Post by: sportsman002001 on June 05, 2010, 11:58:51 AM
Read this today in the chronicle about the game department introducing wolfs to Mt. St. Helens.
Post by: ELKBURGER on June 05, 2010, 12:02:59 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 05, 2010, 12:05:01 PM
Post by: Curly on June 05, 2010, 12:07:22 PM
Quote
By Adam Pearson apearson@chronline.com | 0 comments
In 1931, a pair of Hanaford Valley ranchers outside of Centralia killed a mother wolf and five of her cubs.
Gray wolves were wiped out across the state of Washington that same decade.
Post by: sportsman002001 on June 05, 2010, 12:16:04 PM
In 1931, a pair of Hanaford Valley ranchers outside of Centralia killed a mother wolf and five of her cubs.
Gray wolves were wiped out across the state of Washington that same decade.
Now they’re trickling back, with at least two confirmed wolf packs in Eastern Washington and another pack suspected in the southeast corner, where sightings are common.
They are the outliers of ongoing wolf recovery programs in Idaho — wanderers also arrive from Canada — and they are the cornerstone of re-establishing gray wolves in Washington.
With each successive pack re-populating the area around Mount St. Helens, gray wolves will get closer to the state’s draft plan for management options such as hunting, once 15 breeding pairs are reached.
“Certainly they have a capability of doing that,” said Rocky Beach, a wildlife diversity manager for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, noting how wolves can quickly cover long distances.
An apex predator, wolves are among the biggest controversies statewide for wildlife management.
“They were eradicated from populated areas for a reason,” Mark Smith, owner and operator of Eco Park Resort on Spirit Lake Highway near Mount St. Helens, said of wolves’ persecution in the early 20th century to protect of livestock.
Smith is a strong critic of state Fish and Wildlife and says the department should improve its management of elk and deer before allowing a “super predator” to enter the ecosystem.
Smith also says the elk herds in the Mount St. Helens area are smaller and not robust enough as a prey base to support a wolf pack.
“I don’t think it could support one very long,” he said.
Smith also contends that because most of the Mount St. Helens area’s elevation is between 4,000 and 5,000 feet, winter snow will drive wolves down into populated valleys.
“I figure I’m really going to have to keep an eye on my horses,” Smith said, adding he wouldn’t hesitate to shoot a wolf on his property.
The state’s draft plan for management of gray wolves could be finalized by the end of the year. Under state law, the gray wolf is an endangered species. In 2007 a 17-member citizen working group was formed to help state Fish and Wildlife prepare its draft plan.
John Blankenship, executive director of Wolf Haven International in Tenino and retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist, is a member of the group.
“When we started the discussion with the working group, I think there were several people that said if there ever got to be more than 100 wolves in Washington, that would be more than people would expect,” Blankenship said, citing the lack of habitat and prey for a robust population.
Part of the draft plan includes translocation of wolves to other regions once the animals in the northeast corner of the state reach a saturation point: five breeding pairs.
Blankenship believes that’s how wolves will enter the Mount St. Helens area if they get there.
“I don’t think they’ll get there on their own,” he said.
But he believes they can thrive there.
“The Mount St. Helens area could certainly use a large-scale predator in there to help with the elk population,” Blankenship said.
The wolf management controversy always begins and ends with ranchers, Blankenship said.
However, the former Denver deputy regional director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service claims that wolves are responsible for less than 1 percent of livestock predation in the Northern Rockies and Yellowstone National Park area. Statistics, he said, show that cougars, coyotes, bears and wild dogs are largely to blame.
“I think the wolves are getting a bad rap,” Blankenship said. “But they haven’t been there for 70 years, so they’re easy to blame.”
Insisting he’s not a “wolf hugger,” and with 20 years’ experience working with wolves, including killing wolves that prey on livestock, Blankenship said he understands the concerns of ranchers who fear livestock depredation.
“It doesn’t take anything to upset the apple cart,” he said.
•••
Adam Pearson: (360) 807-8208
Share Print Font Size: - +
Post by: TONTO on June 05, 2010, 01:41:36 PM
Quote
Smith is a strong critic of state Fish and Wildlife and says the department should improve its management of elk and deer before allowing a “super predator” to enter the ecosystem.
Smith also says the elk herds in the Mount St. Helens area are smaller and not robust enough as a prey base to support a wolf pack.
Finnaly something out of Mark Smith's mouth I can agree on
Post by: Lincoln4 on June 05, 2010, 02:02:14 PM
“The Mount St. Helens area could certainly use a large-scale predator in there to help with the elk population,” Blankenship said.
Share Print Font Size: - +
Like hunters maybe? :mor:
Post by: tonymoe on June 05, 2010, 02:36:59 PM
:yeah:
“The Mount St. Helens area could certainly use a large-scale predator in there to help with the elk population,” Blankenship said.
Share Print Font Size: - +
Like hunters maybe? :mor:
idiot!
It said blankenship isn't a "wolf hugger". Doesnt the man run and operate a wolf sanctuary? I just checked out the http://www.wolfhaven.org/ (http://www.wolfhaven.org/)
They got quite a few of them big game murderers!
Post by: JoeVon on June 05, 2010, 03:24:00 PM
QuoteSmith is a strong critic of state Fish and Wildlife and says the department should improve its management of elk and deer before allowing a “super predator” to enter the ecosystem.
Smith also says the elk herds in the Mount St. Helens area are smaller and not robust enough as a prey base to support a wolf pack.
Finnaly something out of Mark Smith's mouth I can agree on
What has he said that you don't agree with?
Post by: TONTO on June 05, 2010, 03:54:47 PM
[/quote]
What has he said that you don't agree with?
[/quote]
That would probably be enough for a whole nother thread, but basicaly his views on feeding of the St Hellens elk heard, which btw he is exempt from the new feeding wildlife law, and his push for Mt StHellens to be reinvented as a National Park. It seems every news story that comes up features a quote from Mr Smith that I just don't seem to share his views on. This time however I fully agree the Toutle valley does not need a wolf pack.
Post by: brush hunter on June 05, 2010, 04:27:29 PM
Post by: JoeVon on June 05, 2010, 05:04:33 PM
What has he said that you don't agree with?
[/quote]
That would probably be enough for a whole nother thread, but basicaly his views on feeding of the St Hellens elk heard, which btw he is exempt from the new feeding wildlife law, and his push for Mt StHellens to be reinvented as a National Park. It seems every news story that comes up features a quote from Mr Smith that I just don't seem to share his views on. This time however I fully agree the Toutle valley does not need a wolf pack.
[/quote]
Thats understandable, I to didn't want the Mountain to be changed to a National Park, and I also don't want a road punched through to Riffe Lake, but the thing about Mark is he steps up and puts forth the effort in things that he believes in. I don't know of another person that has put as many hours towards wildlife around the West side of Mt. St. Helens as Mark, and for that I respect him.
Post by: wolfbait on June 05, 2010, 07:30:39 PM
http://www.chronline.com/news/article_de25ab78-7068-11df-a359-001cc4c002e0.html?success (http://www.chronline.com/news/article_de25ab78-7068-11df-a359-001cc4c002e0.html?success)
Read this today in the chronicle about the game department introducing wolfs to Mt. St. Helens.
http://www.lobowatch.com/KillinTime2.html (http://www.lobowatch.com/KillinTime2.html)
Post by: Antlershed on June 05, 2010, 08:49:46 PM
Post by: Curly on June 05, 2010, 08:54:09 PM
Post by: haus on June 05, 2010, 11:57:26 PM
John Blankenship, executive director of Wolf Haven International in Tenino and retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist, is a member of the group."
Anyone know if there was a single hunter on this 'citizen working group'?
Post by: wolfbait on June 06, 2010, 08:07:19 AM
"In 2007 a 17-member citizen working group was formed to help state Fish and Wildlife prepare its draft plan.
John Blankenship, executive director of Wolf Haven International in Tenino and retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist, is a member of the group."
Anyone know if there was a single hunter on this 'citizen working group'?
I think there were three people in the group that were not pro-wolf.
Post by: lokidog on June 06, 2010, 09:14:31 AM
WeDoF'upWildlife had a public input thing open for the Puget Sound Rockfish plan until May 20 but already had it in the regs (end of March) that Rockfish would be closed now and forever in the Sound.
They do what they want with impunity as there is nothing we, the ones who fund many if not most of their salaries, can do about it.
Post by: Hunterman on June 06, 2010, 10:48:42 AM
Hunterman(Tony)
Post by: carpsniperg2 on June 06, 2010, 10:50:13 AM
Post by: heavy hauler on June 06, 2010, 02:59:41 PM
Post by: Tealer on June 06, 2010, 07:56:53 PM
Post by: Wea300mag on June 06, 2010, 08:38:38 PM
Post by: haus on June 06, 2010, 08:55:59 PM
ive heard stories of wolves in st helens for years. but ive also heard of bigfoot there as well ,so who knows..... :twocents:Heard stories of two separate incidences regarding wolf kills near St. Helens. One up on the 200 line near the 245 and the other down on Head Quarters rd. near the dump.
Post by: haus on June 06, 2010, 08:57:58 PM
When there is not a huntable wildlife herd left the state will finally realize that we, the hunters, are a huge source of $$. They can compare that to how much $$ the damned wolves will contribute. :bash:$394 million and 5,600 jobs per the USFWS 2006 estimate
Post by: wolfbait on June 06, 2010, 09:16:45 PM
When there is not a huntable wildlife herd left the state will finally realize that we, the hunters, are a huge source of $$. They can compare that to how much $$ the damned wolves will contribute. :bash:$394 million and 5,600 jobs per the USFWS 2006 estimate
Yep and it will not take to long for everything to turn over, so far still only two confirmed wolf packs in the state, even though we know that is pure BS. More wolves than most people have a clue and they are eating the hell out of the game herds. Folks will keep on hunting to the bloody end and that will be the end. All of the game herds will be in a predator pit and will probably never recover. :'( Get your pictures now to show your children/grandchildren.
Post by: RUTNBULL1 on June 06, 2010, 10:24:21 PM
Post by: dawhunt on June 07, 2010, 06:39:41 AM
Bob
Post by: Wild Bill on June 07, 2010, 06:54:46 AM
Shoot'em keep your mouth shut !!!!!
Bob
+1
That brush is awefully thick!
ive heard stories of wolves in st helens for years. but ive also heard of bigfoot there as well ,so who knows..... :twocents:Heard stories of two separate incidences regarding wolf kills near St. Helens. One up on the 200 line near the 245 and the other down on Head Quarters rd. near the dump.
I'd like to hear these stories.... I grew up in Kelso, and have killed elk out of the Coweeman every yr for a long time... Big yotes yes.... dont know bout the wolves though.... Seems as though it would be more spoken of as they would likely have their way with the wild horses as well....
Post by: bigbull94 on June 07, 2010, 07:53:55 AM
Post by: wolfbait on June 07, 2010, 08:32:54 AM
100 sightings were reported in 1981, and last year there were 200, ranging as far south as Mount St. Helens, Almak said.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19921206&slug=1528536 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19921206&slug=1528536)
Friday, April 17, 1992
State wildlife agents already have identified six packs of wolves in Washington's Cascades, and more are expected to migrate from Canada to the state's protected forests.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/archive/?date=19920417&slug=1486887 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/archive/?date=19920417&slug=1486887)
Monday, July 14, 1997
Biologists say gray wolves, migrating from Canada, have begun to repopulate the Cascades in small numbers during the past decade. But in 1994, the Fish and Wildlife Service cut the roughly $200,000 being spent annually on recovery efforts for wolves and grizzly bears in the North Cascades, diverting the money to programs in Idaho. (Illigal wolf Introduction)
But he notes that wolves already are repopulating the North Cascades, with or without government help. (Why do we ony have Two wolf packs now?)
If the studies pan out and local opposition is quieted, Dicks has envisioned airlifting wolves from British Columbia and Alaska within the next few years.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19970714&slug=2549520 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19970714&slug=2549520)
Post by: blindpig on June 07, 2010, 09:30:59 AM
Post by: haus on June 07, 2010, 09:37:31 AM
Post by: wolfbait on June 07, 2010, 10:03:39 AM
by whom? wdfw? Thats a situation where Weyerhaeuser would have to be a part of the decision, least I'd assume that would be the case.
From Washington February 4, 2010
This Wolf thing comes down to a follow the dollar thing. Weyerhauser tried to introduce wolves back in the 60's when I worked as a logger in the woods. They dropped at least 25 in the Wahkiakum/Cowlitz areas.
They were dropped to help eliminate elk and deer which were feeding on young trees the timber companies planted. At that time they also had a bear elimination program. My pastor from Quilcene was a part of that.
Weyerhaeuser hired hundreds of environmentalists in the 1980's to do their bidding for the giant timber company. Re-Introduction of wolves was one of their agendas. Weyerhaeuser also used them to help run other timber companies out of business by finding endangered species on their properties. Weyerhaeuser has been a "dirty tricks" company since the early 1900's.
My own personal introduction to the wolf program began when I worked for Crown Zellerbach. A pair of timber cutters we worked with found a cage attached to a parachute hanging from a 30 ft. evergreen tree.
It had a dead wolf in it that had apparently died of starvation. It had the end of one foot missing and parts of that stuck in a crack of the cage. The cage was built so the sides would spring open when it hit the ground. It didn't do that and hung in the tree top instead.
The cage and chute disappeared the day after we saw it.
That fall I had another "run in" with wolves while deer hunting east of Cathlamet and north of the Columbia river in the Beaver Creek drainage. I left my car in late afternoon and walked down a new road that had been built into the second growth. I heard a low howl and walked toward it. When I rounded a corner there was a pack of about six wolves shredding a baby elk they had just killed. At the same time i heard noises and growls to both sides of me in the timber. I made a quick retreat to my car, running backwards.
I was afraid they'd jump me from behind. They two wolves nearest me kept pace with me and I'd get glimpses of them in the brush. I got to the car in a hurry. It was getting dark and I was shaking like a leaf.
By the time I got done fumbling with the car keys and getting the door locked I could hear the whole pack coming, barking like big dogs and howling. I fired two quick shots to give me time to get in the car and all of a sudden everything turned deadly silent. They just quit making noise. I beat it out of there! I told my Dad about the run in and the county sheriff. The sheriff said the wolves had started killing beef cattle in Cowlitz county. Not long after that, the state hired professional exterminators to poison and get rid of the wolves. They got a lot of them but not all of them. My Dad saw one up the Elochomin River two years later.
My cousin and Uncle were with him at the time.
http://washingtonwolf.info/comments.html (http://washingtonwolf.info/comments.html)
Post by: Special T on June 07, 2010, 10:38:40 AM
Post by: haus on June 07, 2010, 10:48:51 AM
As to whether Weyerhaueser would be stupid enough to participate in such a thing again, I'd be very surprised considering the volume of lawsuits flying around the wolf reintroduction.
Post by: Wild Bill on June 07, 2010, 11:14:59 AM
Learn something new every day. I still plan on a S.S.S. approach.
WB
Post by: bucklucky on June 07, 2010, 02:54:09 PM
Post by: seth30 on June 07, 2010, 02:59:36 PM
Post by: Wild Bill on June 07, 2010, 03:18:47 PM
Post by: seth30 on June 07, 2010, 03:20:06 PM
Post by: haus on June 07, 2010, 03:49:19 PM
Funny you don't hear about them eating up on the horses though... Especially since they are in the Headquarters area....They might not be keen on trying to bite into something that fights back with brass knuckles :chuckle:
Post by: bigbull94 on June 08, 2010, 09:13:58 AM
I know for a fact that there were wolves up in the Margret. At one time I used to spend a TON of time up there hiking and hunting. I was up above fawn lake in the late 90's and cut 2 wolf tracks that crossed the road, the pair looked to be running at a good clip. They were obviousely wolf tracks, trust me I know the differance since a cyote was about 1/3 the size ;) And no, they were not dogs either. I was the only person up there at the time, no body else could make it to where I was at. I also seen a wolf bedded on top of an old-growth stump 500 plus yards away. The stump was 6 foot accrossed and the damn thing covered it . Different strain of wolf than what they are going to introduce. Oh well, the new canadian strain will eat well for awhile, too bad that the declining deer population will more than likely be extinct in a year or two.Funny you mention this area.I was scouting for elk during deer season with my cousin last year around this area when we came in contact with some other guys.They said we can show you some.It was a blue bird day with nothing moving or up,and my eyes/binos had seen very little.One guy spotted what he thought was a deer,at a distance of 1000yds.plus.Of course everyone grabbed there binos/spotting scopes and went to look.After looking at supposed deer,by a group of 5 or 6,we all decided it was a coyote.One guy decided to take a poke at it,upon shooting,all armed with good optics of some sort,watched either a 150#coyote or a wolf of some sort run off.I couldn't believe it as I took my leupold gold rings down from my eyes and could still see the "Dog",running through a clear cut.I have killed a lot of yotes,close and far,but this wasn't a yote!!!ALL PEOPLE THERE SWORE THIS WAS A WOLF!!I WISHED THE GUY WOUD HAVE GOTTEN IT TO PROVE THE WOLF DEBATE!!
Post by: Magnum_Willys on June 08, 2010, 09:39:19 AM
Post by: haus on June 08, 2010, 09:53:50 AM
Post by: haus on June 08, 2010, 10:00:56 AM
....,watched either a 150#coyote or a wolf of some sort run off.I couldn't believe it as I took my leupold gold rings down from my eyes and could still see the "Dog",running through a clear cut.I have killed a lot of yotes,close and far,but this wasn't a yote!!!ALL PEOPLE THERE SWORE THIS WAS A WOLF!!I WISHED THE GUY WOUD HAVE GOTTEN IT TO PROVE THE WOLF DEBATE!!Bigbull do you recall what color fur?
Post by: Tony 270WSM on June 08, 2010, 10:02:38 AM
Post by: wolfbait on June 08, 2010, 10:12:15 AM
The management of the Margaret and Toutle units has always been spun as being for the purpose of being for high quality trophy hunts.......under that massive area of very limited quota the elk population has done substantially well, they found out more than two decades ago that it was a much safer place to be come November. :chuckle: A lot of public and non-profit funds have been spent on habitat for that herds winter range.....and now its being spun as a nuisance and over inflated population? :dunno:
(and now its being spun as a nuisance and over inflated population? :dunno:)
To justify releasing wolves where wolves have already been released, WDFW have their release and discover methods down pat. WDFW started wolf recovery long before the illigal introduction of the YNP and Idaho. The "New Wolf pack" in 70 years proves and shows their lies for all to see. They do not care, they are not game managers, they are killers. They release and manage one species, the Canadian wolves which are killing our wildlife and our livestock. There are not words to descibe how low these people of WDFW are! >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
Post by: Tony 270WSM on June 08, 2010, 10:17:43 AM
Post by: wolfbait on June 08, 2010, 11:01:09 AM
The wolf management controversy always begins and ends with ranchers, Blankenship said.
However, the former Denver deputy regional director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service claims that wolves are responsible for less than 1 percent of livestock predation in the Northern Rockies and Yellowstone National Park area. Statistics, he said, show that cougars, coyotes, bears and wild dogs are largely to blame.
“I think the wolves are getting a bad rap,” Blankenship said. “But they haven’t been there for 70 years, so they’re easy to blame.)”
Former Denver deputy regional director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is talking to the fans, he would not go to Idaho, Montana or Wyoming and spout his crap. If everything that he has said were true, that all of the other predators were the cause of livestock predation and the desimation of game herds than people would not have any problems with the Canadian wolves. The main problem with the Canadian wolves is that they are and will kill everything. Blankenship is a perfect example of the bald fased lies told by the USFWS and WDFWS, and it stares out at everyone! So how is this happening to a country as great as the US? Where the USFWS and F&G can lie to your face, they know you know they are lying and they keep right on lying! Where is the acountability???????? :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
There was a thread on W-H about a new method to help fight against the crookedness of the Canadian wolf introduction and it's lack of management, was a good debate, but it was nuked. :yike: I say fight fire with fire!!!! Play their game the way they have been playing it. ;) :twocents: Call your senators and folks that can perhaps make a difference, Show them what the wolves have done to Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, call them so damn much they wince when they hear the phone ring. >:( >:( >:( >:(
Post by: wolfbait on June 08, 2010, 11:47:55 AM
The management of the Margaret and Toutle units has always been spun as being for the purpose of being for high quality trophy hunts.......under that massive area of very limited quota the elk population has done substantially well, they found out more than two decades ago that it was a much safer place to be come November. :chuckle: A lot of public and non-profit funds have been spent on habitat for that herds winter range.....and now its being spun as a nuisance and over inflated population? :dunno:
(and now its being spun as a nuisance and over inflated population? :dunno:)
To justify releasing wolves where wolves have already been released, WDFW have their release and discover methods down pat. WDFW started wolf recovery long before the illigal introduction of the YNP and Idaho. The "New Wolf pack" in 70 years proves and shows their lies for all to see. They do not care, they are not game managers, they are killers. They release and manage one species, the Canadian wolves which are killing our wildlife and our livestock. There are not words to descibe how low these people of WDFW are! >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
In Washington, Feds Opt For Wolf Introduction Over Recovery
June 8, 2010
Yesterday we learned there were 6 packs of wolves living in Washington’s Cascade area prior to 1991 and that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife fails to inform Washington citizens of this fact while debating the recent plans for wolf management.
Apparently, this common knowledge of the existence of wolves in at least the Cascades and Olympic Peninsula, had been swept under the rug all as part of an effort to promote introduction of gray wolves from Canada rather than spend what little money was available on recovery efforts. From the Seattle Times, 1997:
Biologists say gray wolves, migrating from Canada, have begun to repopulate the Cascades in small numbers during the past decade. But in 1994, the Fish and Wildlife Service cut the roughly $200,000 being spent annually on recovery efforts for wolves and grizzly bears in the North Cascades, diverting the money to programs in Idaho.
This link provides more information about wolves in the Cascades region of Washington.
With evidence that has been around for some time and denied by most wolf advocates, it appears that even though many felt dollars and effort should be put into recovery of the wolves that were known to roam parts of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and Washington, but instead all efforts were abandoned in favor of introduction. From the Seattle Times, 1991:
For the past decade, gray wolves have been gradually making their way south from Canada, extending their range down the spine of the Rocky Mountains, and are now living in several Western states from which they were exterminated half a century ago.
An estimated 40 to 50 wolves now live in Montana, with smaller numbers in Idaho and perhaps even some in Wyoming.
In April of 1992, the Seattle Times once again reports of meetings scheduled in communities to discuss the USFWS’s plans for Canadian Gray Wolf introductions into the Yellowstone region. All part of the efforts to create an Environmental Impact Statement. The Times reported that Washington residents should be concerned about this effort as it could become a model of how the state should recover gray wolves already living in that state.
Why should Seattleites care? Aside from being a controversial topic expected to draw comments from friends and foes of the wolf nationwide, the Yellowstone EIS could serve as a model for a plan to manage wolves that are rehabitating Washington state.
State wildlife agents already have identified six packs of wolves in Washington’s Cascades, and more are expected to migrate from Canada to the state’s protected forests.
In a pro wolf article in the Seattle Times in 1992, covering an event involving wolf advocates and their hopes for wolf recovery, the story pretty much remains the same as to the existence of wolves in Washington.
Originally planned as part of a recovery program for the northern Rockies, where wolves were brought in, the effort could become unique to Washington because of the apparently burgeoning population.
For example, 100 sightings were reported in 1981, and last year there were 200, ranging as far south as Mount St. Helens, Almak said.
Note: Is it puzzling that an article written in 1992 mentions that “wolves were brought in” to recover wolves in the Northern Rockies?
Again in 1992 a gray wolf was captured and collared in Washington. What was the chatter all about concerning this wolf and others?
Pierce said the animals probably are migrating south from Canada, where wolves still are hunted.
“It appears we’re in the early stages of re-colonization of the former range in Washington,” he said. There’s evidence the animals are breeding as far south as the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area just north of Stevens Pass, Pierce added.
Indications are that wolves were naturally recovering in parts of Washington and yet what little money was available for recovery was hauled away and dumped into introduction of wolves into Yellowstone and Central Idaho. Why? Another question everyone should be asking is why at this date when Washington is working on drafting a new wolf management plan, acting as though migration of wolves from Idaho is the first time wolves ever stepped foot there, is there no mention of the wolves that have been breeding and growing there before this apparent migration?
In 2002, environmentalists lined up in droves to petition the USFWS to introduce wolves into Washington. There was no mention at this time of existing wolves in Washington.
What becomes obvious is the lack of transparency and honesty when it comes to dealing with the general public such as in Washington’s effort to draft a new wolf management plan. What’s to hide? Is pretending that this is the first time wolves have made a presence in Washington somehow going to ensure the recovery of wolves? Is there somehow a need to lie in order to achieve the goals of wolf recovery? Don’t the people of Washington and every other state in the this great Union, deserve to know the truth about the history of wolves? In Washington, isn’t it still important to tell the people that wolves recovered on their own as early as 1991 and yet all efforts to recover this species was abandoned in favor of introduction into Yellowstone? Is denying the facts in the best interest of drafting a wolf management plan?
And the biggest question of all: Has there EVER been any honesty and transparency about wolf recovery?
Tom Remington
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/ (http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/)
Post by: bigbull94 on June 08, 2010, 02:34:50 PM
....,watched either a 150#coyote or a wolf of some sort run off.I couldn't believe it as I took my leupold gold rings down from my eyes and could still see the "Dog",running through a clear cut.I have killed a lot of yotes,close and far,but this wasn't a yote!!!ALL PEOPLE THERE SWORE THIS WAS A WOLF!!I WISHED THE GUY WOUD HAVE GOTTEN IT TO PROVE THE WOLF DEBATE!!Bigbull do you recall what color fur?YES,A LOT BRIGHTER GRAYISH YELLOW(SUN WAS ON IT),I HAVE NEVER SEEN A COYOTE THAT STUCK OUT THAT MUCH!!!It looked like a mix of standard gray wolf and yellow coloration of an alaskan wolf.I have seen wolves before up close and I know it was a wolf!I looked at it with good optics for a period of several miutes.We tried ranging with 2 different range finders,set up spotting scopes,etc.It took several minutes.No cougar either,seen lots of them dead,and 4 alive,and they walk,move differently.
Post by: haus on June 08, 2010, 02:47:49 PM
Bigbull do you recall what color fur?YES,A LOT BRIGHTER GRAYISH YELLOW(SUN WAS ON IT),I HAVE NEVER SEEN A COYOTE THAT STUCK OUT THAT MUCH!!!It looked like a mix of standard gray wolf and yellow coloration of an alaskan wolf.I have seen wolves before up close and I know it was a wolf!I looked at it with good optics for a period of several miutes.We tried ranging with 2 different range finders,set up spotting scopes,etc.It took several minutes.No cougar either,seen lots of them dead,and 4 alive,and they walk,move differently.Oh I don't doubt your observation of seeing a wolf, just curious as to the color since a prior poster had implied that he had seen a different subspecies than the Mackenzie subspecies in that same general area.
Post by: predatorpro on June 08, 2010, 03:07:22 PM
Post by: haus on June 08, 2010, 04:03:22 PM
Maybe its about the image, painting them as a helpless victims that need the WDFW to FEDEX them across our state.......
Post by: spikehunter on June 08, 2010, 08:04:11 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 08, 2010, 09:41:20 PM
Thats some odd stuff there wolfbait, I mean you have solid press stories from our local newspapers two decades ago, yet nothing about this is mentioned in any of the current analysis reports made public by the WDFW. Least I haven't seen any mention. I can't think of any good reason as to why they are failing to mention the recent past. Funding?
Maybe its about the image, painting them as a helpless victims that need the WDFW to FEDEX them across our state.......
Does kind of put a different spin on just how truthfull WDFW are doesn't it? WDFW would like to say in o8 we were just starting wolf recovery when in fact washingtons wolves had already recoverd some years ago. How could WDFW justify putting the wolves on the endangered joke list if it was known about the wolves that Washington already have. How could they justify releasing more wolves all over Washington in broad daylight? Thats Right the NEW WOLF PACK in 70 YEARS LIE!!!!! >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(( :spank_butt: :spank_butt: :spank_butt: :violent1: :violent1: :violent1: :violent1:
Post by: Axle on June 09, 2010, 08:01:05 AM
Quote
“The Mount St. Helens area could certainly use a large-scale predator in there to help with the elk population,” Blankenship said.
Here is foolishness in their own words. If they did have an over-abundance of elk, then why is there 'limited entry' for us to hunt them? Why not open up some of those units so hunters could get in there and harvest the excess ungulates? That solution seems real simply to me.
As far as large scale predators, the cougars have done a fantastic job of devastating herds over the past 25 years. They have also done a fine job of running elk into farms and towns too. I too would stay out of the hills if I was getting chased every day by a predator and had no protection.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 09, 2010, 09:49:27 AM
As per Wolfbaits last post
Back in November of 1990 elk hunting just Southwest of the 4 Corners ( Jumpoff/Naneum intersection) area of the Colockum I had one of the native subspecies scare the hell out of me as it exited in a hurry from under a tree less than 10 feet in front of me.
Post by: wolfbait on June 09, 2010, 10:18:07 AM
F&G Protects Wolves, Rattlesnakes
by George Dovel
For many years it has been illegal for hunters in Idaho to shoot at any wild game species from a mechanically powered vehicle, aircraft or boat, or capture or kill big game animals with pitfalls, traps or snares. The prohibited methods that apply collectively to all game animals, birds and fur-bearing species are listed in Idaho Code Section 36-1101.
The additional prohibited methods of take that apply only to big game animals are listed in Idaho Administrative Code under IDAPA 13.01.08.05. These include "any net, snare, trap, chemical, deadfall or device other than legal firearm, archery or muzzleloader equipment."
From 1945-1971 extended either-sex deer and elk seasons and multiple deer harvests in an increasing number of units ultimately resulted in record low populations of both species and a sharp drop in big game tag sales. To offset this loss of income, IDFG, the Commission and their support groups asked the Idaho Legislature to approve adding mountain lions to the list of big game species and charging residents $10 and nonresidents $135 for the privilege of hunting a lion.
Outdoorsmen pointed out that this would result in an excessive increase in lions since trapping would be prohibited and skilled lion hunters would only be allowed to
kill one lion per year. But the two year IDFG campaign was successful and the large predators were given big game status in March 1971.
With reproductive rates comparable to deer, it took a few years for the lions to increase but Idaho now has record high lion populations and harvests, with severely declining mule deer and elk populations. Because the mountain lion has big game status, the Commission hears demands every year for even higher lion populations from an organized hound hunter group that admittedly cares nothing about the impact on declining deer and elk herds.
This group ignores the necessity to balance predators with their prey species, insisting that no trapping, snaring or other effective methods that violate "fair chase" be used to control these predators because they are now called "big game" animals. The $50 bounty that encouraged professional lion hunters and trappers to effectively control lions and restore bountiful deer and elk populations is history.
For several decades Alaska‟s wolf bounty, and salaries collected by professional trappers and wolf hunters, allowed that state to maintain world class hunting for moose, caribou and dall sheep. But since wildlife biologists convinced the Game Board to drop the bounty and make the
wolf a big game animal/fur-bearer, estimated wolf populations have tripled and sport hunting for the three big game species has been severely curtailed.
Unlike the mountain lion, which averages only 2.6 surviving kittens every two years, the wolf‟s reproductive potential allows it to multiply at a rate of up to 34% per year where populations are hunted. North America‟s noted wolf authority, David Mech, recently stated that wolf hunting alone will not stabilize wolf populations, which will continue to expand until primary and alternate prey species are depleted.
Conscientious wildlife biologists in Canada and Alaska have recorded the decimation of moose and wild sheep populations and entire caribou herds numbering more than 100,000 animals by wolf packs where sport hunting was the only means of regulating wolf numbers.
I.C.Section 36-104 (b) 2 requires the Idaho F&G Commission to hold hearings to determine whether or not any wildlife species may be taken without depleting it. If it finds that an open season may be declared without endangering the supply of any species, it shall make a temporary rule in respect to when, under what circumstances, in which localities, by what means, what sex, and in what amounts the wildlife may be taken.
If the Commission finds that a normally unprotected predatory species such as coyotes are in such short supply that the take must be controlled, this Code Section allows it to set a season with bag limits and methods of take, including trapping and snaring. However it can no longer allow mountain lions to be trapped or snared without going through a process of altering their big game classification by exception or reclassification.
Armed with all of this information, the Senators who wrote the Idaho Wolf Plan included the following: "The designation of the wolf as a big game species, furbearer or special classification of predator that provides for controlled take provides legal authorization for Idaho Department of Fish and Game to manage the species."
USFWS officials approved the special predator classification "as long as it is a managed predator with set seasons and take" when the plan was written. Inclusion of the predator classification is the reason the wolf plan was approved by a majority of both houses of the Idaho Legislature, because it was consistent with their intent that the wolves be removed from Idaho, or carefully limited to the federally mandated minimum if they are not removed.
The Office of Species Conservation followed up on that language recently and the Idaho Plan was again approved by USFWS for delisting. It appeared that delisting would soon allow Idaho to cut the already excessive number of wolves in half but one thing was overlooked: the private goal of IDFG biologists to create and maintain a large population of wolves which may not be controlled as other predators are.
When the Draft Wolf EIS was written in 1993, IDFG Wolf Biologists justified wolf introduction by providing prey population estimates that were 600% higher than actually existed. When the Legislature learned of this misrepresentation, it amended I.C. Sec.36-715, specifically forbidding IDFG from expending funds or entering into a cooperative agreement with any agency, department or entity of the United States government concerning wolves unless expressly authorized by state statute.
Yet on September 27, 1994, while a USFWS public hearing was being held in Boise to determine whether or not Canadian wolves should be relocated in Idaho, IDFG Director Jerry Conley and Wildlife Bureau Chief Tom Reinecker quietly issued USFWS a special permit allowing the wolves to be released in Idaho. The permit was accompanied by a letter from Conley endorsing the strict federal wolf plan and agreeing to work with the federal wolf team to introduce Canadian wolves into Idaho, including providing IDFG staff support.
Shortly before the first wolves were released in Idaho, IDFG Wolf Biologist Jon Rachael wrote a Wolf Position Statement, which included the following:
"The IDFG supports wolf recovery in Idaho, believing that wolf recovery is compatible with all other natural resource interests in the state and that it will not have a negative impact on Idaho‟s economy. After delisting, the IDFG will probably manage wolves as game animals similar to lions and black bears."
The foregoing history and information may help the reader to better understand events that occurred during the March 24-26, 2004 Commission hearing and meeting concerning IDFG wolf management.
The published meeting agenda did not include any language indicating that wolves would be discussed so neither hunters nor the general public provided wolf input during the Wednesday evening hearing. However the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association requested that the wolf be classified as either a fur-bearer or special predator, allowing it to be trapped or snared.
The following afternoon, one of the authors of the Idaho Wolf Plan, Senator Skip Brandt, arrived to discuss the reasons for designating the wolf as a special predator. Commission Chairman Nancy Hadley acknowledged him and other legislators present, but did not invite his input.
Instead, Director Huffaker told the Commissioners they already had the authority to allow trapping and snaring of a big game animal and the other classifications were unnecessary. Commissioner John Burns raised the issue of "special predator" designation but Huffaker responded, "It isn‟t necessary – we intend to manage the wolf as a big game animal. It‟s what people are expecting and that‟s my recommendation."
Without further discussion the Commissioners voted unanimously to reclassify the wolf as a big game animal. The Legislators got up and left the room.
Commissioner Cameron Wheeler followed them out into the hall and explained what appeared to be a prearranged vote by insisting the Commission must get control of wolves immediately and stop the damage they are causing. I pointed out that once the wolves achieve big game status there is an existing prohibition against the use of traps and snares, hunting with airplanes or vehicles, and all other effective means of control.
Commissioner Wheeler responded that USFWS would never accept Idaho‟s special predator classification because they had rejected the Wyoming Wolf Plan. However there is a significant difference between the Wyoming plan, which allows all wolves seen outside Yellowstone and certain federal wilderness areas to be shot on sight, and Idaho‟s plan which provides for regulated take statewide.
Wheeler returned to the meeting and asked for clarification and IDFG attorney (DAG) Dallas Burkhalter simply read aloud a selected portion from the Idaho Code. Burkhalter failed to explain the difficulty that will probably be encountered in getting a temporary rule approved to overturn half a century of fair chase regulations.
Was Wolf Reclassification Legal?
Idaho law appears to prohibit the Commission from classifying or reclassifying any predatory animal as follows:
"I.C. Sec. 36-201. Fish and game commission authorized to classify wildlife. With the exception of predatory animals, the Idaho fish and game commission is hereby authorized to define by classification or reclassification all wildlife in the state." (emphasis added).
At one time the wolf was included in a partial list of predatory wildlife. The list contained 8 species then, including the starling, but lynx, bobcat and wolf were later removed. Since the wolf was never reclassified by the Legislature, it appears to remain a predatory animal unless/until it is reclassified by that body. DAG Burkhalter may disagree with that assessment.
(in my opinion, the track record of IDFG wildlife managers indicates they are so obsessed with the chance to get another exotic species to manage and sell the opportunity to hunt, they are willing to promise something they will not and can not deliver. Despite the myths that have been perpetuated by wolf advocates, no country has ever been able to control wolf populations with regulated sport hunting and trapping alone. – ED)
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%202%20April%202004.IDFG%20protects%20wolves,rattlesnakes.pdf (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%202%20April%202004.IDFG%20protects%20wolves,rattlesnakes.pdf)
Post by: Special T on June 09, 2010, 10:36:28 AM
I am in Awe of your ability and fortitude to amass the kind and quality of information on this subject.... Its so much harder for people to argue when you have so much 3rd party documentation.... I have noticed that even some the hearty skeptics have softened their position on this subject... Keep up the good work!
Post by: Curly on June 09, 2010, 10:47:15 AM
Post by: blackhorn on June 09, 2010, 11:06:53 AM
Post by: haus on June 09, 2010, 11:26:56 AM
Think it was back in 2007, 06, 05 hell one of em :chuckle: anyway....MF Elk season, we cut a single track on the east side of Steamboat Rock just above the 88. I wrote it off as being someones husky or german shephard must have snuck out of their camp :DOH:
Aint much of a jaunt from the Indian Heavens boundary to where we saw the tracks on steamboat.
Post by: Avidoutdoorsman on February 22, 2011, 11:20:20 PM
Post by: engelwood on February 28, 2011, 10:24:20 PM
I hate how this keeps happening in the western states. Frusturating.