any problem taking the pictures. Of course, there was a lot of discussion about the event and the resultant hearsay as people spoke with him about it. Some are credible, some are not and that is pretty easy to wade through and discern. I was not there. The "tame as housecats" comment was a product of all the discussions (I regret inserting that bit of levity into a heavy and serious subject). However, my personal experiences with the wolves contributed to that humor. I have been shocked as we have encountered them how unafraid they were of us. In fact, they seemed to be very curious and actually kept approaching us at a very close distance. Sorry about the humor that may have caused any misunderstanding.
Wolfbait,
I am the person mentioned in the article that had the encounter with the wolves. I put up a little report here back when it happened.
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,26507.msg303815.html#msg303815
Also, nowhere in the article do either the Federal or State biologists indicate they "don't believe him." Actually, it's the exact opposite.
Wenworld article here: http://wenatcheeworld.com/article/20090508/NEWS04/705089996
And your comment about "not having any problem" getting their picture ? Well, my camera ( a high performing sports/wildlife favorite ) is always turned "on" and sitting next to me in my truck with a large aperture telephoto lens attached. Great for low-light encounters such as this one. I'm confident if I'd had a lesser camera/lens combo, my point'n shoot camera, or something like it I wouldn't have been able to get much of a picture. I lucked out by the wolves having to go up a steep hill, exposing them for a little bit. As I said in my earlier posting, the adult never stopped. When I made some sounds, the juvenile stopped a couple times, enabling me to get side profile pictures.
Also, in reference to the Wenworld article... their are some gross inaccuracies in it. Including me "bringing the photographs" to the biologists. I've not met or talked to either of them. They have only viewed the pictures like everybody else on the slideshow, and received my report second hand. I've not released any pictures to any of the government agencies that requested them. Also, all of the local, state and national news organizations that have contacted me to do an interview and publish the pictures have been turned down.
This was my second encounter face to face with wolves. The first was last year hiking with my dad in the Lake Chelan Sawtooth. I posted it on nwhikers only, I'm not sure I knew hunting-wa even existed then! :) http://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7968174&highlight=
Post by: jackelope on June 16, 2009, 04:57:57 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 16, 2009, 05:36:20 PM
Post by: Curly on June 16, 2009, 06:55:20 PM
Did you here is some of what they are saying over there (http://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7968174&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=135):
Quote
wahiker88 wrote:
That conservation northwest site is very one sided..
Yeah, you sure couldn't say that about some of the hunting sites.
Slider: One down seven to go!!!
ICEMAN: First poaching case I ever remember being glad to hear about.
HoundDawg: I hope they can somehow figure out a way to beat the rap. I'll just be clear on my position with all this stuff:
1 - **** the Feds
2 - **** the wolves
3 - **** their laws regarding the wolves
4 - **** Mitch Friedman and his Conserv. organization
5 - **** 'em all
I'm with the White's on this one, easiest call I've ever had to make.
Gutpile: They call it poaching. I call it community service.
509er: hopefully they were mailing it to Ashley Judd.
C-Money: To bad the guy did not get them all!
Colville: Hunters can't get a bad name for an illegal poaching act any more than legal gun owners get a bad name from armed robbery.
MichaelJ: If I ever meet the fellas that shot the wolves, I'll say "shame on you" then shake his hand...
or what about this quote:
Quote
Well, go check out Hunting Washington forum. Those *censored*es almost to a man support the poaching of these wolves. When the vast majority of a group supports poaching an endangered species, then what other conclusion can you draw? Hunters will claim that "hunters" and "poachers" are two different things, but when you read their own words when they feel they are in safe company, then you quickly realize that they are, in many instances, one and the same. And those who don't actually poach support those who do. "Our" idiot hunters seem to be a typical example, not some egregious outliers.
At least there is a guy named Wahiker88 that is defending hunters. (And he has a great avatar too). :)
Here is another quote from a guy that is clueless:
Quote
Funny, I read other threads on that site that complained of the massive winter-kill and how the deer and elk are way over-populated. Yet those morons don't make any connection between a missing apex predator and a massively over-populated prey species. No, they just see some vague and undefined government and urban-hippie plot to deprive them of their god-given rights.
Maybe a lot of you guys have already read this over at NWhiker, but I had not............ could be entertaining reading if you don't get too riled up over anything like that.
Post by: wolfbait on June 16, 2009, 07:31:31 PM
Wolf pack kills dog on N. Fork
By Carole Cloudwalker
This document was published online on Wednesday, June 10, 20
It took Nick Roberts’ dog “Capone” an hour to die after he was attacked Saturday evening by a pack of eight wolves.
Unarmed and backpacking alone with Capone, the four-year-old companion he’d raised from a pup, Roberts was about eight miles from the Eagle Creek Trailhead on the North Fork when he reached the meadows.
“It started raining and I began setting up my tent,” Roberts recalled.
Capone was a friendly, curious Lab/border collie mix who weighed 65-70 pounds. He had bounded some 100 yards away from his master to investigate a site where someone with a large entourage had recently broken camp, leaving interesting scents for a happy young dog to investigate.
“He was just sort of wandering around,” Roberts said.
As Roberts went about establishing his own camp with the dog nearby, he heard some barking.
“I thought it was a bear at first,” Roberts said.
Fearing a grizzly had come to call, Roberts rushed to the old campsite where his dog had gone. He arrived only to see eight full-grown wolves circling something he realized with a sinking feeling must be his Capone.
“I couldn’t see the dog,” Roberts said. “There were some trees in the way, and the wolves were in a low spot. But I figured they’d already killed the dog.”
He yelled at the wolf pack, and the big animals ��“ each of which easily outweighed Capone ��“ froze in place.
“They stopped and just stared at me for a second, then they ran off,” Roberts said.
“I went to the dog. He was still alive, but he was torn up pretty badly.”
Initially, Capone was incapable of walking, having sustained two broken ribs, a large puncture in his belly and multiple other wounds that all were bleeding profusely.
“There were five places where chunks of skin were missing,” Roberts said.
He carried his bleeding dog back to the tent.
Roberts, who had minimal equipment for such chores, had only a jacket in which to wrap his dog and attempt to dry him to stop the stunned animal’s shivering.
At one point Capone recovered sufficiently to stand on all four legs, though at first his hindquarters did not appear to be functioning, his owner said. He thought the wolves possibly had injured the dog’s spine or hind legs.
“Finally his breaths got longer and longer. By then it was dark out,” Roberts recalled.
“It took him an hour to die.”
Roberts stood vigil, still fearing the blood the dog had spilled would attract a grizzly.
At sunrise, with no shovel, about three inches of new, wet spring snow on the ground and more falling heavily, Roberts said he was forced to leave the body of his dog behind and begin the long trek back to the trailhead.
“I ended up leaving him there,” he said. “I was nervous about getting out of there myself.”
Roberts, 25, lives in Cody and in the summer works as a seasonal fisheries technician for the Game and Fish Department. In the winter he works in construction.
An experienced backpacker, Roberts estimates the wolves “probably were there the whole time,” possibly led to the abandoned camp site for the same reasons Capone was drawn to it ��“ interesting smells and the possibility of something to eat.
But Capone had one motive the wolves likely did not, Roberts said.
“He thought the wolves were other dogs, and he wanted to play,” he said. “He’d seen wolves before but not up close. He was excited to go play with them. He liked to play with other dogs.”
Other G&F employees told him the wolf pack, when confronted by a lone dog, most likely attacked simply because “wolves hate dogs.”
Though Roberts has been backpacking many times, “That’s as far up as I’d ever been,” he said.
He does not blame the wolves for doing what comes naturally to them, even though it cost his dog’s life. But if he had it to do over again, he might carry a weapon, and “definitely I would have kept a closer eye on Capone,” Roberts said.
He planned to report the incident to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is in charge of wolf management.
Asked if he would have shot at the wolves had he been carrying a gun, Roberts carefully considered his reply.
“I’m not sure,” he said finally.
(Carole Cloudwalker can be reached at carole@codyenterprise.com.)
http://codyenterprise.com/articles/2009/06/10/news/doc4a3025e1676db293514511.txt
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 16, 2009, 07:34:57 PM
Post by: Curly on June 16, 2009, 07:41:42 PM
Quote
Asked if he would have shot at the wolves had he been carrying a gun, Roberts carefully considered his reply.
“I’m not sure,” he said finally.
I know I would have :guns:. I bet he would have too, he just didn't want to admit it to the reporter.
Post by: boneaddict on June 16, 2009, 07:53:18 PM
Its in discussion about the death of Kenton Carnegie....."under the guise of scientific authority, political advocates declared that black bears killed Kenton Carnegie. By reporting these claims in prestigious publications such as National Geograohic and National wildlife, they mislead the public into believing their version of the story. Never mind that the facts clearly showed otherwise, and that the official inquiry declared wolves to be the cause of his death. The North American myth of harmless wolves is deadly! This belief has killed at least THREE persons in North American alone in the last decade.
Post by: boneaddict on June 16, 2009, 08:01:06 PM
Currently reintroduced wolves in the Western US are showing signs of targetting people; however their intentions continue to be misinterpreted.......
he goes on an explains how sensationalized the wolf has become and that even scientist believe the Hollywood of it all.
Post by: boneaddict on June 16, 2009, 08:06:45 PM
"This readily removes any habituating wolves...."
he goes on and explains how the news media is blocking his observations from the public. He then talks about multiple wolf attacks in other countries. he then states " the causes of predation on humans are much the same THE STAGE IS SET BY PREY SCARCITY and de facto protection of wolves. NEXT comes the systematic targeting of humans, ESPECIALLY children
Post by: boneaddict on June 16, 2009, 08:13:33 PM
Then I love this.
:Native people seem much less enamored with the myth of harmless wolves than are urban environmentalists. As to the claimed lack of evidence that wolves prey on people, a native hunter gave the following response....EVIDENCE Wolves eat the evidence! :chuckle:
He then talks about Farley Mowat and his book.....in which wolves were depicted as harmless lovable mouse eaters. While Canadian biologists did not fall for this prank, the literari did.....and are still falling for it.
Post by: boneaddict on June 16, 2009, 08:27:50 PM
The animls most likely killed by hunters aredisadvantaged by age, condition or rejection of the pack. Consequently even liberal hunting laws need not threatenwolf abundance.
Thats what I have been saying!
Post by: wolfbait on June 17, 2009, 07:18:06 AM
Our Conservation Associate, Gina Schrader answers: "In general, wolves fear humans and do not approach them. As of October 2008, there is no documented case of a healthy, wild wolf killing a human in the United States. In fact, very few incidents involving wolves attacking humans have occurred in North America. Those rare occurrences were reportedly caused because wolves associated humans as a food source, or because a wolf was likely reacting to the presence of dogs.
There are several cases of wolves killing people in the US. But in the last 80 or so years there have not been that many wolves in the US. Bringing the Canadian wolves in here and then not managing them has change all that. Now with as many wolves as there are here in the lower 48 and growing, eventually the pro-wolf people will be changing the numbers on wolves killing people in the US. Not long ago they were saying there had never been a human killed by wolves in North America, but with the Kenton Carnegie killing they had to change their wording a bit. I have not been able to find any positive resaon for having these Canadian wolves down here in the lower 48, they don't belong down here. Can anyone tell me why these wolves should be here? What are their positive aspects for the lower 48?
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 17, 2009, 07:53:55 AM
How do wolf attacks compare to cougar, bear, coyote and bobcats attacks?"Good question about the cougar, bobcat, bear attacks. There are lots more attacks from those species, but they are far more abundant and widespread. :dunno:
I have not been able to find any positive resaon for having these Canadian wolves down here in the lower 48, they don't belong down here. Can anyone tell me why these wolves should be here? What are their positive aspects for the lower 48?
Again, the wolves in the Methow (presuming we're still talking about Washington) are our native species. The Yellowstone animals have not made much of an appearance yet, but we shall see what happens up in NE. So far, the animals up here appear to be native animals too, btu the new DNA evidence collected on the trail cam set will tell.
Post by: boneaddict on June 17, 2009, 08:04:44 AM
Quote
How do wolf attacks compare to cougar, bear, coyote and bobcats attacks?"
Cougar you probably won't even know is happening and you'll be lights out before you even think about it.
Bear you are probably thinking OH CRAP as they are barreling in on you and start to amuling you and you hope they don't chomp anything critical before they lose interest.
Wolves , you are probably still screaming and fighting for your life while they eat you alive.
Bobcats...the only attack scenerio I can think of is from Dmans, bobcat "hybrid"
Coyotes....small children only
Post by: Kain on June 17, 2009, 09:50:00 AM
Previously posted here in response to a member thinking that no one had ever been attacked by a wolf. http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,4289.165.html
Wolves have attacked people. People get the information confused when they are told that "wolves have never killed a human in North America" and it gets changed to "wolves have never attacked a human in North America". It is very rare but with more and more wolves the chances get higher. These are only the attacks that could be verified. There are many attacks reported that are dismissed due to lack of evidence. That doesnt mean they were not wolves it just means that who ever investigated couldnt/wouldnt confirm it was a wolf.
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID1CNsdw4NA[/youtube]
http://www.wildsentry.org/WolfAttack.html
"Recent Attacks in North America
In Ontario, Canada where thousands of people visit Algonquin Provincial Park-and many of them come to see or hear wolves-five people have been bit in the past twelve years. During August 1996, a wolf dragged 12-year-old Zachariah Delventhal from his sleeping bag. This particular wolf, prior to attacking Zachariah, had entered campsites and taken things such as a backpack, tennis shoe and other human items. As we've been in contact with the Delventhal family, we can let Zachariah describe what happened. He wrote the following in November 1996:
"The scariest night of my life… was the last night of a terrific 10-day camping trip at Algonquin Provincial Park in Ontario. We were exhausted and wanted to get out the next morning quickly so we decided to sleep under the stars. I remember dreaming that me, my mom, and my dad were walking through the woods. Then I felt pressure on my head and the woods started flying past. I awoke and still felt the pressure, but there was a new feeling of pain. I screamed, immediately the pressure released and the pain lessened. I opened my eyes-nothing but dark forest. I had been dragged six feet and I knew it was an animal mouth that did it. I yelled, 'Something bit me!' My mother came and held my sleeping bag to my face. Then my dad got up and started yelling. I got scared as he disappeared into the underbrush but he came back. I asked, 'What was it?' Then came two terrifying words, 'A wolf.' I immediately started to pull away from where I was dragged, I freaked. It was so scary and confusing at the same time. I didn't want to get eaten by such a strong animal. As for confusing, think about this-I had been told wolves don't attack people and here I was practically killed by one. My list of wounds is extensive. I had over 80 stitches to close the many cuts, my nose was broken in five places, I am missing a piece of my ear, my gums, and my tearduct and cheekbone were punctured. After all this, don't be scared to go in the woods, don't think of wolves as killers. The chances of getting attacked are so slim; I can't get a hold of the fact that I was attacked. My parents were wrong when they said wolves don't attack people, but wolves almost never do."
Two years later, on September 25, 1998, another Algonquin wolf circled a little girl and despite blasts of pepper spray, didn't leave until the child entered a trailer. Two days after that, a nineteen-month-old boy sat playing in the middle of camp, with his parents twenty feet away. The father thought he saw a dog emerge from the brush. He turned away for a moment and when he looked back, he saw his son in the jaws of a wolf. The wolf held the boy for a moment and then tossed him three feet. A local newspaper quoted the parents, "It wasn't hit and run. He hit him [the infant] and then it was wait and see. He [the wolf] circled the picnic table a number of times before he was scared off enough to leave." The infant received two stitches for minor injuries.
Misinformation
At the end of one of the articles about the Yakutat incident, reporters Elizabeth Manning and Craig Medred wrote, "In Canada, at least one person has been killed by wolves in the past 50 years. A 24-year-old woman was attacked by a pack of five at the Haliburton Forest and Wildlife Reserve in Ontario in 1996." Had we not known about this incident, we would've come away believing that wild wolves killed the woman when in fact it was a captive pack. This is but one example among many, of how misinformation begets misperceptions that give rise to disproportionate fears.
On April 26, 2000, a six and nine year old boy cut down small trees as they played at being loggers on the outskirts of a logging camp near Yakutat in southeastern Alaska.
Upon seeing a wolf, the children fled. The wolf took down six-year-old John Stenglein and bit him on the back, legs and buttocks. A neighbor's golden retriever rushed to the rescue but the wolf drove the dog back and then set upon John again. The boy's cries brought adults who drove the wolf away. John received seven stitches and five surgical closure staples.
During the evening of July 1, 2000, on the shores of Vargas Island, British Columbia, a wolf entered the campsite of a kayaking group. They chased the wolf away. Members of the group also spotted another wolf that apparently hung back from the bolder wolf. At 2 a.m., 23-year-old Scott Langevin awoke with a small dark wolf tugging on his sleeping bag. "I yelled to try to spook it off, and I kicked at it," Scott said. "It backed up a bit, but then it just lunged on top of me, and it started biting away through my sleeping bag."
He rolled in an effort to situate the fire between him and the wolf, but the animal jumped on his back and bit him about the head. The noise woke his friends and they drove the wolf away. The wounds to Scott's head required 50 stitches.
In all of the previous incidents, the offending wolves were killed. Autopsies indicated healthy animals."
http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=825_1198391329
Then there are those attacks that could be wolves that are blamed on bears or cats. We will never know but those "wolf experts" are not trustworthy IMO because most of them are wolf conservationists that dont want any bad wolf press.
http://www.hcn.org/issues/315/16084
And just wait until they close down your favorite area because wolves might attack. Lame!
http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=10258162
Post by: Kain on June 17, 2009, 10:31:00 AM
http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html
Quote
The question arises: "Why so many attacks in Asia and so few in North America?"
Two factors must be considered:
1. The Philosophy of Conservation - Our forefathers always believed that they had the right and obligation to protect their livelihoods. Considerable distance was necessary between man and wolf for the wolf to survive.
2. Firearms - Inexpensive, efficient weapons gave man the upper hand in the protection of his livelihood and for the taking of wolves.
Milton P. Skinner in his book, “The Yellowstone Nature Book” (published 1924) wrote, "Most of the stories we hear of the ferocity of these animals... come from Europe. There, they are dangerous because they do not fear man, since they are seldom hunted except by the lords of the manor. In America, the wolves are the same kind, but they have found to their bitter cost that practically every man and boy carries a rifle..."
Skinner was correct. The areas of Asia where wolf attacks occur on humans are the same areas where the people have no firearms or other effective means of predator control.
But ... "Biologists claim there are no documented cases of healthy wild wolves attacking humans."
What they really mean is there are no "documented" cases by their criteria which excludes historical accounts. Here's an example.
Rabid wolves were a frightening experience in the early years due to their size and the seriousness of being bit, especially before a vaccine was developed. The bitten subject usually died a slow, miserable death. There are numerous accounts of rabid wolves and their activities. Early Army forts have medical records of rabid wolves coming into the posts and biting several people before being killed. Most of the people bitten died slow, horrible deaths. Additionally, early historical writings relate personal accounts. This author recalls one historical account telling of a man being tied to a tree and left to die because of his violent behavior with rabies after being bitten by a wolf. Such deaths left profound impressions on eyewitnesses of those events.
Dr. David Mech, USFWS wolf biologist, states there are no "documented" cases of rabid wolves below the fifty seventh latitude north (near Whitehorse, Yukon Territory). When asked what "documented" meant, he stated, "The head of the wolf must be removed, sent to a lab for testing and found to be rabid."
Those requirements for documentation negate all historical records!
As with rabid wolves, the biologist can say, "There are no `documented' cases of wild healthy wolves attacking humans." In order to be "documented" these unreasonable criteria must be met:
1. The wolf has to be killed, examined and found to be healthy.
2. It must be proven that the wolf was never kept in captivity in its entire life.
3. There must be eyewitnesses to the attack.
4. The person must die from their wounds (bites are generally not considered attacks according to the biologists).
That is a "documented" attack.
Such criteria make it very difficult to document any historical account of a wolf attack on a human!
Post by: boneaddict on June 17, 2009, 10:34:53 AM
Post by: wolfbait on June 17, 2009, 11:19:27 AM
At this point I don't think tag hunting of these wolves will help much anyway.. The only way that I can see where perhaps the wolves could have any kind of control is if they were put on Open Season as the coyotes are. Of course in order for that to happen these wolves will have to kill a few people so that the right people will feel the heat.
Midwesterners are going to have to learn to live with wolves. Each spring, 2,000 pups are born in Minnesota alone, and the 150 to 225 wolves Wildlife Services takes from the population each year won't even make a squiggle on the expansion graph. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) believes that the state has never had more wolves. That is because there have never been more deer. In fact, the deer population now provides more meat per acre than the wolves' historical prey base of caribou, moose, elk, and bison. Moreover, 30 to 50 percent of the total wolf population would have to be removed annually just to keep it from expanding. That probably couldn't be done without bounties and an all-out, 1950s-style air and poison war, a political and legal impossibility. http://audubonmagazine.org/features0011/livingwithwolves.html
Basically what I saw on the news was that the DNR was asking hunters if they want a wolf hunt. Of course hunters do, the wolves are wiping out the deer population up north! I'm not holding my breath till they deside for a fact that a hunting season is needed, it could take 5 years to become a reality and the area's being over run by wolves probably do not have that long. I gun hunted near Black River Falls last season and never saw a deer or even a deer track. Just 1 year earlier, opening morning sounded like a war zone in the same area. Wolves move pretty fast when it comes to killing deer that have had 0 natural predators in over 100 years.
The only good thing that comes from having wolves is that the overpopulation of deer will no longer exist, which should help keep CWD and other deseases in check. I've been talking with a biologist who's been studying the elk near Clame Lake. Over the years, the wolves have pretty much left the elk alone up until last year. As he predicted, the wolves are running out of easy to kill deer in that area and as a result we've seen more elk killed by wolves lately. If something isn't done soon, our elk herd will be in trouble. We only have 130 elk. http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/tm.aspx?m=2766066
In recent years there has been isolated hunting allowed when wolves briefly came off the endangered list in some areas. Bangs said some 265 wolves were killed last year in the northern Rockies "because of cattle problems but the population still grew eight percent. "http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j7XUqo9zpt0zksJLfYp4qUPDkxyg
Post by: jackelope on June 17, 2009, 12:11:42 PM
are we there yet?
Post by: wolfbait on June 17, 2009, 12:30:03 PM
i imagine we are getting to close to having every single piece of wolf information on the world wide web copied and pasted to this thread.
are we there yet?
Not even close, I been doin this for 3 n half months, and I still find stuff I haven't read. Some of the Info you guys have found I never saw before. We are lucky that we are able to find this info. if we couldn't then we would be just as ill imformed as the media wants everyone to be.
Post by: jackelope on June 17, 2009, 02:53:41 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 17, 2009, 04:13:54 PM
I still want to see a picture of a wolf in your backyard.
One of these days, I will be gitin some pics. I got a plan, :chuckle: I talk to some people yestrday an they said they hear em howlin at night, they live up in the buttermilk country.
Post by: wolfbait on June 18, 2009, 11:49:59 AM
When wolves begin to patiently observe humans, it signals that they are targetting humans as prey. Such wolves may be short of natural prey, or they may be already habituated to humans.Patient observation means that wolves have begun to familiarize themselves with humans and that an attack is liekly to follow. The same pattern has been seen with urban coyotes. In any case these animals need to be taken out. In BC hunters can harvest these wolves and it provides a safety valve. Healthy free living wolvesare virtually unhuntable
The animls most likely killed by hunters aredisadvantaged by age, condition or rejection of the pack. Consequently even liberal hunting laws need not threatenwolf abundance.
Thats what I have been saying!
This is already happening here in the Methow Valley, There have been wolves watching peoples houses, wolves going through yards. Last winter was the most we have seen that, The reasoning behind this is lack of deer. In Idaho they are having the same problems we are, their's are just a liitle worcer. Makes some of us cring when we see some little kid playing out in the yard with their dog. I think alot of people beleive that horsesh-t that these wolves are shy and there is very little threat to human safty. Personally I think the people who are lying to the public about how many wolves we really do have in the Valley should be held acountable.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 18, 2009, 12:00:08 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/26/60minutes/main4894945.shtml
Post by: boneaddict on June 18, 2009, 12:13:45 PM
Post by: cabin308 on June 18, 2009, 12:49:49 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 18, 2009, 01:16:23 PM
In Winthrop last year during rifle deer season we were sitting in the house and it must have been around 10pm or so, when all of a sudden the dogs (were inside) went crazy barking. My buddy looked out a window and said there's two huge dogs running between the house and garage. I missed seeing them, and after describing and thinking it through what he saw he swears they were wolves. He said they were bigger than his 80 pound black lab. The house is on, of all places, Wolf Creek road. We are dubious about how the hunting will be this year.
Yep I'd bet my mules, what you saw was wolves. anytime you have wolves close by, your dogs will go ape-sh-t. About 2 am this mornin our dogs went nuts, so I spent most of last night down at the corrals with the truck and the gunz. The stock was all looking up the hill behind the barn, I never saw anything. But we know when it's wolves just from the way that the dogs act. As far as hunting goes, I would say that the predator hunting will be dam good, but I would for sure look for somewhere else to hunt if you are seriouse about getting any deer here in the valley and surounding area. I have never seen such a lack of deer. I was talking to a friend of mine, and he said there is a guy that lives on the Twisp-Carlton road who has been losing chickens to some wolves. Now you know its gittin bad when the wolves are after the chickens.
Post by: wolfbait on June 18, 2009, 01:27:04 PM
here's somthing for WB :rolleyes:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/26/60minutes/main4894945.shtml
Hold on there-I like shootin what I wants dead! Poison is a hard way to die, but if you look at the way these wolves kill it is kind of fitin for em. Nope the ones that should be sent to the chair are the jerks that brought these wolves down here in the first place. And the ones who are lying about how many and where. I think in the end the wolves are goin to git em, got any extra rope?
Post by: wolfbait on June 18, 2009, 01:58:24 PM
DRAFT WOLF CONSERVATION
AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR WASHINGTON
The effects that wolves have on elk, deer, and other ungulate populations and hunter harvest are difficult to predict. Observations from neighboring states suggest that wolves could have some localized impacts on ungulate abundance in Washington, but relatively little impact on a statewide level. Improved habitat management, changes in harvest strategies, and greater prevention of illegal hunting are recommended as measures for maintaining healthy ungulate populations that will support both wolves and desired levels of hunter harvest.
No Hunting, No Hunting, No Hunting
Wild wolves pose very little threat to human safety. This plan recommends that information and training about the low risk of wolf attacks and how to prevent and react to wolf attacks be provided to hunters, trappers, rural landowners, outdoor recreationists, outfitters and guides, forest workers and contractors, and others who might encounter wolves. Dog owners need to be educated on ways to reduce interactions between dogs and wolves. The public also should be made aware of the risks posed by wolf-dog hybrids and pet wolves.
It was low risk until the idiots brought the Canadian gray wolves into the lower 48. A wolf that does not belong down here.
Wolves are habitat generalists, thus restrictions on human development and other land use practices are not expected to be needed to recover wolves in Washington. Implementation of a public information and education program is a high priority for aiding reestablishment of the species.
The first of many changes. Range cattle must now be moved, for wolf recovery, which at this point is a joke as we probably have as many wolves as Idaho does.
This plan provides an analysis of the potential economic impacts that wolves could have in the state. At populations of 50 and 100 wolves, which roughly correspond with the upper levels of abundance during the state endangered and threatened phases, the vast majority of livestock producers will probably experience few if any annual costs, whereas a few individual producers could be more affected. As wolf populations become larger and more widely distributed, financial impacts are likely to accrue to more producers. Similarly, populations of 50 and 100 wolves should have few negative effects on big game hunting. Larger populations are expected to have somewhat greater impacts on game abundance and hunting opportunity, but such impacts become increasingly difficult to predict. Washington could conceivably develop a sizable wolf-related tourist industry, depending on where wolves reestablish, at what numbers, and their detectability. Wolf recolonization is anticipated to have minimal impact on the state’s forest products industry.
First off we are already past the 100 wolf count as they well know. We are already at the point of no deer. And now this is just the begining of the wolf recovery. This was written for the people who have no idea what has really been going on with the wolves here in the valley. most people don't know that these wolves started being released in the Methow Valley in the 90's. The only thing that I get out of these statments is that the locals really don't count, it is what they pitch to the people that know nothing, that counts.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 18, 2009, 02:12:13 PM
Post by: jackelope on June 18, 2009, 02:28:52 PM
:dunno:
Post by: wolfbait on June 18, 2009, 02:53:22 PM
One thing thats for sure is its going to be 10 years before the first wolf is legally killed in this state.
I think that really depends on how one see's the law. First off the USFW brought these wolves into the lower 48 illegally. I will leave it right there!
Post by: wolfbait on June 18, 2009, 02:56:09 PM
maybe if they focus on killing all the chickens, they'll leave the deer alone.
:dunno:
What deer, come n check it out.
Post by: wolfbait on June 18, 2009, 05:37:30 PM
By JOHN FLESHER , Associated Press
Last update: June 15, 2009 - 5:10 PM
TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. - Environmental groups are suing the federal government over its decision to remove gray wolves in the upper Great Lakes region from the endangered species list.
The Center for Biological Diversity and four other groups filed their suit Monday in federal court in Washington.
They contend the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acted too hastily last month when it removed federal protections from the estimated 4,000 wolves in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin.
The wildlife agency says the wolves have recovered from the brink of extinction and are capable of surviving under state management.
Opponents also sued earlier this month over the government's removal of wolves in the northern Rockies from the endangered list.
http://www.startribune.com/nation/48078232.html
NRDC slams Idaho, Montana wolf plans
by Cat Urbigkit, Pinedale Online!
June 1, 2009
The Billings Gazette includes a guest opinion column by Louisa Willcox of the Northern Rockies Defense Council. In the opinion piece, Willcox outlines the problems her organization sees with wolf management plans adopted in Idaho and Montana, which were approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. NRDC plans to challenge the plans, which provided the basis for wolf delisting in those states, in federal court.
Willcox claims that federal plans for recovery don't provide for enough wolves in the region, taking issue with Idaho's plan for a fall wolf hunting season. In addition, Willcox claims that the "Shoot, shovel and shut up" culture is alive and well.
http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2009/06/NRDCslamsIdahoMontan.htm
As you can see, it really does not matter how many wolves we have, the fight to delist will be unending. This is a perfect example of where the USA is going becuz of the environmentalist and the ESA. People who have to deal with these wolves on a day/night program had better git use to shooting fast and strait. I think in the end most of us will own at least one of those small backhoes. We will be champion hole diggers :chuckle: :chuckle: :bash: :bash: :bash:
The thing that alot of people don't quite understand yet is, these wolves will affect everyone, that enjoys the outdoor life. Bit by bit, through these wolves they will take all of our rights away.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 18, 2009, 05:49:07 PM
Post by: Birdguy on June 18, 2009, 10:05:36 PM
This thread is like a tragic accident... I did not really want to read it and see where I believe we are headed but the outdoorsman in me could not look away either :bash:. Thanks again to all who helped fill the last several lunch hours and late evenings.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 19, 2009, 08:06:28 AM
Hmmm...I thought this thread was getting somewhere... :bash: No one knows the wolf numbers in WA. IMO we are not at 100, or even close. We're also backpedeling on the unfounded (read also unproven, hearsay, rumor, lie, Bull$hit, untrue...) account of wolves being released in WA. That hasn't happened, you have no evidence that it has happened, yet somehow you still post it like gospel. :dunno:
First off we are already past the 100 wolf count as they well know. We are already at the point of no deer. And now this is just the begining of the wolf recovery. This was written for the people who have no idea what has really been going on with the wolves here in the valley. most people don't know that these wolves started being released in the Methow Valley in the 90's. The only thing that I get out of these statments is that the locals really don't count, it is what they pitch to the people that know nothing, that counts.
Again, to be as clear as possible, there is no evidence of any wolf release in WA....ever... how much more clear can that be?
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 19, 2009, 08:11:10 AM
It was not illegal, You (and I) might argue that it was foolhardy, but it was not illegal. They went through the proper permiting procedures and had their ducks in a row as far as the law is concerned. i guess you're supporting poaching the wolves in this comment?? :dunno:One thing thats for sure is its going to be 10 years before the first wolf is legally killed in this state.
I think that really depends on how one see's the law. First off the USFW brought these wolves into the lower 48 illegally. I will leave it right there!
Post by: wolfbait on June 19, 2009, 08:47:33 AM
It was not illegal, You (and I) might argue that it was foolhardy, but it was not illegal. They went through the proper permiting procedures and had their ducks in a row as far as the law is concerned. i guess you're supporting poaching the wolves in this comment?? :dunno:One thing thats for sure is its going to be 10 years before the first wolf is legally killed in this state.
I think that really depends on how one see's the law. First off the USFW brought these wolves into the lower 48 illegally. I will leave it right there!
I think you need to take a gander into saveelk.com, broaden your horizons a bit. I don't beleive in poaching, I do beleive in managing predators.
Post by: wolfbait on June 19, 2009, 08:50:28 AM
Hmmm...I thought this thread was getting somewhere... :bash: No one knows the wolf numbers in WA. IMO we are not at 100, or even close. We're also backpedeling on the unfounded (read also unproven, hearsay, rumor, lie, Bull$hit, untrue...) account of wolves being released in WA. That hasn't happened, you have no evidence that it has happened, yet somehow you still post it like gospel. :dunno:
First off we are already past the 100 wolf count as they well know. We are already at the point of no deer. And now this is just the begining of the wolf recovery. This was written for the people who have no idea what has really been going on with the wolves here in the valley. most people don't know that these wolves started being released in the Methow Valley in the 90's. The only thing that I get out of these statments is that the locals really don't count, it is what they pitch to the people that know nothing, that counts.
Again, to be as clear as possible, there is no evidence of any wolf release in WA....ever... how much more clear can that be?
BLAW,BLAW,BLAW
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 19, 2009, 01:40:46 PM
I've seen the SaveElk site. I'm not sure it broadened my horizons; there are some interesting bits of info and lots of links. I agree that wolves need to be managed, in States where recovery goals are met. Until we can show that WA has met those goals there will be no legal management. So, again...we're back to showing an accurate population estimate. Until we can prove (with evidence) that WA has met recovery the wolves will continue to do what they do.
I think you need to take a gander into saveelk.com, broaden your horizons a bit. I don't beleive in poaching, I do beleive in managing predators.
Post by: deaddog on June 19, 2009, 04:46:27 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 19, 2009, 05:59:16 PM
I've seen the SaveElk site. I'm not sure it broadened my horizons; there are some interesting bits of info and lots of links. I agree that wolves need to be managed, in States where recovery goals are met. Until we can show that WA has met those goals there will be no legal management. So, again...we're back to showing an accurate population estimate. Until we can prove (with evidence) that WA has met recovery the wolves will continue to do what they do.
I think you need to take a gander into saveelk.com, broaden your horizons a bit. I don't beleive in poaching, I do beleive in managing predators.
What ever you say, Wacoyote!
Post by: bearpaw on June 19, 2009, 07:16:28 PM
We don't all agree about managing wolves and no one knows just how many there are. It has been suggested in this thread there are over 100 in Washington, at the same time it has been suggested that there isn't 100 yet. The fact is, no one knows. It's also a fact that the DOW does not know that there are not more than 100 in this state and I would like to see the proof that there are less than 100 wolves in WA.
I agree with wacoyotehunter that there is a lot of heresay, etc. in this thread. But I think most of the readers are smart enough to weed out most of the heresay. This after all is simply the nature of forum talk. I do think there has been more good evidence shown here concerning the arguments agaist wolves than I have ever seen anywhere else. I would ask where else is there more info?
I also agree with those that said management will not occur anytime soon in WA. Greenie politics and lawsuits will be the major reason for that lack of management in this state. Remember WA had a permit-draw system that worked well for cougar and the greenies messed it up. So what chance is there for any legal wolf management even if the DOW decides we have too many wolves?????
This really is a deeper problem than wolf management, the control of the country by the greenies who have little idea where their food and goods come from, what is involved to get food and goods to the supermarket, or what life is like in rural America. The greenies make political decisions for rural America based on emotion fueled by their hatred of the mere existance of man. The wolf is really only a means to accomplish their green political goals for America. Wolves, spotted owls, it's all the same. The greenies don't want anything to happen, logging, mining, manufacturing, hunting, trapping, and the list goes on....and wolves are just a means to accomplish that goal.
So where am I going with this.....I think as more and more regulation is forced on people you are going to see more and more people rebel.....If you want people to live by the law, you have to have laws people can live by.
In a nutshell, as wolf numbers grow to unresaonable levels and the greenies do not allow management then I think you are going to see more and more people rebel. That is occuring in central Idaho right now, there are people and small towns whos income has been destroyed by wolves. What about the 100+ sheep killed by that wolf pack down near Riggins, were those sheep replaced. What about the loggers and outfitters going broke, has their income been replaced????
Don't get me wrong there's no way I would dare to do anything illegal. But if greenies and wolves destroy peoples lives like they have in Idaho, can anyone blame those people for simply trying to survive.......give those people a management plan and watch how the people and the wolves learn to coexist in Idaho. The greenies are defeating themselves with their inability to allow reasonable management and the people of Idaho are beginning to react in the only way they know how.......
If government agencies don't like that then I suggest they get their $$$$ together and quit allowing management by greenie politics and greenie lawsuits.
I still believe the main reason that Idaho has it's current governor is because he said, "I want shoot the first wolf in idaho". Those words got that man elected.
Post by: wolfbait on June 19, 2009, 09:49:57 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 20, 2009, 11:24:17 AM
Well said bearpaw, you hit the bullseye!
As does his signature,which many on these forums don't understand.
Post by: denali on June 20, 2009, 07:03:34 PM
- Wolf steals blaze orange highway cone: Idaho Fish and Game wolf biologist Michael Lucid and his crew of helpers were trying to capture and collar a wolf in the Timberline pack recently, they saw a wolf run across the road carrying a blaze orange highway cone. They did not speculate why the wolf might have been carrying the cone.
ok now things have gotten completely out of hand !! try too lighten things a little ;)
arm the DOT, SSS
Post by: bearpaw on June 20, 2009, 10:36:31 PM
Quote
Wolf steals blaze orange highway cone
that's definitely toooo funny :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
wonder what part tastes like elk????????
Post by: bearpaw on June 20, 2009, 10:56:59 PM
Wacoyotehunter makes some extremely good points and seems to bring an angle to this debate that not everyone considers....I definitely would not want to offend him to the point that he left the duscussion....this discussion needs all the input it can get from eveyone.
I was trying to point out that the Agencies are not necessarily the know-alls that we all wish they were. The bio's have far too many projects forced upon them. Often times local residents actually have opportunities to make observations that the bios don't get.
The other important point I was trying to make is that you can only pressure people and wild animals so far and you start getting reactions to the pressure. I think we are seeing reactions from the people of idaho who have taken a serious hit to their lifestyle and reactions from an unmanaged wolf population that is outgrowing its prey base and having to pioneer into new areas or go hungry. :twocents:
Again I want to emphasize that i meant no disrespect to anyone. :hello:
Post by: wolfbait on June 21, 2009, 04:12:45 AM
There objective is to reintroduce, beside wolves, Jaguars and other exotic animals in North America. These nutjobs want large portions of the Americas to be untouched by humans. This is their goal. Their ultimate goal, however, is to reduce the worldwide human population.
Bill Duval said this in 93:
Quote:
An associate of mine suggests the optimal human population in the long run in North America is the number of people who can comfortably use the hot springs in North America. The carrying capacity of a hot spring is the number of people who can sit together in a hot spring during cold winter nights. An empirical estimate of the optimal human population based on this criteria would involve fieldwork. My associate suggests that we form several teams of volunteers to explore hot springs in various bioregions of the continent. This "research" would certainly be an imaginative way to solve the problem of identifying the number constituting the optimal population of North America.
Imagine that!
Here's another article everyone should read...
Rewilding Megafauna: Lions and Camels in North America?
This is an excerpt:
Quote:
What do you mean by “rewilding” North America?
Rewilding is about restoring biodiversity.
Barlow: Rewilding is a concept that works with restoration ecology and evolution combined. One type of rewilding deals with restoring lost biodiversity. Restoration ecology is when you look at a landscape and ask how we can bring it back to conditions that are more natural, say, before Europeans arrived in North America. Another type of rewilding has to do with climate change, for example, creating a park corridor from Yellowstone to the Yukon to give movement to animals as climate changes.
Rewilding also attempts to replace species that have gone extinct in North America. In 2005, a top science journal published an article by a dozen prominent conservation biologists proposing a shift in the benchmark that is commonly used for restoring lost wildlife to former habitats.1 Most parklands and wilderness areas in North America will continue to be restored to conditions that prevailed just prior to the arrival of Columbus in 1492 [the “pre-Columbian” benchmark]. But what about rewilding a small portion of America’s natural heritage to conditions just prior to the first human incursion on the landscape some 13,000 years ago? This idea of rewilding from a deep time perspective is going back to a time before the first humans began to migrate to the Americas in the late Pleistocene [about 10,000 years ago] and asking how we can restore the ecological landscape.
Current trends in rewilding North America have to do with restoration of species displaced or endangered since the first European settlers arrived, for example, bringing back gray wolves to Yellowstone, reintroducing the lynx to Colorado, and bringing the peregrine falcon to the Midwest. That is standard practice restoration ecology. What I would like to address is the controversial subject of rewilding North America as proposed a few years ago by looking at a deep time perspective and saying lets not just stop with the wolves. What species were here before humans invaded the landscape, and is it still possible to bring them back?
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=344456&page=2
__________________
We will be known forever by the tracks
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 21, 2009, 10:29:42 AM
creating a park corridor from Yellowstone to the Yukon to give movement to animals as climate changes.
As the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act would begin the process.............................
.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 21, 2009, 04:23:02 PM
Quote
creating a park corridor from Yellowstone to the Yukon to give movement to animals as climate changes.
:lol4: :lol4:
Do any of you guys have white guilt? I know I dont.
Post by: wolfbait on June 21, 2009, 05:13:31 PM
PO Box 2
Beresford, SD 57004
(605) 751 - 0979
Abundant Wildlife Society of North America
INFORM YOURSELF -- HELP WILDLIFE -- PROTECT YOUR FREEDOM
-- PASS THIS INFORMATION ON ! --
updated March 11th 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTALISM vs CONSERVATION: A LOOK AT TWO ROADS
In years past, Conservation, the wise use of natural renewable resources, was supported and understood by a majority of people.
Yellowstone National Park
Yellowstone National Park is a classic example of the benefits of Conservation and the detriments of Environmentalism.
WHAT EVERYONE WHO ENJOYS WILDLIFE SHOULD KNOW
Wildlife are in trouble today. Big game, game birds and even song birds are becoming more and more scarce. There is a CRISIS!
Wolf Predation on Sheep in Alaska
These pictures were taken by an Alaska Fish and Game Department biologist following a kill of 20 healthy dall rams by 5 wolves in November 1988.
FACT SHEET - WOLF REINTRODUCTION IN THE UNITED STATES
After their success at forcing wolf recovery in Yellowstone National Park, special interest groups are proposing the reintroduction of wolves in various regions of the United States (U.S.).
THE WOLF: MYTH, LEGEND AND MISCONCEPTION
What do we really know about the wolf? Have myths like "Little Red Riding Hood" and other tales of the "Big, Bad, Wolf", distorted our perspective? This article examines history to clear up such misconceptions.
WOLF ATTACKS ON HUMANS
It has been widely discussed whether a healthy wild wolf has ever attacked a human on this continent. In fact, many say such attacks have never occurred in North America.
Endangered Species Act: FLAWED LAW
We believe care and concern for the environment and our wildlife is important.
MOUNTAIN LION FACT SHEET
Mountain lions, also known as cougars, panthers or pumas, are highly efficient predators. Their numbers are on the rise in many parts of the United States. This Fact Sheet gives insight into the impacts of mountain lions.
N E W !
WOLVES AND HUNTING
It is claimed wolf predation does not impact man's opportunity to hunt. Nothing could be further from the truth. Wolf predation can severely impact man's hunting opportunities. read on...
http://www.aws.vcn.com/
http://www.aws.vcn.com/fact.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by: boneaddict on June 21, 2009, 05:56:01 PM
typical these days. Take 6 cows today in a group. One had twin calves the other had none. (hear it now...maybe some were bedded..NOT) Thats with todays bear and cougar problems. No wolves in the area. Why not throw them into the mix. Yep, natural selection I guess. Firgure out what that does for YOUR HUNTING. Manage game how you want to. Do you want them managed to where you are Hunting or you are NOT.
Post by: wolfbait on June 21, 2009, 07:28:39 PM
Protect the Predator
typical these days. Take 6 cows today in a group. One had twin calves the other had none. (hear it now...maybe some were bedded..NOT) Thats with todays bear and cougar problems. No wolves in the area. Why not throw them into the mix. Yep, natural selection I guess. Firgure out what that does for YOUR HUNTING. Manage game how you want to. Do you want them managed to where you are Hunting or you are NOT.
I know several folks who like to "study" wolves through the scope of their deer rifles.
"War is good when good survives and evil is crushed. If you don't crush evil then evil will get you." Ted Nugent
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so"...............Ronald Reagan.
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking" General George S. Patton Jr.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 22, 2009, 07:45:24 AM
Just so everyone knows i wasn't try to launch a personal attack on wacoyotehunter.....if he took it that way, I apologize!!! :)No offense at all- good points and lots of truth. The bios don't know all the information they need to make perfect decisions. We should be helping them out as much as we can, not trying to make enemies with the agencies. I did not see it as a personal attack at all (although what's one more :P :P :)) Good points.
Wacoyotehunter makes some extremely good points and seems to bring an angle to this debate that not everyone considers....I definitely would not want to offend him to the point that he left the duscussion....this discussion needs all the input it can get from eveyone.
I was trying to point out that the Agencies are not necessarily the know-alls that we all wish they were. The bio's have far too many projects forced upon them. Often times local residents actually have opportunities to make observations that the bios don't get.
The other important point I was trying to make is that you can only pressure people and wild animals so far and you start getting reactions to the pressure. I think we are seeing reactions from the people of idaho who have taken a serious hit to their lifestyle and reactions from an unmanaged wolf population that is outgrowing its prey base and having to pioneer into new areas or go hungry. :twocents:
Again I want to emphasize that i meant no disrespect to anyone. :hello:
Post by: wolfbait on June 23, 2009, 07:30:20 AM
Big- Windy in the woods with wolves...
The local hunters talk about the huge size of the imported Canadian wolf, the large massive head, the large 6 inch track, the fearlessness of the non-hunted beast that has decimated our elk herds and upset the balance of nature we had in our state before Federal intervention. In a deer stand the wolves come in and circle the tree and will not leave. The hunter in the tree stand is held hostage.
An elk hunter with a bow sees a pack of 12 wolves who spot him and target him as a meal. He is saved by his buddy who comes over the hill with a rifle. Hunters tell of the meadow with no elk tracks but plenty of wolf tracks where hunters have hunted elk for years. They hunted Bald Mountain for years, my neighbors did, until no elk, only wolf tracks, so they don’t hunt any more. The only hunters on the Lolo Divide Road are from out of state. They don’t know yet it is a waste of time to buy an elk tag in north central Idaho. Home of the non- native, non- endangered Canadian wolfie, where ranchers and many outfitters have gone out of business. People who used to hike and camp up Kelly Creek return no more. The place is full of wolves and folks are less and less seen on the trails of north central Idaho.
I moved to Idaho and married the Game Warden who patrolled the North Fork of the Clearwater River on the Clearwater National Forest. Back then we had a native Idaho wolf who was tall, lean and black. We got him on video. He was catching field mice just off our place. Gene told me that the local people knew about our wolves, and protected them. I thought he was nuts. I thought wolves were bad. I remembered the story Mrs. Mead told me when I was in high school. I remembered the things I had read in Wild Animals I have Known, by Ernest Seton-Thompson, copyright 1898. Some wolves wantonly kill, like old wise Lobo. Mrs. Mead was young and crossing the prairie in a wagon and the family came across a wolf kill. A cow was down, half the hindquarter eaten, then the wolf left; but the cow was still alive. Wolves can be messy killers.
But the local Idaho wolf just ate mice near our farm, never caused trouble. I began to realize we could live in harmony with wolves. All of that has changed now since the Feds upset the balance of nature, brought in the non- native very large Canadian prairie wolf. Now local public opinion has changed towards the wolf.
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=344456&page=5
Post by: wolfbait on June 23, 2009, 02:31:31 PM
HE DETAILS OF DELISTING
Wolf Hunts in the West Inevitable, But Perhaps Years Away
By Peter Metcalf, 2-11-08
State proposals for wolf hunts this fall continue to move forward in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho in advance of the anticipated removal of gray wolves from the Endangered Species Act later this month, and all three states include public hunting as an integral component of their federally approved wolf management plans.
But hunters might not want to make plans to hunt wolves anytime soon.
“We fully anticipate litigation over delisting that could last several years,” Ed Bangs, Wolf Recovery Coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says.
Until all legal challenges are resolved, the wolves would remain a federally protected species under the Endangered Species Act and protected from public hunting.
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/wolf_hunts_in_the_west_inevitable_but_perhaps_years_away/C38/L38/
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 23, 2009, 02:33:50 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 24, 2009, 12:14:54 PM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,29120.0.html
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 24, 2009, 05:46:49 PM