Post by: DT_15 on September 15, 2010, 08:26:22 AM
Any help everyone can provide would be appreciated. There will be a Wolf Work Session before the WA House Ag and Natural Resources Committee in December.
Post by: Lowedog on September 15, 2010, 08:34:21 AM
Care to introduce yourself and tell us if you are working with an organization or alone on this?
Post by: grundy53 on September 15, 2010, 08:35:36 AM
Post by: Woodchuck on September 15, 2010, 08:40:30 AM
Post by: let.it.fly on September 15, 2010, 08:43:09 AM
Post by: Lowedog on September 15, 2010, 08:53:42 AM
i know there is a thread with a wolf pic in columbia county :dunno: i have heard rumors about them around here close, but have not seen "proof"
Thats right I do remember that. Seems like it was black and a pretty decent photo. I think that WDFW has acknowledged wolves in the SE of WA but has not said they have a breeding pair which is their criteria for a pack if I'm not mistaken.
Post by: jackelope on September 15, 2010, 08:57:07 AM
i know there is a thread with a wolf pic in columbia county :dunno: i have heard rumors about them around here close, but have not seen "proof"
Thats right I do remember that. Seems like it was black and a pretty decent photo. I think that WDFW has acknowledged wolves in the SE of WA but has not said they have a breeding pair which is their criteria for a pack if I'm not mistaken.
That is accurate.
Post by: Woodchuck on September 15, 2010, 09:00:36 AM
Post by: sisu on September 15, 2010, 09:05:18 AM
Post by: Lowedog on September 15, 2010, 09:11:28 AM
Lowedog, nothing against you now you understand, but I believe there are times that sharing one's identification ASAP could harm the data. Trust me on this for the moment, please. If & when the person or organization wants to introduce themselves that is their choosing. Besides we wouldn't let a "terrorist" into the flock.
No offense taken but it may help this person if someone does have info that could be of benefit to them if they know who they are and what they plan to do with the info once they have it.
I mean if this is just some every day yahoo like me what could they possibly accomplish? ;)
Post by: Woodchuck on September 15, 2010, 09:14:34 AM
Post by: bearpaw on September 15, 2010, 09:16:02 AM
Unit 117 - 49 Degrees - Wolf killed elk by road last winter, was seen by WDFW employee, too many wolf tracks to verify number of wolves.
Unit 121 - Huckleberry - Wolves spotted throughout unit by residents, deputy sherriff, plus 1 wolf hit by car near tum tum.
Unit 108 - Douglas - Two wolves spotted by rancher I lease from on his property. He knows wildlife, sees coyotes daily, no doubt they were wolf. Other wolves spotted in other locations.
Unit 105 - Kelly Hill - Adult Wolves and Pups have been spotted by a large number of locals, horse rancher worried, common knowledge breeding wolves are here. One confirmed wolf kill calf.
Unit 101 - Sherman - Wolves sighted throughout unit by many people in last couple years.
Unit 111 - Alladin - Two Wolves spotted by landowner last winter, her 3 dogs disappeared over the next couple days, dogs advertised on radio, never found or seen again.
Add this to Unit 113 and the Methow, there are probably enough wolves to delist in this state now. Talk to game wardens in NE WA, they probably can offer additional info about local sightings.
Almost forgot, I have picture of wolf near King Lake in southern Unit 113.
Post by: DT_15 on September 15, 2010, 09:22:50 AM
Post by: grundy53 on September 15, 2010, 09:27:41 AM
Post by: grundy53 on September 15, 2010, 09:28:47 AM
Post by: Lowedog on September 15, 2010, 09:38:51 AM
I'm working with members of the WA State House Republicans to make sure there is full disclosure by WDFW. I am currently reviewing about 7,200 pages of documents from WDFW. There was a post here showing a picture from a trail cam, identified as being around White Pass. WDFW email disputed that claim and said it was from the Lookout Pack. That's what led me here ... I'd like to produce proof of other wolves in areas not identified by WDFW.
Good deal! I hope you can find what you are after.
That trail cam pic that was alleged as coming from White Pass turned out to be some kid that "borrowed" the pic from another member and was indeed from the area of the Lookout pack. I think that was Mulehunter's pic and the kid was trying to stir things up.
Post by: Special T on September 15, 2010, 10:27:59 AM
Post by: bearpaw on September 15, 2010, 10:29:31 AM
Post by: Happy Gilmore on September 15, 2010, 12:06:55 PM
Post by: Tony 270 on September 15, 2010, 12:10:59 PM
Post by: DoubleJ on September 15, 2010, 12:24:35 PM
WDFW says there are only three packs in WA, right? If there are only three and you know the general area of where they are supposed to be then everything you see outside of that must be a coyote. And since it's only a coyote, shoot it on site.
This is the post of the year IMO.
Post by: Rudy on September 15, 2010, 12:26:40 PM
Post by: DoubleJ on September 15, 2010, 12:29:21 PM
I dunno DoubleJ.......princess made a good one the other day...leather, whips, that kinda stuff ;)
Oh, I missed that one.
Post by: runamuk on September 15, 2010, 03:01:57 PM
I dunno DoubleJ.......princess made a good one the other day...leather, whips, that kinda stuff ;)
Oh, I missed that one.
was in regards to gun safes not wolves :rolleyes: :chuckle:
I would like to see more photo and video evidence of the wolves here.....someone posted pics on here from the skagit with what by all appearances were wolves they might have been hybrid dumps as well there were some breeders up that way for many years but no matter how they get into the wild the fact is they are getting there and need to be documented and managed.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on September 15, 2010, 03:46:59 PM
I have no concerns with WDFW denying known occurrences of wolves. My concern is they won't devote the resources required to identify and confirm every pack in the state. I would like the Department to receive direction from the Legislature, the Commission, or both, requiring them to allocate sufficient personnel and resources to adequately investigate all credible reports of wolves, and provide reasonable assurance that all packs are identified and accounted. Otherwise, the hand-wringing will continue over funding, but they won't voluntarily quit funding all the "nice but not required" stuff they do currently, and first fully fund all mandated programs with existing resources.
Post by: StacyDave97 on September 15, 2010, 04:42:25 PM
Good luck with your research. Sorry, no pictures just my word
Post by: Happy Gilmore on September 15, 2010, 05:39:28 PM
He said he's seen suspicious animals at great distance in the back country but, couldn't ever be sure of what it is.
Post by: runamuk on September 15, 2010, 05:43:21 PM
My best friends' father in law was a high country horseman from Ronald for a very long time(grew up there) He says he found a carcass of a wolf near Cathedral Rock in the late 1970's. Said he called F&W, they sent over a biologist from UW. They came, put the carcass in a plastic trash bag and he never heard a word about it again. (he told me this story first hand)
He said he's seen suspicious animals at great distance in the back country but, couldn't ever be sure of what it is.
theres been NATIVE wolves in that area since 1998 to my knowledge it was kept quiet they were one of the few known packs of wolves that existed that hadn't been planted....all of this was off the record
Post by: bearpaw on September 17, 2010, 10:20:29 AM
THEY KNEW THEY WERE HERE IN WASHINGTON THEN!
Post by: wsucowboy on September 17, 2010, 10:38:34 AM
are you talking about the black wolf that's in the blues. There was a picture of that one on here and it was a pretty good pic.i know there is a thread with a wolf pic in columbia county :dunno: i have heard rumors about them around here close, but have not seen "proof"
Thats right I do remember that. Seems like it was black and a pretty decent photo. I think that WDFW has acknowledged wolves in the SE of WA but has not said they have a breeding pair which is their criteria for a pack if I'm not mistaken.
Post by: Idabooner on September 17, 2010, 01:21:47 PM
In about 1992 I sat in a WDFW Commission meeting and listened to the WDFW testify to the commission that we had wolves in the Pasayten and they wanted to close coyote hunting to prevent accidental wolf shootings.
THEY KNEW THEY WERE HERE IN WASHINGTON THEN!
I was packing for an outfitter then, and they did close coyotes in the Pasayten and Sawtooth during deer season for a few years. Several times while we were packing the mules at daylight at the trail head, the WDFW and USFS would come talk to the hunters telling them to not shoot any coyotes.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on September 17, 2010, 02:39:04 PM
"We don't know at this point whether the den where the pup was born was in Washington or British Columbia," Allen said. "We plan to monitor the pack next spring to determine the den location. If the den is in Washington, the pack can be considered a Washington pack; if the den is in British Columbia, it is a Canadian pack. Our Canadian colleagues are aware of wolf activity in that area, and will assist with monitoring on their side of the border."
A successful breeding wolf pack is documented by locating a breeding pair of adults with two or more pups that survive until Dec. 31, Allen said.
So we don't count a cross-border pack as a Washington pack, unless the den is located in Washington? That is ludicrous. If a pack territory includes land in Washington, it is a Washington pack. A den is a small hole in the ground within a territory; the area used by the pack should be the determining criteria. This isn't like establishing citizenship, for f***'s sake!
Following this logic, only animals born in WA would be under the jurisdiction of WDFW. Wildlife is the property of the citizens of the state in which it is found, at the time it is found. I am flabbergasted that WDFW would not "count" a pack if it establishes a den outside the border.
Post by: Little Dave on September 17, 2010, 03:02:00 PM
This is not reasonable:
"We don't know at this point whether the den where the pup was born was in Washington or British Columbia," Allen said. "We plan to monitor the pack next spring to determine the den location. If the den is in Washington, the pack can be considered a Washington pack; if the den is in British Columbia, it is a Canadian pack. Our Canadian colleagues are aware of wolf activity in that area, and will assist with monitoring on their side of the border."
It makes sense when the animals are thought of in the sense of huggable puppies and fluffy bunnies. If these were thought of as pests (apple maggot, pine beetle, so forth) they would be counted in Washington. It would take a powerful lobby behind the concern, and motivating action. They would be managed promptly. We will have no lobby like that until the wolves reach the city. I figure we'll have all wolves removed in about twenty years, followed by another cycle of stupidity about a century from now.
Post by: bearpaw on September 17, 2010, 04:35:02 PM
Post by: denali on September 17, 2010, 05:23:42 PM
This is not reasonable:
"We don't know at this point whether the den where the pup was born was in Washington or British Columbia," Allen said. "We plan to monitor the pack next spring to determine the den location. If the den is in Washington, the pack can be considered a Washington pack; if the den is in British Columbia, it is a Canadian pack. Our Canadian colleagues are aware of wolf activity in that area, and will assist with monitoring on their side of the border."
A successful breeding wolf pack is documented by locating a breeding pair of adults with two or more pups that survive until Dec. 31, Allen said.
So we don't count a cross-border pack as a Washington pack, unless the den is located in Washington? That is ludicrous. If a pack territory includes land in Washington, it is a Washington pack. A den is a small hole in the ground within a territory; the area used by the pack should be the determining criteria. This isn't like establishing citizenship, for f***'s sake!
Following this logic, only animals born in WA would be under the jurisdiction of WDFW. Wildlife is the property of the citizens of the state in which it is found, at the time it is found. I am flabbergasted that WDFW would not "count" a pack if it establishes a den outside the border.
Crap by that standard the only place that will have "TRUE Washington wolves" will be Aberdeen and Moses Lake. We are bordered by 2 states and a Provence with significant wolf populations or soon will have, what a joke >:(
Post by: whacker1 on September 24, 2010, 09:58:12 AM
This is not reasonable:
"We don't know at this point whether the den where the pup was born was in Washington or British Columbia," Allen said. "We plan to monitor the pack next spring to determine the den location. If the den is in Washington, the pack can be considered a Washington pack; if the den is in British Columbia, it is a Canadian pack. Our Canadian colleagues are aware of wolf activity in that area, and will assist with monitoring on their side of the border."
A successful breeding wolf pack is documented by locating a breeding pair of adults with two or more pups that survive until Dec. 31, Allen said.
So we don't count a cross-border pack as a Washington pack, unless the den is located in Washington? That is ludicrous. If a pack territory includes land in Washington, it is a Washington pack. A den is a small hole in the ground within a territory; the area used by the pack should be the determining criteria. This isn't like establishing citizenship, for f***'s sake!
Following this logic, only animals born in WA would be under the jurisdiction of WDFW. Wildlife is the property of the citizens of the state in which it is found, at the time it is found. I am flabbergasted that WDFW would not "count" a pack if it establishes a den outside the border.
I am sure this would apply to Den's in Idaho as well, which would make the Diamond Pack questionable from year to year depending on whether they are using the same Den each year. I am not saying that I know where they are denned up, but more along the lines that these animals cover a lot of geography, and it wouldn't surprise me if they denned in WA one year and ID the next and so on.
Same issue applies in the Blue Mountains in relationship to both Oregon and Idaho.
Post by: jackelope on September 24, 2010, 10:21:07 AM
Quote
We are bordered by 2 states and a Provence with significant wolf populations or soon will have, what a joke
That is the simplest explanation I have ever heard as to how the wolves came to be in Washington.
I think we have a winner.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 24, 2010, 10:27:52 AM
I suppose a collared packs location (state) could be determined with some formula figuring time spent in each state...but the standard seems to be based on reproduction.
:chuckle: I agree.QuoteWe are bordered by 2 states and a Provence with significant wolf populations or soon will have, what a joke
That is the simplest explanation I have ever heard as to how the wolves came to be in Washington.
I think we have a winner.
Post by: NWBREW on September 24, 2010, 11:06:48 AM
What if there are 15 wolves in washington area up there and 15 in the Idaho area up there. That's 30 wolves.....but it's only 15 in each state......still 30 wolves. Just look at how big the lolo pack has gotten and what has happened to the game in that area.
If a wolf comes across the U.S. border illegally....it should be treated as an attack and dealt with appropriatly. ;)
I do believe there are places wolves would be ok to live but there are many places they should not be. This is not the day of old. The population of the states have grown and there is less wilderness area in the states that can support a predator like the wolf. The N.W.T is a prime example of a region that can and does support a healthy population of wolves. Here in the states I believe our human population is too high and our wilderness area is too small to support wolves and let them be wolves. It's unfair to the wolves......send them all to Canada so they can live happy. :chuckle:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 24, 2010, 11:26:01 AM
Post by: grundy53 on September 24, 2010, 11:31:46 AM
I tend to agree that the populations Should be managed with disregard for state boundaries. Clearly the wolves don't know the difference. The problem with that approach is evident with the whole wyoming management debacle. Those animals are being managed as a population (within the region) and idaho and montana are being screwed by wyomings plan (or lack of).
i think all of the states should adopt wyomings plan.
Post by: NWBREW on September 24, 2010, 11:37:29 AM
I tend to agree that the populations Should be managed with disregard for state boundaries. Clearly the wolves don't know the difference. The problem with that approach is evident with the whole wyoming management debacle. Those animals are being managed as a population (within the region) and idaho and montana are being screwed by wyomings plan (or lack of).
You're right. Get the fed. goverment involved and everything gets F'ed up.
Post by: Little Dave on September 24, 2010, 01:53:06 PM
In a free society, is an insult to common sense to expect many different legislative bodies to arrive at the same conclusion. That is something we might have expected out of the former Iraq. It reminds me of when Sadaam Hussein was re-elected to office. Apparently all provinces conformed and agreed that he was the right choice. Because we are free to choose, if some want to manage wolves in a manner different than others. Let them. It is not as though the species is about to become extinct.
Post by: bearpaw on September 24, 2010, 04:24:51 PM
I tend to agree that the populations Should be managed with disregard for state boundaries. Clearly the wolves don't know the difference. The problem with that approach is evident with the whole wyoming management debacle. Those animals are being managed as a population (within the region) and idaho and montana are being screwed by wyomings plan (or lack of).
I disagree with this rationale. I think Wyoming has it right and they are being screwed by MT and Idaho. Just my opinion, that's all. :twocents:
But at this point, the best thing to do is for everyone to support HB6028 to remove wolves from the ESA altogether. I will start a thread on this bill if there isn't one already.
Post by: grundy53 on September 24, 2010, 04:31:46 PM
Part of Washington is in the same region and there is no plan. No plan at all is worse than Montana or Idaho.
In a free society, is an insult to common sense to expect many different legislative bodies to arrive at the same conclusion. That is something we might have expected out of the former Iraq. It reminds me of when Sadaam Hussein was re-elected to office. Apparently all provinces conformed and agreed that he was the right choice. Because we are free to choose, if some want to manage wolves in a manner different than others. Let them. It is not as though the species is about to become extinct.
Well said
Post by: jackelope on September 24, 2010, 04:32:39 PM
I tend to agree that the populations Should be managed with disregard for state boundaries. Clearly the wolves don't know the difference. The problem with that approach is evident with the whole wyoming management debacle. Those animals are being managed as a population (within the region) and idaho and montana are being screwed by wyomings plan (or lack of).
I disagree with this rationale. I think Wyoming has it right and they are being screwed by MT and Idaho. Just my opinion, that's all. :twocents:
But at this point, the best thing to do is for everyone to support HB6028 to remove wolves from the ESA altogether. I will start a thread on this bill if there isn't one already.
Dale...I don't see anything on that bill on here anywhere.
Bring the info on!!
Post by: denali on September 24, 2010, 05:29:25 PM
I tend to agree that the populations Should be managed with disregard for state boundaries. Clearly the wolves don't know the difference. The problem with that approach is evident with the whole wyoming management debacle. Those animals are being managed as a population (within the region) and idaho and montana are being screwed by wyomings plan (or lack of).
i think all of the states should adopt wyomings plan.
well said, the way things are going most/all states will adopt Wyoming's plan at some point ( and yes Wyoming does have a plan) if any of you think that any western state will be allowed to manage wolves as they/we manage other wildlife, game animals you are sadly mistaken, the lawsuits will pile up.
judge Mallroy only ruled on the question of political boundaries, wolf advocates had 4-5 other issues in the lawsuit do any of you think they will stuff their hands in their pockets and go home ?
Post by: bearpaw on September 25, 2010, 06:09:04 AM
I tend to agree that the populations Should be managed with disregard for state boundaries. Clearly the wolves don't know the difference. The problem with that approach is evident with the whole wyoming management debacle. Those animals are being managed as a population (within the region) and idaho and montana are being screwed by wyomings plan (or lack of).
i think all of the states should adopt wyomings plan.
well said, the way things are going most/all states will adopt Wyoming's plan at some point ( and yes Wyoming does have a plan) if any of you think that any western state will be allowed to manage wolves as they/we manage other wildlife, game animals you are sadly mistaken, the lawsuits will pile up.
judge Mallroy only ruled on the question of political boundaries, wolf advocates had 4-5 other issues in the lawsuit do any of you think they will stuff their hands in their pockets and go home ?
Well said Grundy and Denali. I am in favor of Wyoming's plan too, they have had it right from the beginning. They have provided a plan to allow for the wolf numbers required by the ESA, but they want to keep wolves out of the populated areas of the state and away from livestock. The reason their plan hasn't been approved is because the feds and greenis want uncontrolled wolf numbers throughout Wyoming and every state.
see this: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012404702_apmtwolfnation2ndldwritethru.html (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012404702_apmtwolfnation2ndldwritethru.html)
Post by: winchestermodel12 on November 07, 2010, 09:57:55 AM
Yesterday, I spotted a lone wolf in Packwood area.