Post by: bearpaw on August 24, 2009, 10:36:51 PM
Who is in charge of wolf management in Washington?
Who is influencing the wolf program in Washington?
Who is in control of the wolf program, WDFW or Defenders of Wildlife or Wolf Haven? :dunno:
I am going to show you some facts, make up your own mind regarding the answers to these questions. If you have the same concerns as I have, I hope you will click on this link and send a short email to the legislators, county commissioners, and WDFW Wildlife Commission.
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,31831.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,31831.0.html)
Ask why there are links to WolfHaven and Defenders of Wildlife on the WDFW Wolf Management Page but there are no links to SCI, INWWC, WWC, or any sporting group allowing them to present the other side of the wolf debate. This is both unfair and unprofessional. This a travesty since it is hunters dollars being used to fund wolf management and wolf monitoring in Washington. Groups like Defenders of Wildlife spend much of their money on employee salaries or lawsuits which hamper modern game management. Ask why hunters have no representation on the Wolf Management Page. Send an email today and copy it to everyone on the list.
Check out the links on the left column of the WDFW Wolf Page.
WDFW Wolf Page: http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/gray_wolf/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/gray_wolf/)
Defenders Propaganda on WDFW: http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/gray_wolf/livestock_wolves08.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/gray_wolf/livestock_wolves08.pdf)
Wolf Haven Propaganda on WDFW: http://www.wolfhaven.org/
Defenders Propaganda on WDFW: http://www.defenders.org/programs_and_policy/wildlife_conservation/solutions/carnivore_conservation_fund/index.php (http://www.defenders.org/programs_and_policy/wildlife_conservation/solutions/carnivore_conservation_fund/index.php)
Who Is Running the WDFW Wolf Program?
Do you think wolves will be managed properly in Washington with these groups influencing the WDFW?
http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/press_releases_folder/2009/08_21_2009_conservation_groups_challenge_wolf_hunting.php (http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/press_releases_folder/2009/08_21_2009_conservation_groups_challenge_wolf_hunting.php)
[youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
[youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
[youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
[youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
[youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
[youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
Post by: bearmanric on August 25, 2009, 06:32:25 AM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on August 25, 2009, 06:46:20 AM
The issues with personal run so deep that I dont think there is any hope of having a positive outcome of a myriad of issues... sad but true. :dunno:
Post by: dreamingbig on August 25, 2009, 06:53:14 AM
Post by: bearpaw on August 25, 2009, 07:24:03 AM
Right now it is important to:
Convince County Commissioners and Legislators that "Hunting" must be included as the eventual management tool in the wolf plan.
Explain to them that the Wolf Plan is being written now and will be adopted in early 2010 and the wolf plan does not currently include "Hunting" in it's language.
Explain to these elected officials that the WDFW has strong ties with Defenders of Wildlife and Wolf Haven and promote those groups on the WDFW website.
Explain to them that Defenders of Wildlife is a primary anti-hunting group that has used lawsuits to prevent wolf mananagement in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Minnesota, and Wisconsin even though recovery goals were exceeded years ago.
Explain to them that you do not want to see Washington's rural county game herds and economies devastated by wolves like central Idaho counties have been affected.
Ask these people to contact the Washington Wildlife Commission now.
List of email addresses:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,31831.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,31831.0.html)
Post by: shanevg on August 25, 2009, 07:59:25 AM
Yes, Wolf Haven and Defenders of Wildlife have played a role in establishing Washington State's wolf management plan, and I agree that the wolf management plan without any intent of hunting as a tool of management is misguided and we need to make our voices heard that we are not satisfied with it. But if you look on WDFW's website at who the participants were who helped draft this plan, hunters voices should've been heard and were given seats on the committee.
According to WDFW, (http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/gray_wolf/members.htm) we were represented by:
Duane Cocking
Board of Directors
Inland Empire Chapter
Safari Club International
Tommy Petrie, Jr.
President
Pend Oreille County Sportsmens Club
Ken Oliver
Former County Commissioner, Pend Oreille County
Jeff Dawson
Director
Stevens County Cattleman
Cattle Producers of Washington
John Stuhlmiller
Director of State Affairs
Washington Farm Bureau
Jack Field
Executive Vice President
Washington Cattlemen’s Association
Arthur Swannack
President
Washington State Sheep Producers
As well as many members of the WDFW staff. Overall, I would state that in addition to wildlife biologists and pro-wolf conservation groups, a wide variety of voices were heard regarding the issue.
Again, let me say that I am not trying to discourage activism, I am merely trying to state the facts. It's better to be informed on everything than not informed at all. The fact is that despite having many different viewpoints represented on the committee, including many people who you would think would favor hunting as a management tool, hunting is still not a part of the current wolf plan. We as hunters need to make sure we do write letters to the people and addresses that bearpaw has provided us with and let them know that despite our representation, our viewpoints are not implemented into the working wolf plan.
Post by: bearpaw on August 25, 2009, 08:27:11 AM
There are 17 active members on the wolf working group.
7 members are pro-hunting and if you look at page 247-248 of the most recent version you will see their minority recommendation which includes hunting.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/gray_wolf/rev_wolfplan_cleanaug0309.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/gray_wolf/rev_wolfplan_cleanaug0309.pdf)
10 members are opposed to hunting wolves so the current wolf plan does not include hunting. Those 10 members outvoted the minority 7 members.
I know one of the pro-hunting members quite well. This committee was appointed by the previous WDFW director and the committee was stacked with wolf lovers from the beginning. The outcome was predictable before the meetings ever started.
Washington sportsfolks have been duped into beleiving a fair process is occuring....
If you want to see wolves hunted in WA, you need to send some email messages to the elected officials soon, otherwise you are part of the problem that allows a wolf plan without hunting included in the language..... :dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on August 25, 2009, 08:31:21 AM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on August 25, 2009, 08:38:02 AM
Maybe, one day we will all pay to hunt on the Reservation?
(SERIOUSLY :yike:)
Post by: bearpaw on August 25, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Post by: shanevg on August 25, 2009, 08:54:57 AM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on August 25, 2009, 08:59:23 AM
Post by: runamuk on August 25, 2009, 09:02:14 AM
Here is the thing.... the people such as wolf haven started the wolf reintroduction many many years ago on the down low......WDFW can really only operate within the rules that govern them and wolves unfortunately are still a protected species. This means they can only manage them as such. My opinion is that is the first thing that needs to be changed....change the status to match the TRUE conditions, wolves are no longer nearly extinct in the lower 48, they are thriving and taking over and now threatening other predators positions. That is not WDFW's fault nor is it in their control. The delisting must happen in order for WDFW to come up with a real management plan until there is delisting their hands are tied because it is basically hands off on threatened species.
The budget oh the delightful governor from hell and her sticky fingers :bash: >:( :bash:. Normally many of these departments raise funds (you know license sales and such) and then have control of these funds and they used to but that slimey pond scum in Olympia has decided to take all funds into the general fund and then distribute what she wants to each department....just because her and her overpaid goons couldn't balance the budget on their pet programs she takes control away from the departments that are making the money then also takes stimulus money to boot and NONE of it is channeled to the departments it was meant for......this is where my head explodes >:(
Post by: shanevg on August 25, 2009, 09:05:14 AM
Shane, how I read Bearpaw's call to arms is that they are linking anti-hunting-pro-wolf websites using State dollars on a very hot potato subject, stacking the deck in the favor of the groups that do not want hunting as a solution to the general public. What I understood is that we need to write elected officals and inform them of the bias in doing that.
Good way to state it, I like it.
Post by: bearpaw on August 25, 2009, 09:10:01 AM
Quote
Ask why there are links to WolfHaven and Defenders of Wildlife on the WDFW Wolf Management Page but there are no links to SCI, INWWC, WWC, or any sporting group allowing them to present the other side of the wolf debate. This is both unfair and unprofessional. This a travesty since it is hunters dollars being used to fund wolf management and wolf monitoring in Washington. Groups like Defenders of Wildlife spend much of their money on employee salaries or lawsuits which hamper modern game management. Ask why hunters have no representation on the Wolf Management Page.
shanevg I should have been more clear....my point is why are no sporting groups represented on the WDFW Wolf Management page. Only pro-wolf groups have links on the WDFW Wolf Management page. :dunno:
Check it out for yourself, why are there only pro-wolf links on this WDFW page? :dunno:
WDFW Wolf Page: http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/gray_wolf/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/gray_wolf/)
If hunting is not mentioned in the wolf plan as the eventual management tool, it is far less likely that hunting wolves will occur in WA's future. They are drafting the wolf plan now, now is when you need to have your voice heard in support of wolf hunting.
In 5 years the state will simply tell you hunting is not in the wolf management plan.
Post by: shanevg on August 25, 2009, 09:10:54 AM
Post by: bearpaw on August 25, 2009, 09:16:54 AM
Post by: bearmanric on August 25, 2009, 09:47:38 AM
Post by: runamuk on August 25, 2009, 09:54:00 AM
in 5 year's there wont be hunting here. there is nothing we can do we are a minority now. the game department is not for our game animal's. people wake up. pretty stupid to have a muzzlelaoding season on the coast new this year. they have a serios problem there. they will put wolfs in the olympics Dorm Dicks wanted to several years ago. i'm just sick miss early 80's when hunting was ok and i could go to yard bird's wear hunting cloth's to get ammo for deer season and see friend's.go to down town olympia now i would get in a fight those day's have gone. just wish they wouldnt bring wolf's here but they will. Rick
We can do something Rick we just keep writing and encouraging them to change then we keep voting.
Besides now days minority rules ;) special rules for minorities remember....I am not making light of the subject just trying to add some levity....
I also have days where I feel it is going to be gone so why try....if we all give up then they win and this is the one area where I am competitive I will not let the anti's win....I will fight them until I die....
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on August 25, 2009, 10:05:44 AM
WDFW is comprised of many divisions and sections; having wolves managed by the Game Division within the Wildlife Program would be a whole lot better than having wolves managed by the Endangered Species Section. Game Division sets seasons, Endangered Species Section counts stuff until it disappears.
The best realistic scenario for Washington sportsmen would be 1) recovery where federally listed (no state management can occur until then); reclassification as big game in the federally delisted portion of the state; and 3) population targets for pack numbers. To not have hunting as a management tool ONCE RECOVERY TARGETS ARE MET is a huge failure on the part of WDFW and state government. Wolves are versatile, highly mobile, and most importantly, highly fecund and prolific large carnivores, and hunting is absolutely necessary to managing recovered populations.
Post by: bearmanric on August 25, 2009, 11:05:02 AM
Post by: wolfbait on August 25, 2009, 02:00:06 PM
Post by: croix on August 25, 2009, 02:09:28 PM
Post by: bearpaw on August 25, 2009, 02:13:55 PM
Unless that language happens now, it will not be a part of the plan.....then taxpayers can pay guys like me insane amounts of money to go shoot nuisance wolves for them.
I hate to burst any bubbles, but it does not appear that WDFW supports hunting wolves at all. If you doubt this, I suggest you read the last version of the wolf plan and point out to myself and everyone else where it says hunting will be the management tool.
Since we all know the answer to that, I am asking everyone to take 15 minutes and write a short email message asking for hunting to be included in the language as the eventual management tool and send it before the September meeting.
Thanks In Advance....
Post by: mulehunter on August 25, 2009, 05:32:15 PM
I figure.. Yes He need to be FIRED! :bash:
Mulehunter >:(
Post by: mulehunter on August 25, 2009, 06:16:58 PM
I want to show this CLEAR... I understand Gamedept were in Charge FIRST ARRIVAL! He was told it possible Wolves! But... Scott Fitkin Biologlist Walked AFTER in said No... IMPOSSIBLE Hard to tell, Well BUT.... He have NO RIGHT to Explain this Crap to Local News just because HE JUST SAVED Thousand dollar on LOSS of CATTLE and Missing Calf by telling them NOT wolves because that way they cant ERASE LOCAL NEWS HISTORY and make it look STRONG ON HIS SIDE!
I cant believe He walk stright to Local News FIRST THING! No wonder why He is BUNNY HUGGER!
Scott Fitkin just RIPPED LARRY OFF and He SMASH his HEART with FULL PAIN because they wouldnt Help him anything to Manage it and FEDS Dept just THANK HIM for doing his job to HURT all RANCHERS!! I am surprised He wouldnt HIRED HOUNDMAN to put on tracks after what? Was it Cougar? Bear? Coyote? Well.... HE KNEW IT! Thats why he wouldnt do anything about it to not MANAGE IT why they wouldnt even TRY to go up mountain SEEM NOT TRY HARD ENOUGH!
Obviouly He tell to Local News about that were NOT wolves. Hard to tell. Maybe He doesnt want to be HONEST! Because he want to keep his JOB that way Feds have enough money to pay his salary instead pay some livestock Loss.
I believe Larry were having Coffee with LOT LOTS of Ranchers! U know why because THEY ALL are ANGRY at Biologlist!
Mulehunter
Post by: mulehunter on August 25, 2009, 06:51:01 PM
FEDS Dept just thank him for not BLAME on Wolves caused.
I KNOW HIS SYSTEM NOW!!!
Michelle SHOULD HAVE SHOT this *censored* DOG to PROVE SF! :chuckle:
HERE his statement with Local News.
Carlton resident says wolves killed chickens
By Joyce Campbell
“I saw it twice and I really think it’s a wolf,” said Michelle Mondot, who learned the hard way that protecting her chickens from predators starts with prevention, not with scaring them off.
She went out to do chicken chores on the morning of Sunday, Aug. 2, and found eight dead birds and six more missing. She saw the back half of a large dark grey canine with a fluffy tail disappearing into the brushy hillside behind her Libby Creek home.
“He or she left, and I saw it again Sunday night because I was keeping an eye on everything,” said Mondot. She went out in the dark with a flashlight and stick around 9:30 p.m. and yelled, screamed and beat the stick on the ground and the animal took off after about 10 seconds. So long, she said, that she realized the animal was not afraid.
She got a .30-30 rifle and shot into the hill past her house and has not seen the predator again. “I think I’ve scared it off, at least for now,” she said.
State wildlife biologist Scott Fitkin is skeptical that the predator was a wolf.
“The fact that the animal appeared unafraid, I’m more skeptical that it was a wolf,” said Fitkin. “The fact that she went out and yelled and banged things, it’s not characteristic of wolves, who seem skittish. We’ve not ruled out it being a wolf,” he said. “We have no evidence except her eyewitness, but we are looking for more information.”
He sent two wildlife field technicians to set up a remote sensor camera at the site, but no photos of a wolf or any other canid have been captured. Radio telemetry was used for several days and showed that the radio-collared adults in the Lookout Pack were not present. A compost pile at the site contained the remains of butchered chickens, an attractant for carnivores.
Fitkin said being surrounded by public land and wildlife is a little different than having a chicken coop in town. Chances are greater for attracting predators looking for a meal.
“We’ve got the top predator of the West here and we need to know how to secure our livestock,” said Mondot. She said she felt responsible that her setup was only minimally secure. She had become lax over the years, chasing off one golden eagle and a weasel or raccoon, but felt unprepared for wolves.
She was instructed by the wildlife field biologist to bury attractants – any meat and scraps that are not vegetation. She wants to make sure her chickens are wolf-secure, but doesn’t know exactly what that means. She has covered plastic netting with chicken wire on her portable coops.
Fitkin said that wolves and cougars are easier to keep out, but bear-proofing is the most difficult predator prevention, because of their agile, dexterous and extremely strong front paws.
“We can co-exist, but we need to modify our behavior,” said Mondot. She said people need to not be attracting, feeding or being nice to the wolves. “I want them to be afraid. This is not part of their hunting territory. They can have all the rest.”
For more information on preventing wildlife conflicts with livestock and pets, visit the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife website on living with wildlife at www.wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/living. The state’s draft gray wolf conservation and management plan has a section on preventing conflicts and is available at www.wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/gray_wolf.
A film and panel discussion on predators will be presented Sept. 16 at the Twisp River Pub. The Lords of Nature: Life in a Land of Great Predators is a new film on wolves and other top predators and will be presented in the Methow Valley by Conservation Northwest.
Photo by Joyce Campbell
These chickens survived a nighttime raid by a large canid that Michelle Mondot thinks was a wolf. She feels responsible for making her poultry wolf-secure, but isn’t sure what that means.
Mulehunter >:(
Post by: mulehunter on August 25, 2009, 07:16:11 PM
Is Barbie PRETTIER LADY who LOVES WOLVES!
Thats EXPLAINS A LOT!
Whats does this help us understand how Biologlist system working after you read this topic
To report wolf sightings call the toll free Wolf Reporting Hotline for Washington (888) 584-9038.
??? ???
Mulehunter :bash:
Sighting confirms trio of wolf cubs
By Joyce Campbell
A visitor to the valley was the first to sight three gray wolf pups and wildlife biologists have confirmed that the Lookout Pack is raising at least a trio with the help of a “babysitter.”
“There’s one,” said Barbara Mattingly, an earth science teacher from Indiana who was visiting family members in the area. She saw some motion out of the corner of her eye and came eye-to-eye with a half-grown wolf pup about 50 feet away.
Mattingly was gazing into the eyes of the offspring of Washington’s first confirmed wolf pack in more than 70 years. The wolf pup was calmly looking back.
“They were very calm and we were very calm, and they were very well camouflaged,” said Mattingly. The pups moved from left to right within 30 seconds and quickly disappeared into the camouflage of the forest before either of the pair of humans could get any good photos. “It looked at me, stared at me right in the eye. Each one stopped and stared at us and walked away into the woods. It was the coolest thing ever.”
Mattingly had hoped to see the print of a wolf track when she and a Forest Service wildlife field biologist went out on July 30 to set up a remote sensor camera to try and capture images of the pups. A howling survey a day earlier confirmed the presence of an undetermined number of pups, and cameras have only picked up photos of single pups.
“We had guessed there were three from the howling response,” said state wildlife biologist Scott Fitkin. The Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Forest Service and the citizens’ organization Conservation Northwest have been collaboratively monitoring the Lookout Pack since spring of 2008.
A third adult wolf is confirmed to be traveling with the pack. A wolf howl was heard with the higher pitched howls of pups during a time when the radio-collared adults were out of the rendezvous area, presumably hunting, according to Fitkin. Pups are typically left at a rendezvous site with a babysitter, which could be a wolf from a previous year’s litter of pups or any other member of the pack.
The alpha male and female were trapped and radio-collared with the help of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in July 2008. Radio-telemetry from ground and air, remote sensor cameras, ground tracking and scat analysis have been used to follow and collect information about the wolf pack, including their six pups from last year.
By winter’s end, only three wolves remained in the pack, confirmed by visual sightings, radio surveys, photos and ground tracking. Wolf pups typically suffer 40 to 50 percent mortality from natural causes, according to wolf specialist Bill Gaines with the Forest Service. He said he was disappointed by the apparent survival of only one of the pack’s six pups.
This year, Gaines led a team of researchers collecting data from the denning site after the wolves moved on to a nearby rendezvous site in the Lookout Mountain area southwest of Twisp.
“It was like looking for a needle in a haystack, but we got lucky and walked right into it,” said Gaines. He said the well-concealed den had three different ways in and out of an underground chamber. The crew collected puppy scat for DNA analysis to determine a minimum number of pups and what they had been eating.
The year-round territory of the pack covers 350 square miles, said Gaines. It might be different this year due to the lack of snow in the Sawtooths.
“These wolves could easily travel 30 to 40 miles in a day,” said Gaines. He said as people get out and hike he expects to get more reports of hearing and seeing the pack.
“They are still around the low elevations of their range,” said Fitkin. He said there are indications that the pack is starting to move to the higher elevation of their summer range, following the migrating mule deer herds.
To report wolf sightings call the toll free Wolf Reporting Hotline for Washington (888) 584-9038.
Photo courtesy of WSDFW, USFS and Conservation Northwest
This wolf pup was photographed by a remote camera near the Lookout Pack’s rendezvous site southwest of Lookout Mountain on Aug. 9.
Date: 08-12-2009 | Volume: 107 | Issue: 13
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on August 25, 2009, 11:49:00 PM
Post by: wolfbait on August 26, 2009, 06:40:33 AM
Sorry mulehunter - Scott Fitkin is not a bad guy. He is, however, a WA state employee :yike:
Scott Fitkin may not be a bad guy, How long do you think it will take before any honesty on their part starts happening, about as long as it has taken in other states where these wolves were released. In the near future anyone who finds their livestock that has been killed by wolves it would be advisable to skip Scott Fitkin and call the sheriff and Channel 4 news, and then the livestock killings in the Methow Valley may start to see some honesty involved.
Post by: bearpaw on August 26, 2009, 06:49:56 AM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on August 26, 2009, 07:00:22 AM
Post by: mulehunter on August 26, 2009, 07:10:21 AM
I think Scott Fitken is a bad guy.
AGREED!
;)
Mulehunter
Post by: mulehunter on August 26, 2009, 07:26:15 AM
Sorry mulehunter - Scott Fitkin is not a bad guy. He is, however, a WA state employee :yike:
Can u explain more detail how u think he is A good guy?
U know him very well??
Mulehunter
Post by: wolfbait on August 26, 2009, 07:38:04 AM
Sorry mulehunter - Scott Fitkin is not a bad guy. He is, however, a WA state employee :yike:
Can u explain more detail how u think he is A good guy?
U know him very well??
Mulehunter
Personally Scott Fitkin might be a hell of a nice guy. As a biologist for the WDWL I do not believe he is being honest. I think he is an enviromentalist at heart and has very close ties with defenders of wildlife. He has been pushing for these wolves in Washington for a long time. I wish that WDWl would be honest about the wolves that we have here. But it has not happened yet and I don't see it ever happening. The difference between us and the pro-wolf people is all of our information has to be true blue, there cannot be any shades of gray. The pro-wolf people lie left and right. Why? Because they have to, their wolf has done so much damage and continues to do damage. Lying is the only way they can promote the wolves. Who will be the fall guy when things turn sour in the Methow Valley, Scott Fitkin's name is at the top of the list, among others.
Post by: wolfbait on August 26, 2009, 08:06:31 AM
Wolfbait I had talked to a Methow Valley rancher who said another cow had been killed and he wasn't sure yet if it was his or the neighbor's. Did you ever hear the results of that?
I am going to check in on that today, I would imgine they would like that one swept under the rug,
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on August 26, 2009, 10:58:47 AM
Sorry mulehunter - Scott Fitkin is not a bad guy. He is, however, a WA state employee :yike:
Can u explain more detail how u think he is A good guy?
U know him very well??
Mulehunter
Personally Scott Fitkin might be a hell of a nice guy. As a biologist for the WDWL I do not believe he is being honest. I think he is an enviromentalist at heart and has very close ties with defenders of wildlife. He has been pushing for these wolves in Washington for a long time. I wish that WDWl would be honest about the wolves that we have here. But it has not happened yet and I don't see it ever happening. The difference between us and the pro-wolf people is all of our information has to be true blue, there cannot be any shades of gray. The pro-wolf people lie left and right. Why? Because they have to, their wolf has done so much damage and continues to do damage. Lying is the only way they can promote the wolves. Who will be the fall guy when things turn sour in the Methow Valley, Scott Fitkin's name is at the top of the list, among others.
I know him quite well. He is a very competent biologist, and yes he is an environmentalist in the sense that he thinks wolves belong in Washington. So far, Defenders is the only group that ponies up any compensation for livestock losses, there are suspected livestock losses, no surprise there is contact there - pretty sure he's smart enough to not be in anyone's pocket. I think wolves belong in Washington too, but should be managed as the highly prolific, large carnivore that they are. Opinions aside, though, I am quite confident nobody has brought wolves into the state from out of state. Scott has a tough job, highly constrained by working for WDFW, which is in turn highly constrained by being part of state government, in turn constrained by the majority opinion of Washington voters, who are liberal, Democratic, urban and don't hunt.
No extremist is going to be happy with a state biologist. Wolf lovers want hunting ended, livestock off public land, and hunting constrained to produce more wolf food. Wolf haters want them eradicated, again. Some hunters want wolves eradicated, some are happy they are here. A lot of hunters are unhappy that WDFW works for the Washington public, rather than exclusively for hunters and fishermen. Tough - that's reality. It's not created by an individual employee.
I worked for both WDFW and Wyoming Game and Fish, 17 years total. I am glad to be out of the WDFW, but not because of the quality of their employees. The vast majority are good, and competent, and many strongly support hunting, including every employee of the Game Division. I am glad to be out because Washington state government SUCKS, THE STATE IS INVASIVE, GREEDY AND DISHONEST, apparently just the way the MAJORITY of voters must want it. The tofu-munching, crosscountry skiers from Pugetropolis have adopted all of eastern Washington's scenic public land, and the Methow in particular, as their playground, and are doing their best to buy up all the private, either individually or through the state. That's good news for wildlife, bad news for traditional rural residents in agriculture, forestry, mining and other extractive-type industries. It's a mixed bag for hunters and fishermen.
I am sure the wolf situation in the Methow in particular, and Washington in general, would be exactly the same regardless of who the Okanogan County district wildlife biologist is. The credit - or blame - lies ultimately with the voters, and their elected officials and their appointees. A state employee cannot openly voice their opinions, or professional judgement for that matter, if they want to stay employed. There is a lot of good in the job, but there is a lot of implementation of STUPID policy in which the employee has NO SAY.
Hate wolves? Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I don't. Hate the Washington wolf management plan? Me too. Blame WDFW for not creating a biologically rational management plan. Ultimately, though, blame the mis-educated, liberal urban majority that calls the shots, for putting together a stupid plan that is exactly what they want. It is not that they don't know about the impacts on game populations, or livestock producers - the voting majority here DOES NOT CARE. They will happily trade every rancher and hunter for a chance to hear a howl. That's reality. And yes, it really sucks.
Don't blame a guy for doing his job the way his employer demands. :twocents:
Post by: yelp on August 26, 2009, 03:13:43 PM
Totally agree Doublelung, great comments.
Post by: spikehunter on August 26, 2009, 04:08:57 PM
Post by: bearpaw on August 26, 2009, 09:51:28 PM
Quote
Don't blame a guy for doing his job the way his employer demands.
I agree with much of what you said but wonder about this comment....
Does his employer demand him to claim all these kills are not wolves. I have to ask, do you think he is being told to deny wolves are making kills.
Post by: wolfbait on August 26, 2009, 10:47:58 PM
QuoteDon't blame a guy for doing his job the way his employer demands.
I agree with much of what you said but wonder about this comment....
Does his employer demand him to claim all these kills are not wolves. I have to ask, do you think he is being told to deny wolves are making kills.
Biologist have alot of input for wolf plans. I know for a fact that both the usfs and wdwl biologist were given proof without a doubt that we had wolves in the methow Valley 2 years before the 'New Wolf Pack" bull. The surprise new wolf pack the same day as Oregon says it all. So in my opinion Scott Fitkins needs to wash his hands quite often. I don't think he would give anyone a fare deal where the wolves are concerned unless it benifited the wolves or his, and the environmentalists agenda. I think we are seeing that here with the livestock that has been killed by wolves, and like in other states where they have had the same problems with getting the truth out in the open, we will go through the same sh-t.
Post by: bearpaw on August 26, 2009, 11:00:25 PM
Quote
A state employee cannot openly voice their opinions, or professional judgement for that matter, if they want to stay employed. There is a lot of good in the job, but there is a lot of implementation of STUPID policy in which the employee has NO SAY.
I know this is a fact, I have heard this on numerous occassions. Current political powers dictate much of the policy.
I am very interested in what doublelung's take is on these questions? I know he can't speak for Fitkins but I am curious what he thinks about these questions.
Does his employer demand him to claim all these kills are not wolves?
Do you think he is being told to deny wolves are making kills?
Post by: SHANE(WA) on August 27, 2009, 05:37:43 AM
Post by: mulehunter on August 27, 2009, 06:26:22 AM
Who is in CHARGE in this County of Okanagon? BUNNY HUGGER BIOLOGLIST! Thats EXPLAINS A LOT!
I want to show this CLEAR... I understand Gamedept were in Charge FIRST ARRIVAL! He was told it possible Wolves! But... Scott Fitkin Biologlist Walked AFTER in said No... IMPOSSIBLE Hard to tell, Well BUT.... He have NO RIGHT to Explain this Crap to Local News just because HE JUST SAVED Thousand dollar on LOSS of CATTLE and Missing Calf by telling them NOT wolves because that way they cant ERASE LOCAL NEWS HISTORY and make it look STRONG ON HIS SIDE!
I cant believe He walk stright to Local News FIRST THING! No wonder why He is BUNNY HUGGER!
Scott Fitkin just RIPPED LARRY OFF and He SMASH his HEART with FULL PAIN because they wouldnt Help him anything to Manage it and FEDS Dept just THANK HIM for doing his job to HURT all RANCHERS!! I am surprised He wouldnt HIRED HOUNDMAN to put on tracks after what? Was it Cougar? Bear? Coyote? Well.... HE KNEW IT! Thats why he wouldnt do anything about it to not MANAGE IT why they wouldnt even TRY to go up mountain SEEM NOT TRY HARD ENOUGH!
Obviouly He tell to Local News about that were NOT wolves. Hard to tell. Maybe He doesnt want to be HONEST! Because he want to keep his JOB that way Feds have enough money to pay his salary instead pay some livestock Loss.
I believe Larry were having Coffee with LOT LOTS of Ranchers! U know why because THEY ALL are ANGRY at Biologlist!
Mulehunter
DOUBLELUNG, please give ur a moment.
Under reply # 25 please look at picture again.
Cow mother were trying to protect her BRAND new calf baby. Next thing Brand calf is missing and mother is laying DEAD. How impossible would it be cougar? Coyote? Bear? No way... But..... WOLVE!!! Yes... must be 5 or more to attack and 1 or 2 wolves took brand new calf up hill feeding to pups.
And other rest of pack stay with Cow mother ate all night.
That is a BIG mother cow got killed by wolves its proved.
Scott Fitkin is a LIAR PERIOD!!! He tells whole public people its NOT wolves caused. He destroy our trustful with WDFW people.
Mulehunter
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on August 27, 2009, 06:28:54 AM
Obviously I can't answer that question either, but I suspect that's not the case. Actually documenting the depredation is a challenge, I'm sure there are times when it's questionable and they just can't pinpoint the culprit. It's a shame when that happens, but imagine how many ranchers are using wolves as a scapegoat for every dead animal they find... We really need a WOLF SPECIALIST (or two) that is highly trained in the area.QuoteA state employee cannot openly voice their opinions, or professional judgement for that matter, if they want to stay employed. There is a lot of good in the job, but there is a lot of implementation of STUPID policy in which the employee has NO SAY.
I know this is a fact, I have heard this on numerous occassions. Current political powers dictate much of the policy.
I am very interested in what doublelung's take is on these questions? I know he can't speak for Fitkins but I am curious what he thinks about these questions.
Does his employer demand him to claim all these kills are not wolves?
Do you think he is being told to deny wolves are making kills?
Post by: bearpaw on August 27, 2009, 06:32:53 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on August 27, 2009, 06:36:15 AM
I saw the pictures of the cow, they don't make me believe without a doubt that wolves killed the cow.
Again, it could have happened, but there must be a burden of proof... we need an expert that can handle these situations.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on August 27, 2009, 06:37:13 AM
wacoyote I totally agree....we need a wolf specialist in this state badly....some of the wisest words I have seen in print on this forum..... :tup:We might need more than one...
Post by: wolfbait on August 27, 2009, 08:02:11 AM
How do you know that mulehunter? There are no photos, no witnesses, no real evidence except a dead cow and wolf tracks in the area. I'm not saying that it's not what happened, I'm saying there is a reasonable chance that the cow died calving or shortly after and wolves ate on a carcass. This is going to be the problem for a while....someone (an expert, not a rancher or a neighbor...) needs to be able to identify the signs.
I saw the pictures of the cow, they don't make me believe without a doubt that wolves killed the cow.
Again, it could have happened, but there must be a burden of proof... we need an expert that can handle these situations.
We need a biologist that is not biased! The cow had already calved out a few day prior to the wolves killin the cow. Why not bring hound dogs in? If its a cat or bear then that little problem is solved, perhaps they don't want the truth to be known ;) In other states 90% of wolf kills are not confirmed, so as far as the ranchers getting a good deal for their losses do to the wolves, it is pure BS. The only way our biologist is going to confirm a wolf kill is if the wolf/wolves are lying there next to the livestock in a pool of their own blood >:( I can tell you, if any of my stock gets jumped on by the wolves, there won't be any question of what did it, and I won't be calling the "investigators" I will be calling KXLY 4 news and then the sheriff.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on August 27, 2009, 08:11:38 AM
QuoteDon't blame a guy for doing his job the way his employer demands.
I agree with much of what you said but wonder about this comment....
Does his employer demand him to claim all these kills are not wolves. I have to ask, do you think he is being told to deny wolves are making kills.
Nope. I do think that unless cause of death is 100% clear, it is going to be called undetermined. WDFW does not force their employees to lie - some (i.e., former director) might wish they could. Professional credibility is not the employer's to expend. Wolf presence was suspected by field personnel as early as 2005; that's not confirmation, and nobody was denying wolves might be present. The presence of a pack was not confirmed until remote cameras captured pics of pups.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on August 27, 2009, 08:17:34 AM
DOUBLELUNG, please give ur a moment.
Under reply # 25 please look at picture again.
Cow mother were trying to protect her BRAND new calf baby. Next thing Brand calf is missing and mother is laying DEAD. How impossible would it be cougar? Coyote? Bear? No way... But..... WOLVE!!! Yes... must be 5 or more to attack and 1 or 2 wolves took brand new calf up hill feeding to pups.
And other rest of pack stay with Cow mother ate all night.
That is a BIG mother cow got killed by wolves its proved.
Scott Fitkin is a LIAR PERIOD!!! He tells whole public people its NOT wolves caused. He destroy our trustful with WDFW people.
Mulehunter
Since you asked - no, that is not proof of wolf depredation. It could be consistent with wolf depredation, but it's not proof.
Post by: mulehunter on August 27, 2009, 08:29:32 AM
How do you know that mulehunter? There are no photos, no witnesses, no real evidence except a dead cow and wolf tracks in the area. I'm not saying that it's not what happened, I'm saying there is a reasonable chance that the cow died calving or shortly after and wolves ate on a carcass. This is going to be the problem for a while....someone (an expert, not a rancher or a neighbor...) needs to be able to identify the signs.
I saw the pictures of the cow, they don't make me believe without a doubt that wolves killed the cow.
Again, it could have happened, but there must be a burden of proof... we need an expert that can handle these situations.
:(
I assume u working for WDFW Biologlist, As well trainned like I said. Geez,
I give up. Well.... I could do way better as Wolf Biologlist. Anybody vote for me......
Mulehunter :chuckle:
Post by: wolfbait on August 27, 2009, 08:41:16 AM
How do you know that mulehunter? There are no photos, no witnesses, no real evidence except a dead cow and wolf tracks in the area. I'm not saying that it's not what happened, I'm saying there is a reasonable chance that the cow died calving or shortly after and wolves ate on a carcass. This is going to be the problem for a while....someone (an expert, not a rancher or a neighbor...) needs to be able to identify the signs.
I saw the pictures of the cow, they don't make me believe without a doubt that wolves killed the cow.
Again, it could have happened, but there must be a burden of proof... we need an expert that can handle these situations.
:(
I assume u working for WDFW Biologlist, As well trainned like I said. Geez,
I give up. Well.... I could do way better as Wolf Biologlist. Anybody vote for me......
Mulehunter :chuckle:
Mulehunter, I will vote for you if you hire me to help investigate and buy by ammunition.
Post by: twisp_river_slayer on August 27, 2009, 09:08:28 AM
Post by: bearpaw on August 27, 2009, 09:10:55 AM
This state would rather pay professional hunters to destroy wolves than allow hunters a chance to enjoy a sport hunting opportunity....they are too stupid to realize the professional hunter is exactly that because he enjoys hunting... :chuckle: ;)
Post by: bearpaw on August 27, 2009, 09:19:56 AM
Problem is that it may be questionable if Fitkins is qualified to be in a position that the ranchers and people of this state must depend on his wolf assessments.
Perhaps someone with past experience in Idaho or Montana inspecting multiple wolf predations could do a better job in that position for the people and ranchers of Washington.
I can tell you from personal experience in learning about cougar hunting, it was guesswork learning about the first few cougar kills I found, but after you have seen a few dozen or more, you can usually spot a cougar kill as soon as you see it. Then a little investigating usually removes any doubt. Some of you know exactly what I am talking about here.
So I have to wonder.....
How much training in wolf kills has Fitkins had, and how many confirmed wolf kills has Fitkins inspected?
From what I have read Fitkins claims most kills are not conclusive.....
How many conclusive wolf kills has Fitkin inspected to be qualified as Washington's Wolf Depredation Specialist?
I have to say, I have never met or talked to the man, he may be the nicest guy in the world, he might be the best biologist for many other species in the state, I might really respect the man if I had a chance to talk with him.
However, Washington State's wolf plan is being developed around this man's opinions, I think it's reasonably prudent to ask exactly how much actual proven wolf experience this man has? If he has not been involved in numerous confirmed wolf predations with other experts in the field, how can he possibly and responsibly be Washington's Wolf Specialist and why is our state wolf plan being developed around his recommendations.
Any reasonably intelligent person must wonder how qualified the man is for this responsibility after reading what we have all read?
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on August 27, 2009, 09:32:21 AM
Post by: bearpaw on August 27, 2009, 09:42:05 AM
Quote
Why would a highly experienced wolf specialist leave ID, MT or WY to do the same job in WA?
That wasn't an answer to my question, but to answer your question, they seem to have all the other job positions filled. I would assume if a wolf specialist position was offered, there would be applicants and an experienced wolf specialist could be found....isn't that the usual process?
I would also assume that most people on either side of this argument would want an experienced wolf specialist involved, unless of coarse they had something to gain by not having a specialist involved. :dunno:
Post by: mulehunter on August 27, 2009, 09:45:50 AM
mulehunter, I will vote for you too, sign me up for wolf management like the guy in Idaho who has been getting $1500 per wolf removal because the anti's have prevented hunting the last few years..... :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
This state would rather pay professional hunters to destroy wolves than allow hunters a chance to enjoy a sport hunting opportunity....they are too stupid to realize the professional hunter is exactly that because he enjoys hunting... :chuckle: ;)
:chuckle:
Sure if u will agree split half 750.00 each. I could help ya.
Mulehunter ;)
Post by: WDFW-SUX on August 27, 2009, 09:45:58 AM
Post by: twisp_river_slayer on August 27, 2009, 09:47:18 AM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on August 27, 2009, 09:48:43 AM
Post by: bearpaw on August 27, 2009, 09:55:57 AM
Quote
who already made the decision that scott isnt qualified for managing the lookout pack...?
From what I have read mostly just ranchers who have lost stock or are worried about losing stock or hunters worried about losing hunting opportunities, that's all. ;)
As I questioned, it would be nice to know what his prior wolf experience is, and is he a qualified wolf expert since the WA wolf plan is being developed around his work?
Do you know any of these answers?
Post by: twisp_river_slayer on August 27, 2009, 10:10:49 AM
well i dont know if he has his wolf expert deploma or a degree in wolves so i cant answer that. i also dont know his prior experience with wolves. i dont know how bringing someone in would help though. each situation is different and each managment plan is unique, especially this one. he is a qualified biologist and thats what the WA wolf plan is developing there work around. although i dont agree with some of his descisions i dont think that the problem with this whole mess would end with him. I think this has went over the head of our district biologist.Quotewho already made the decision that scott isnt qualified for managing the lookout pack...?
From what I have read mostly just ranchers who have lost stock or are worried about losing stock or hunters worried about losing hunting opportunities, that's all. ;)
As I questioned, it would be nice to know what his prior wolf experience is, and is he a qualified wolf expert since the WA wolf plan is being developed around his work?
Do you know any of these answers?
Post by: wolfbait on August 27, 2009, 10:22:08 AM
QuoteWhy would a highly experienced wolf specialist leave ID, MT or WY to do the same job in WA?
That wasn't an answer to my question, but to answer your question, they seem to have all the other job positions filled. I would assume if a wolf specialist position was offered, there would be applicants and an experienced wolf specialist could be found....isn't that the usual process?
I would also assume that most people on either side of this argument would want an experienced wolf specialist involved, unless of coarse they had something to gain by not having a specialist involved. :dunno:
The Washington wolf plan is looking alot like the mexican wolf reintroduction plan, where they released the wolves in the middle of cattle raising operations, they are trying to manage everything around the wolves, things are not going well, wolves are getting killed because of the management stupidity, and any support they might have gained is gone. In perspective they are trying to shove the wolves down peoples throats and it is not working. Now they plan on flooding Washington with wolves where we have a great number of people, many who live to spend time in the great outdoors. Same thing they are shoving them on us and saying deal with it. Using a very poor wolf plan, that represent the environmenalists, another very stupid move on their part! They will end up jumping up and down on their own parts and they will deserve it. The people and the wildlife deserve honesty in the wolf issue. If I go to the doctor for a broken leg I don't want an eye doctors setting the bone. Why would we want someone who is not eligable representing our wolf problems in Washington. Surely with as much money as they have already wasted on the wolves, they could supply Washington with someone who has the ability and smarts to tell us what killed what. They don't seem to have problems sending their wolf looky lews.
, Or the mighty enforcers. >:( >:(
Post by: bearpaw on August 27, 2009, 10:32:09 AM
well i dont know if he has his wolf expert deploma or a degree in wolves so i cant answer that. i also dont know his prior experience with wolves. i dont know how bringing someone in would help though. each situation is different and each managment plan is unique, especially this one. he is a qualified biologist and thats what the WA wolf plan is developing there work around. although i dont agree with some of his descisions i dont think that the problem with this whole mess would end with him. I think this has went over the head of our district biologist.Quotewho already made the decision that scott isnt qualified for managing the lookout pack...?
From what I have read mostly just ranchers who have lost stock or are worried about losing stock or hunters worried about losing hunting opportunities, that's all. ;)
As I questioned, it would be nice to know what his prior wolf experience is, and is he a qualified wolf expert since the WA wolf plan is being developed around his work?
Do you know any of these answers?
I will tell you exactly how it makes a difference who is making determinations on these livestock kills.
Right now the state is claiming via the Defenders of Wildlife propaganda on the WDFW website that wolves are not much problem for livestock owners. If an experienced wolf predation specialist recognized that these were wolf kills instead of saying it's non-conclusive, then the whole attitude and recomendation for how many wolves should inhabit this state might change. Thus an entirely different wolf plan.
That is the difference my friend......
Post by: bearpaw on August 27, 2009, 11:02:14 AM
Quote
http://www.grist.org/article/aspen-envt-forum-the-word-on-gray-wolves
Wolf recovery chief Ed Bangs talks about the species’ delisting.
Posted 10:43 AM on 28 Mar 2008
by Lisa Hymas
The gray wolf population in the northern Rocky Mountains is being dropped from the federal endangered species list on Friday, and on Thursday I just happened to run smack into Ed Bangs, the wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (Such is life at the Aspen Environment Forum.)
Bangs oversaw the celebrated and controversial reintroduction of gray wolves into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho in 1995 and 1996, when the nice Canadians gave the U.S. government 66 wolves to set free in a region that hadn't seen the carnivores since 1926 (though about 60 had come down from Canada on their own into Glacier National Park in northwest Montana). Since then, the wolf population in the region has grown at about 24 percent a year, to a point where there are now more than 1,500 spread out across some 110,000 square miles in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Bangs and his crew say that's a viable population and their work is now done. Except for dealing with the lawsuits from enviros, that is.
Eleven conservation groups -- including Defenders of Wildlife, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club -- are filing suit to challenge the delisting. They contend that the wolf population is not yet genetically healthy, and that 2,000 to 5,000 wolves in the region should be the goal. They also don't like the plan to hand wolf management over to the states, which are poised to allow wolf hunting.
I pulled Bangs aside for a few minutes to get his take on it all:
Is now the right time to delist?
Ed Bangs. Absolutely. We've got a lot of wolves. The states [Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming] have all got plans that will assure that there will be at least 1,000 wolves in the Rocky Mountains forever. The state fish and game agencies have great professional organizations to do wildlife management; they'll do a better job than we could do.
The states had to come up with management plans?
Yep. We reviewed the plans and we approved them. We approved Montana's and Idaho's in 2004, and we rejected Wyoming's plan. So they went back to the drawing board, and there was litigation, and in 2007 they produced a new wolf management plan that we approved. They addressed all the issues we had with the one we rejected.
You're being sued over this?
For sure. We've been sued over every single wolf thing, by both sides, all the time.
But this time it's just the conservationists suing. What do you think is their main concern?
Mistrust of the states. They argue that 1,000 wolves isn't enough. Most of it boils down to they just want more wolves in more places, and they think the Endangered Species Act is the better way to get them there than to have states do wolf management.
The states will have hunting of wolves, just like they do for deer, elk, mountain lions, black bears, and people don't like the idea of that, even though we, the agencies, kill about 10 percent of the wolves each year for problems. But the idea of people hunting them, some people find that objectionable. And I understand that. But my job is the science and the biology of restoring viable wolf populations. It isn't the moral aspect of whether we should be hunting or not.
What if the wolves aren't doing well in a few years?
There is a mandatory five-year monitoring period by the Fish and Wildlife Service, so we have to watch it over pretty closely. And if things go to hell in a handbasket, we'll step back in.
So are you out of a job?
I hope so! I'm looking for something else to do with the rest of my life. I'm hoping that by summer or fall I'll be on a beach with a rum drink in my hand watching for sea turtles.
One last question: What's your favorite animal?
Wolverines, I love wolverines. I'm wild about wild animals, but wolves are just another animal to me. Wolves are OK.
But wolverines -- they are so cool.
**
Will Stolzenburg.Bangs will be on a panel on wolves here at the forum on Saturday, but unfortunately it conflicts with a panel I'm moderating, so I won't be able to attend. On the panel with Bangs will be Will Stolzenburg, a wildlife biologist and journalist who has a different view on the delisting.
Stolzenburg told me he thinks the USFWS did its job and planned appropriately to keep wolf numbers where it wants them, but he's concerned that the agency didn't consider the big picture. He would have liked to see a more ecologically based decision that considered whether the wolf will really be able to fill its historic role in the ecosystem. Stolzenburg has written a forthcoming book on this very topic: the ecological roles of the world's great predators and the consequences of their disappearance: Where the Wild Things Were: Life, Death, and the Ecological Wreckage in a Land of Vanishing Predators.
Post by: bearpaw on August 27, 2009, 12:00:21 PM
Quote
So are you out of a job?
I hope so! I'm looking for something else to do with the rest of my life. I'm hoping that by summer or fall I'll be on a beach with a rum drink in my hand watching for sea turtles.
Sounds to me like Ed Bangs, the dean of Wolf recovery may be available if the state of Washington was interested.
Post by: bearpaw on August 27, 2009, 12:36:49 PM
Quote
Still, Ed Bangs, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist who led the wolf recovery effort, said in an interview from his office in Missoula, Mont., that the three-state wolf population had grown so successfully that delisting or hunts had no chance of threatening its survival. "For an injunction, you have to show irreparable harm," Bangs said. "The hunting of wolves clearly wouldn't endanger threatened wolf populations. We thought our delisting was a very biologically sound package."
Some of you may ask why I would suggest hiring Ed Bangs because he was in charge of wolf recovery. :dunno:
If you read through his material Ed Bangs does believe that wolves should be in the lower 48, but he also believes that they should be managed just as other animals are managed.
Currently the Washington Wolf Plan has been influenced by people who believe wolves should not be managed by hunting, that is obvious since the wolf plan does not include hunting as the eventual management tool.
I spoke with Ed Bangs on the phone yesterday. I had called him and left a message several weeks ago trying to get info on what important considerations the USFWS would recommend in the WA Wolf Plan since the USFWS played such an important role in getting Idaho/Mt delisted.
He called me back yesterday, he was very polite, very upfront, and very helpful.
I told him I did not know what his position was on hunting wolves for sure, but that I was concerned that WA did not have hunting listed as the eventual management tool.
He told me that he would forward some info showing that hunting was included in the original USFWS recovery plan. He said that he would also copy the info to the state of WA, I assume Harriet Allen, who is in charge of the WA Wolf Program.
So there you have, I think a person like Ed Bangs would do this state a lot of good. He's probably not available or looking to work for the state of WA, but someone like him would be a fresh breath of air for a wolf plan that does not recognize hunting as an eventual management tool. :twocents:
No offense meant to Mr. Fitkins or Harriett Allen, but I think this state needs a wolf specialist who has hands on experience. My guess is that the people of Washington would agree with that.
Post by: twisp_river_slayer on August 27, 2009, 12:47:03 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on August 27, 2009, 03:02:16 PM
Post by: wolfbait on August 27, 2009, 07:29:55 PM
Post by: yelp on August 27, 2009, 07:40:04 PM
Ed Bangs has a very well written article in this months Bulge Magazine. There are several wolf related articles this month. Check it out.
Bangs in Bulge Magazine? What kinda of magazines you reading Wacoyotehunter? LOL :chuckle: :chuckle: Sorry couldn't help it..
Post by: mulehunter on August 27, 2009, 09:37:32 PM
I thank u both for doing best u can to teach all of us something we DONT know that much. I learned A LOT from you both. I am glad to have you both on this site and more we learn the better we understand in our Future. I hope we will get good biologlist. I would love to join and help. ;)
Mulehunter 8)
Post by: wolfbait on August 29, 2009, 05:31:52 PM
by Ted Robbins
July 26, 2006
Listen
All Things Considered
Add to Playlist
Download
Transcript
Enlarge Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project
Mexican gray wolves have been reintroduced in the Apache-Sitgreaves and Gila National Forests in Arizona and New Mexico.
Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project
Mexican gray wolves have been reintroduced in the Apache-Sitgreaves and Gila National Forests in Arizona and New Mexico.
Enlarge Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project
A mother wolf and her pup feed on roadkill elk and "carnivore logs" placed by the reintroduction project team as the animals learn to hunt on their own. This photo was taken with a remote motion-sensing camera.
Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project
A mother wolf and her pup feed on roadkill elk and "carnivore logs" placed by the reintroduction project team as the animals learn to hunt on their own. This photo was taken with a remote motion-sensing camera.
text sizeAAA
July 26, 2006
A program to reintroduce the endangered Mexican gray wolf in the Southwestern United States has run into problems. Bred in captivity, the wolves haven't learned to hunt in the wild, and they're attacking cattle grazing on federal lands.
Eight years ago, the Mexican gray wolf was re-introduced to the mountains of Arizona and New Mexico. The species had been near extinction. It had been eliminated from the wild decades earlier, because it preyed on livestock.
Today, as many as four dozen wolves roam those mountains. But that's only half the number that program managers had hoped for.
The wolves were bred in captivity and when first released have to learn to live in the wild. So, researchers leave food for animals new to the wild, to help them make the transition to hunting on their own.
It's imperative that they learn to hunt because the only other large prey in the mountains is cattle — the reintroduction area is federal grazing land.
Some people seem to be taking matters in to their own hands: They've illegally shot and killed 23 Mexican wolves.
Seven wolves have been killed legally by the government. Under the strict rules of the program, a wolf that attacks cattle can be put back in captivity or killed.
Three years ago wdwl were feeding road kill to some new wolves in the Methow Valley, makes me wonder if they weren't pen raised wolves???
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5584866
Post by: bearpaw on August 29, 2009, 05:43:10 PM