Post by: bearpaw on December 02, 2009, 12:34:20 PM
Post by: NWBREW on December 02, 2009, 12:41:16 PM
Post by: Special T on December 02, 2009, 12:46:37 PM
Post by: Curly on December 02, 2009, 12:46:58 PM
I voted 6 or less.........even thats too many in my opinion.
:yeah:
I don't want any wolves here. Let people go to Canada, Alaska, or somewhere else if they want to see wolves in the wild.
Post by: boneaddict on December 02, 2009, 01:11:10 PM
Quote
I'd like to say we could hold em in check where they are at, whatever the number is...
Kinda curious about a predator that seems 10 times as smart and just as resilient as the coyote. Look how we have dented the coyote population with hunting year around, and trapping in some states and even poison in others.
So far the only thing that has controlled the coyote population has been wolves.
Post by: bearpaw on December 02, 2009, 01:16:12 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on December 02, 2009, 01:32:38 PM
I said 8 because i think its possible to prove that many..... I'd like to say we could hold em in check where they are at, whatever the number is...me too.
Post by: carpsniperg2 on December 02, 2009, 02:05:56 PM
I voted 6 or less.........even thats too many in my opinion.
:yeah:
I don't want any wolves here. Let people go to Canada, Alaska, or somewhere else if they want to see wolves in the wild.
x100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Post by: wolfbait on December 02, 2009, 02:44:14 PM
QuoteI'd like to say we could hold em in check where they are at, whatever the number is...
Kinda curious about a predator that seems 10 times as smart and just as resilient as the coyote. Look how we have dented the coyote population with hunting year around, and trapping in some states and even poison in others.
So far the only thing that has controlled the coyote population has been wolves.
Exactly the point, How does one control wolves when you can't hunt them. The 220 wolves that Idaho set out for hunting is not even a drop in the bucket. Say Idaho has 4ooo wolves, how does 220 wolves make the hunt anything about control. I vote 6 bps, we already have that and more. How long will it take for wdfw to find just the other four, if by some freak chance that WA ended up at 6 bps.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on December 02, 2009, 03:08:14 PM
Exactly the point, How does one control wolves when you can't hunt them. The 220 wolves that Idaho set out for hunting is not even a drop in the bucket. Say Idaho has 4ooo wolves, how does 220 wolves make the hunt anything about control.Idaho estimated they had 846 wolves at the end of 2008. With an annual population growth rate of 20%, they would have 1015 wolves at the end of 2009. Killing 220 would reduce the end of 2009 population to less than 800 (795), a slight reduction over the prior year. I think idaho has taken a very reasoned and balanced approach to wolf management, with a quota system that will allow them to adjust harvest annually based on observed trends. http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/living/glance.cfm.
My personal opinion, considering the gamut of publics they serve, from hysterical, rabidly anti-wolf conservative crazies, to rabidly pro-wolf liberal crazies, is that Idaho Fish and Game has developed a darned good first effort at managing wolves exactly as they are: highly prolific, meat-eating predators. Not demons. Not the spirit of the wilderness incarnate. Wildlife.
Of course, it is easy for hysterical characters on all sides to sling criticism at IDF&G's wolf management. I'll bet they have better population data, though, than either group of extremists unhappy that their management plan is neither scorched earth, nor wolf sanctuary USA.
The absurd craziness around wolf management from all manner of hairless apes, makes me glad I no longer am employed managing the public's wildlife.
Post by: wolfbait on December 02, 2009, 03:56:11 PM
FWS Knew Sport Harvest Can’t Stop Wolf Increases
The six-year wolf harvest study in Alaska’s Brooks
Range that was published in Wildlife Monographs this
month (see page 1) was actually conducted during 1986-
1992. Wolf biologists Mech and Bangs knew then, before
any wolves were transplanted into the NRM, that hunting
and trapping, even with liberal seasons and bag limits, does
not stop continued annual increases in the wolf population.
From this and similar research in several countries,
they also realized that sport hunting and trapping creates
healthier wolf populations by removing surplus wolves that
would otherwise be killed by other wolves or die from
starvation or disease. So FWS dangled the carrot of
allowing states to “control” wolf populations by making
wolves a big game animal to get two of the three states to
accept a series of changes to the original delisting criteria.
While the Governors of Idaho and Montana went
along with the mythical claim that wolf numbers could be
significantly reduced once states were allowed to manage
their wolves as “Big Game,” Wyoming’s Governor and
Legislators insisted that wolves be classified as predators
outside of federal wilderness areas and parks. In Idaho, the
Governor’s Office of Species Conservation and the F&G
Commission refused to use the alternate “Special Predator”
classification approved by FWS in the Idaho Wolf Plan.
http://rliv.com/pic/TheOutdoorsmanMay.pdf
Post by: bearpaw on December 02, 2009, 04:55:18 PM
British Columbia has managed to maintain quality big game herds with the existance of wolves. However there are a great many factors that are very much different here in Washington. Habitat, Human Population, Ranching & Land Use to name a few. If Washington would take a more measured approach, I don't think you would see as many extreme reactions opposing wolves.
I think it is important for the Wildlife Commission to hear from as many people as possible so we get a plan everyone can live with. In a few years our legislature will most likely be dealing with how to manage wolves if the Wildlife Commission does not do a responsible job with this wolf plan.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on December 02, 2009, 07:22:06 PM
There are certainly all types of folks with many differnet attitudes about wolf management.
British Columbia has managed to maintain quality big game herds with the existance of wolves. However there are a great many factors that are very much different here in Washington. Habitat, Human Population, Ranching & Land Use to name a few. If Washington would take a more measured approach, I don't think you would see as many extreme reactions opposing wolves.
I think it is important for the Wildlife Commission to hear from as many people as possible so we get a plan everyone can live with. In a few years our legislature will most likely be dealing with how to manage wolves if the Wildlife Commission does not do a responsible job with this wolf plan.
No arguement here. Given human population densities, and that wolves in WA would not be isolated from pops in ID, BC and OR, I think 5 packs for delisting would be appropriate. I think trying to keep up with what the northern Rocky Mt states can support is ridiculous. Habitat, human population, land use, the only factor in common with them is ranching.
Post by: MtnMuley on December 02, 2009, 08:11:11 PM
Post by: mulehunter on December 02, 2009, 09:08:50 PM
Mulehunter :rolleyes:
Post by: bearpaw on December 03, 2009, 11:40:29 AM
I voted 6. Not to argue with you bearpaw, but the wdfw gal at the local wolf meeting here said that a breeding pair can consist of 20 wolves. 120 wolves is plenty enough in my opinion, but if it were up to me there would be ZERO. ;) :twocents:
MtnMuley, everywhere you read there are different numbers given for approximate number of wolves for each breeding pair. Thanks for your info, I will revise future statements. Thanks for your input. :)
Post by: wolfbait on December 03, 2009, 02:41:12 PM
Post by: JackOfAllTrades on December 03, 2009, 02:55:44 PM
-Steve
Post by: 270Shooter on December 04, 2009, 08:33:03 PM
Post by: mulehunter on December 04, 2009, 08:43:45 PM
0
:yeah: Well Guys need Get busy up there and Practice shoot Coyotes! :bfg:
One thing to bring... umm.. Never mind. Oh a Shovel!
Mulehunter :chuckle:
Post by: Jamieb on December 04, 2009, 08:44:53 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 04, 2009, 09:09:48 PM
Almost like RABITS!
-Steve
Maybe Rabbits with big teeth.... :chuckle:
Post by: steen on December 09, 2009, 01:10:15 PM
Post by: Chewack Slayer on December 10, 2009, 10:20:18 PM
Post by: washelkhntr on December 10, 2009, 10:24:16 PM
The :mgun:y should all be exterminated!!! Wolves are going to devastate the mule deer population in the Methow Valley!! :bash: :bdid:
Going to ?????? They have already started!