Post by: groundhog on May 30, 2008, 02:21:23 PM
May 27, 2008
Ms. Harriet Allen
Endangered and Threatened Species Section Manager
Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way N
Olympia, WA 98501-1091
The following represents a minority position held by the following members of the Wolf Working Group (WWG) Jack Field, Duane Cocking, Tommie Petrie, Daryl Asmussen, Jeff Dawson and Ken Oliver (We) on one critical component of the Wolf Working Group Plan; the number of Breeding Pairs (BP) of wolves that the state can support. We are “unable to live with” the proposed numbers in the WWG Draft Plan. We believe the numbers are too high and will result in direct conflict with the Livestock and Sportsman Communities.
Currently the plan calls for 6 BP’s to down list to Threatened, 12 BP’s to down list to State Sensitive and at least 15 BP’s for 3 years before they can be considered for limited hunting( P.41 WWG draft). During this time period wolf populations could increase 24% per year (Bangs, conversation). Plus at the end of the 3 year time period, there is a very definite probability of one or more lawsuits as is now occurring after the Federal delisting of wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) area. It is estimated that it will take a minimum of 18 months for these challenges to work their way through the court system.
This same scenario will probably occur in this state. Consequently we could be looking at as many as 28 to 35 BP’s before control measures could be taken to control their growth. All of this in a state with Washington’s Population of 6,490,000 people and a population density of 97.5 people/sq mi (WWG Draft Plan). This is 5 to 6 times the human population density of the 3 principle states in the NRM area, MT, ID, and WY. (WA, WY, ID, and MT state web sites). According to the Federal Register, Feb.8, 2007, Vol.72, number 26 this state has only 297 square miles of suitable wolf habitat in the eastern third of the state (p.6117 Federal Register). It should be noted that this same source shows the following amounts of suitable habitat in each of the states comprising the NRM are, MT. 40924 sq. mi., WY. 29808 sq. mi., ID. 31,586 sq. mi., OR. 2556 sq. mi. and, UT. 1635 sq. mi. This same report indicates that if the 3 major states (ID, MT, and WY) can support 10 BP’s for 3 years that the species can be considered to be fully recovered and can be considered for delisting (p.6107 Federal Register). That criteria was met in 2002 (p.6111 Federal Register).
The amount of suitable wolf habitat in the remaining two thirds of the state as depicted in the “Application of habitat models to wolf recovery planning in WA” by Carroll indicates scattered habitat in small isolated areas of the Okanogan, larger amounts of marginal habitat both North and South of Mt. Rainier, and a large area of habitat in and around the Olympic National Park, an area that strongly opposed wolf reintroduction several years ago.
Therefore we feel that the WWG’s desired number of BP’s is unrealistic given the lack of suitable habitat and the much higher human population density of this state and that the requirement of 15 BP’s for 3 years (50% Higher that the USFW criteria for recovery in WY, MT, and ID,) defies common sense. This is further compounded by a recent recommendation from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game Commissioners to set the limit for a wolf hunt at 2005 levels which could mean 500 wolves could be killed this year. Idaho Fish and Game biologists estimate there are currently about 750 wolves in the state, but after the breeding season this spring they expect more than 1,000. The commissioners on the higher figures because they did not believe that hunting would bring the wolf population numbers down to the levels they wanted to see.
We therefore propose the following numbers of BP’s statewide. 3 BP’s to down list to Threatened, 6 BP’s to down list to State Sensitive, and 8 BP’s to change to a Big Game Animal. And we would eliminate the 3 year period since the state was not considered essential for recovery of wolves in the NRM (p.6119 Federal Register).
This total number of 8 BP’s or approximately 80 wolves would fit in the states economic analysis as outlined in Chapter XIII, “Economics” which states “Wolf numbers between 50 and 100 animals should pose little detriment to the states livestock industry as a whole…As wolf populations become larger and more widely distributed, financial impacts are likely to accrue to more producers” (p.23 WWG Draft). “Populations of 50 to 100 wolves should not have negative effects on big game hunting in Washington,” (p.38 WWG Draft).
The advantages of going with a lower number of BP’s are: The sooner wolves can be removed from endangered and threatened status, the more tools stockmen and rural residents will have at their disposal to deal with problem wolves.
The sooner we can get wolves de-listed, the sooner our Fish and Wildlife Department can begin to manage them, until then their hands are tied. The sooner we can get them listed as a Big Game Species, the sooner our Fish and Wildlife can turn them from a liability into an asset through the sale of raffle tags, permits, and Governors Tags.
We believe that these numbers are far too high and do not accurately represent the concerns that the livestock production community has with wolves. The livestock community has preferred zero wolves from the beginning however, due to ESA and WDFW requirements zero is not an option. We support the Minority Opinion Numbers of 3 breeding pairs to downlist to threatened, 6 breeding pairs to downlist to sensitive, and 8 breeding pairs to delist from sensitive and managed as a Big Game Species. The higher numbers that the WWG Draft Plan includes will result in far more individual wolves than Washington has habitat to support thus causing a severe negative impact on private land owners and livestock producers. Livestock producers must be able to protect their property regardless of the wolf’s status. We are also concerned that the WDFW has not effectively demonstrated its ability to secure long term funds that will be a requirement in Management and Compensation. Without funding there is NO Support of any plan!!
The remainder of the WWG plan is acceptable to the supporters of the minority position.
Jack Field Duane Cocking Ken Oliver
Jack Field Duane Cocking Ken Oliver
Daryl Asmussen Jeff Dawson Tommie Petrie
Daryl Asmussen Jeff Dawson Tommie Petrie
Post by: haus on June 09, 2010, 01:58:00 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 09, 2010, 03:45:45 PM
Quite sure the Okanaogan already has well over 80 wolves, maybe WDFW would like to share their list of how many wolves they have released in say the last five years in Okanogan County. Then we can conpare notes and perhaps start hunting wolves this fall.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 09, 2010, 03:51:42 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 09, 2010, 04:13:40 PM
Give me a break...why would you think that Okanogan has over 80 wolves? I'm still highly skeptical of any "reports" of released wolves. I don't believe that it happened, and thus far NO ONE has produced a shread of evidence that wolves were released there. :twocents:
Maybe you can explain why your buddy fitxin would lie about the wolf recovery project of the 1980's 90's? Or maybe you can explain why in the last five years the Methow Valley all of a sudden had many sightings of the big wolves? Or hows this. two wolf packs on the same day 25 miles seperating them and fitkin will not confirm. Why do I waste my time on you. :chuckle: Would you care to pull up the thread below and read about the first wolf pack in 70 years lie??? :o :o
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,51056.45.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,51056.45.html)
In Washington, Feds Opt For Wolf Introduction Over Recovery
June 8, 2010
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 09, 2010, 05:14:27 PM
Still waiting on your earthshaking court case to make the news too...can't wait for that. :rolleyes:
Post by: haus on June 09, 2010, 05:19:18 PM
same ungrounded BS with no documentation... show us the evidence of any wolf recovery efforts in the 80's and 90's...more than the same inaccurate newspaper article you always produce.
Still waiting on your earthshaking court case to make the news too...can't wait for that. :rolleyes:
wasn't an effort in the '90s cupcake the wolves did it on their own, detailed by NPS, WDFW, media outlets etc. Yet today everyone says 70 years!!! as if they just got here :dunno: apparently they got held up by ICE :chuckle:
Post by: jackelope on June 09, 2010, 05:24:33 PM
same ungrounded BS with no documentation... show us the evidence of any wolf recovery efforts in the 80's and 90's...more than the same inaccurate newspaper article you always produce.
Still waiting on your earthshaking court case to make the news too...can't wait for that. :rolleyes:
wasn't an effort in the '90s cupcake the wolves did it on their own, detailed by NPS, WDFW, media outlets etc. Yet today everyone says 70 years!!! as if they just got here :dunno: apparently they got held up by ICE :chuckle:
don't try and tell wolfbait they came here on their own.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 09, 2010, 06:26:09 PM
You're exactly right; they are coming on their own. it was only recently that the agencies were able to (put much real effort into) actually documenting the wolf packs. A transient animal or a pack that does not persist means very little, they needed to collect some data to document reproduction.
That's why the lookout pack was the "first documented pack"...not likely the first wolves to try though.
Post by: wolfbait on June 09, 2010, 06:57:46 PM
yeah that. and don't call me cupcake either... :dunno:
You're exactly right; they are coming on their own. it was only recently that the agencies were able to (put much real effort into) actually documenting the wolf packs. A transient animal or a pack that does not persist means very little, they needed to collect some data to document reproduction.
That's why the lookout pack was the "first documented pack"...not likely the first wolves to try though.
By golly wacoyote yer just a wealth of information, I'm sure glad we have you to clear everything up for us. :chuckle: Keep up the good work!! :chuckle:
(same ungrounded BS with no documentation... show us the evidence of any wolf recovery efforts in the 80's and 90's...more than the same inaccurate newspaper article you always produce.
Still waiting on your earthshaking court case to make the news too...can't wait for that)
Once again you come through with flying colors, how ever do you manage? Do you suppose the news papers just made everything up? Nothing to do on a friday but sit around the seattle times news office and make up wolf stories, Hmmm. I bet fitkin is some pissed off about all the lies they wrote about him catching wolves back in them days, or maybe he paid them to fudge up some storeis so he could use them in his job seach. What do you think? Really I am just dyin to hear some more of your ideas. :rolleyes:
The lawsuit, well funny you should ask because I was just talking to a gentlman this morning and he made it perfectly clear that it is on the way. Takes a lot of money to sue but one of these days all the ducks will be lined up and things will start rolling along. ;)
Post by: bearpaw on June 09, 2010, 07:10:54 PM
http://graywolfnews.com/ (http://graywolfnews.com/)
Have you guys read this before:
Gray Wolves' Return Subject Of Monday Meeting
Friday, April 17, 1992
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920417&slug=1486887 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920417&slug=1486887)
Post by: Curly on June 09, 2010, 07:17:39 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: bearpaw on June 09, 2010, 07:21:40 PM
Post by: Lowedog on June 09, 2010, 07:29:07 PM
Post by: KillerMiller on June 09, 2010, 07:35:59 PM
Post by: Lowedog on June 09, 2010, 07:54:44 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 09, 2010, 08:01:51 PM
same ungrounded BS with no documentation... show us the evidence of any wolf recovery efforts in the 80's and 90's...more than the same inaccurate newspaper article you always produce.
Still waiting on your earthshaking court case to make the news too...can't wait for that. :rolleyes:
Soooo waycoyote, do you suppose the government was in cahoots with the seattle times?? :rolleyes:
Where have wolves been seen in the North Cascades?
Since 1984, wolves have been seen roaming in the vicinity of Ross Lake (Ross Lake National Recreation Area in Washington and Skagit Valley Recreation Area in British Columbia) on both sides of the International Boundary. Wolves were photographed near Hozomeen (shown at left) at the north end of Ross Lake in 1991. Locations of other sightings in the North Cascades include McAlester Pass, Pasayten Wilderness and Twisp River drainage of the Okanogan National Forest, Glacier Peak Wilderness, and Stevens Pass.
Are gray wolves reproducing in the North Cascades?
In 1990, adults with pups were seen in the Hozomeen area. This was the first known reproduction of wild wolves in Washington State in at least 50 years! Since 1990, biologists have seen three separate groups of adult wolves with pups in the Cascades. Wolves mate in February or March. http://www.nps.gov/archive/noca/wolf.htm (http://www.nps.gov/archive/noca/wolf.htm)
Post by: Stalker on June 09, 2010, 08:04:22 PM
"We have so many wolves around that it is not funny. They
killed a 6 pt. bull right on the highway this year, ate a half of the
hind quarter and split; the elk was still alive. Several of the town
folks got together and killed it for a needy family."
I can appreciate the animals for what they are, top tier predators. The problem is the politics. If I believed we could actually sit down and come up with a true management plan then I would be all for it. However the lib tards who continue to lie and use the corrupt justices sitting the bench to promote their whack agenda make this impossible. Unfortunate! So I submit that this, like other hot button issues, need to be engaged often or we will have no hunting future.
Post by: wolfbait on June 09, 2010, 08:17:14 PM
Thanks for posting your story. Stalker
Post by: Stalker on June 09, 2010, 08:45:06 PM
I think the wolf issue is starting to turn around as more people see the damage that has and is being done. It is to bad that so many had to suffer before the truth could be exposed. Stories like yours and others explain how corrupt the USFWs and F&G are. If they were true managers of wildlife this would have never happened. Folks blame the environmentalists for all the time spent in courts fighting to keep the wolves listed on the endangered joke list, but WHO was it that brought these wolves into the lower 48? Who was it that embezzled 60 to 70 million dollars for the illegal Canadian wolf introduction?
Thanks for posting your story. Stalker
I hope you are correct in your position that "I think the wolf issue is starting to turn around as more people see the damage that has and is being done.".
I for one would like to believe that and again would like to have serious dialogue on the issue; but when serious money is involved, as you point out, figure the odds. With that being said I would submit we as hunters have invested a tremendous amount of capital bringing our resources back from the edge and in this issue (and a few others) we are being ignored. We do not want to see these animals fully eradicated but simply managed.
But unfortunately we may have to take an unpopular position with regard to laws that are for all intense and purpose unjust and do what we know to be right until we can bring some logic into the equation and remove the emotion; unfortunate. :twocents:
Post by: mulehunter on June 09, 2010, 08:50:49 PM
Mulehunter
Post by: Stalker on June 09, 2010, 08:52:55 PM
"Folks blame the evironmentalists for all the time spent in courts fighting to keep the wolves listed on the endangered joke list, but WHO was it that brought these wolves into the lower 48? Who was it that embezzled 60 to 70 million dollars for the illegal Canadian wolf introduction?
Thanks for posting your story. Stalker
I fullly believe that we the hunters / fishemen (women) remain the "True Environmentalists" in this mess.
Post by: wolfbait on June 09, 2010, 09:07:12 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 09, 2010, 09:16:39 PM
Post by: jackelope on June 09, 2010, 09:24:29 PM
So an 18 year old newspaper article where no one was actually quoted is supposed to some kind of proof of the great wolf conspiracy?
yes apparently you are depending on who you ask. Proof is not always a prerequisite apparently.
:o
Post by: Special T on June 09, 2010, 09:45:52 PM
Post by: Lowedog on June 09, 2010, 10:03:31 PM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.railbirds.com%2Fgallery%2F2009%2F03%2F25397tin_foil_shazam.png&hash=24094ab707f1368f2983ff020cc21a050b86f5fb)
Post by: haus on June 10, 2010, 07:35:39 AM
jack my response is in specific reference to the wolves sighted circa early 90's up in northern WA and how that has filtered through literature since then. ;)same ungrounded BS with no documentation... show us the evidence of any wolf recovery efforts in the 80's and 90's...more than the same inaccurate newspaper article you always produce.
Still waiting on your earthshaking court case to make the news too...can't wait for that. :rolleyes:
wasn't an effort in the '90s cupcake the wolves did it on their own, detailed by NPS, WDFW, media outlets etc. Yet today everyone says 70 years!!! as if they just got here :dunno: apparently they got held up by ICE :chuckle:
don't try and tell wolfbait they came here on their own.
Post by: haus on June 10, 2010, 07:43:13 AM
So an 18 year old newspaper article where no one was actually quoted is supposed to some kind of proof of the great wolf conspiracy?
1 article? lol. conspiracy?..... no 2 separate subjects here okay.
wolfbaits accusations of transportation are referencing more recent times. The failure to mention public comments made in the early 1990's is separate from this and has to do directly with how wolf history in our state is being presented to the public.
Post by: haus on June 10, 2010, 07:57:17 AM
yeah that. and don't call me cupcake either... :dunno:
You're exactly right; they are coming on their own. it was only recently that the agencies were able to (put much real effort into) actually documenting the wolf packs. A transient animal or a pack that does not persist means very little, they needed to collect some data to document reproduction.
That's why the lookout pack was the "first documented pack"...not likely the first wolves to try though.
'documented pack' ...something that I question the WDFW on and sent an email regarding yesterday. I question why the wolf information is wrote in the manner that it is on the wdfw site because it barely, just barely from a technical word for word standpoint keeps them off the hook from getting nailed in court for what they're saying on the website. Course thats my non legal degreed observation, by all means maybe it isn't adequate. Regardless of legal standing it implys that wolves were very sporadically seen in the state and just sudden showed up in established packs middle of this last decade. This runs contrary to:
http://www.nps.gov/archive/noca/wolf.htm (http://www.nps.gov/archive/noca/wolf.htm)
what this does to the uniformed is discount the significance of the fact that the wolves have been here for at least two decades and are doing fine on their own without any need of assistance by us via transporting them all over the freakin state, as proposed in 3 out of 4 options in the draft plan.
Post by: haus on June 10, 2010, 03:55:08 PM
Newspapers are not always correct. Many people are misquoted in articles all the time. If we believe the article as fact, why almost 20 yrs later are we talking wolf recovery? I thought these things multiplied like rabbits :chuckle:. Surprised we still have elk and deer considering there were 6 packs back in 1992. :chuckle::rolleyes:
Did you read the info on the NPS site? It coorelates with what the newspapers said ;)
As to your question, which is a damn good queston I might add and one that perplexed me also. It's one of many questions that has spurred me into getting really interested in this subject. There are so many gaps in this revolving story around wolves in our state over the past 20 years. The politics, the biology, the media, the studies being used, the studies being ignored. I'm slowly starting to get a picture and I do not like what I am seeing at all. I have a stack of information from media sources, pro wolf groups, anti wolf groups, and everything in between. It's all starting to fill itself out and I'm not liking what I'm seeing er reading.
I'm not referencing the accusations of unsanctioned wolf releases. Such talk has zero to do with what I've just said in the above.
Post by: Special T on June 10, 2010, 07:59:24 PM
Post by: Lowedog on June 10, 2010, 09:21:32 PM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bestweekever.tv%2Fbwe%2Fimages%2F2008%2F03%2FNAZI%2520WOLF2.jpg&hash=69e509a020a1476cb5222bc94ded7b1bc69eaeef)
Post by: haus on June 10, 2010, 09:23:03 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 10, 2010, 11:29:50 PM
Have any of you wondered why every option in the Washington Draft wolf plan specifies 15 breeding pairs? Wake up for crying out loud.
Most sportsfolks have no idea what has happened with this wolf issue. The lid is starting to come off in Idaho and Montana and it's not pretty, you ought to cut wolfbait a little slack. His "tinhat" accusations may not be so far off. Until someone proves him wrong, his word is as good as anyone elses, and probably more accurate than many.
It's easy to talk on here about how stupid all the "wolf haters" are, after all most of you do not live with wolves yet. Start talking to ranchers and hunters in Idaho and Montana and your eyes will be opened. :twocents:
Post by: haus on June 10, 2010, 11:44:59 PM
Post by: Special T on June 11, 2010, 07:06:05 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 11, 2010, 07:19:08 AM
The animals in PO county are larger (108lb male) the female has not been weighed but looks much smaller. He is from Glacier np and was native to that area (not introduced lines).
Both of the documented packs in WA are small, 5 animals in Diamond and 7 in the lookout pack. They should be raising young now, so we'll see how many of the subadults hang around and how many disperse or die.
I think the wolves we have now are native animals, they are not the McKenzie river valley animals everyone likes to scream about.
Post by: Lowedog on June 11, 2010, 07:20:17 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 11, 2010, 07:24:59 AM
The new wolves are also Nazi's!!! :yike::chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: yep...they're not just another animal, that would be too easy.
Post by: wolfbait on June 11, 2010, 08:47:07 AM
That's not a bad theory Special T. I think that determining the 'local stock' of wolves is important in this situation. The wolves in the methow (the lookout pack anyway) are smaller animals (weighed in at 75 and 65 lbs in the summer) and are coastal BC animals. They are likely the native animal for the north cascades and the west side.
The animals in PO county are larger (108lb male) the female has not been weighed but looks much smaller. He is from Glacier np and was native to that area (not introduced lines).
Both of the documented packs in WA are small, 5 animals in Diamond and 7 in the lookout pack. They should be raising young now, so we'll see how many of the subadults hang around and how many disperse or die.
I think the wolves we have now are native animals, they are not the McKenzie river valley animals everyone likes to scream about.
(The wolves in the methow (the lookout pack anyway) are smaller animals (weighed in at 75 and 65 lbs in the summer) and are coastal BC animals. They are likely the native animal for the north cascades and the west side.)
wacoyote you are talking to the fans agin :chuckle: Have you seen these wolves in the Methow wacoyote, that is up close and personal? I would have to say your whole little article above is, well you know. But that is a great spin kind of like managing more land for all the game herds. :chuckle: I would guess that the wolves that are migratin from Idaho just swerve when they hit the Washington state line. :yike: According to the papers the wolves that are in Methow now migrated from Idaho, so how does that work in you little speech to the fans?
Post by: wolfbait on June 11, 2010, 08:58:47 AM
Killerermiller I have a theory why if there have been wolves her for 20yrs and we still have game... The indigenous timber wolves are smaller in size and have small packs... It is just an example but near Sedro Woolley (West side N cascades) I saw a pack of 4 wolves following elk... I believ e the native wolves have developed some kinds of balance with the local area... The larger Norther gray wolf has large packs 12-20 and are larger in size 80-150lbs... I believe it is this invasive species that is wrecking havoc with our game in the Rockies and soon here. :twocents:
Thats a good point Special T, in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana they had a smaller wolf that never made trouble for the ranchers and game herds. The same with Washington we had and maybe still have some of the native wolves. But the wolves that are in the Methow now are the Canadian wolves and as time goes on for those non believers, you will see the end of hunting in a few years for the Methow.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 11, 2010, 08:59:04 AM
According to DNA evidence the wolves in the Methow are from BC... I know it's tough for you to wrap your brain around, but the newspapers may have made a mistake. In general, the press should not be referred to as "the experts". ;)
I have not seen the the lookout wolves. I have talked to the folks that trapped and weighed them and know what they weigh from that conversation. I suppose, you being the local expert, that your visual estimates are more accurate? I'm doubtful that you have seen the wolves "up close and personal" or have talked to the folks that trapped them.
If these wolves are taking over and you see them so often, why haven't you posted a single picture? What gives?
Post by: wolfbait on June 11, 2010, 09:20:14 AM
What the hell are the "fans"? :dunno:
According to DNA evidence the wolves in the Methow are from BC... I know it's tough for you to wrap your brain around, but the newspapers may have made a mistake. In general, the press should not be referred to as "the experts". ;)
I have not seen the the lookout wolves. I have talked to the folks that trapped and weighed them and know what they weigh from that conversation. I suppose, you being the local expert, that your visual estimates are more accurate? I'm doubtful that you have seen the wolves "up close and personal" or have talked to the folks that trapped them.
If these wolves are taking over and you see them so often, why haven't you posted a single picture? What gives?
I guess you forget about that old saying, " you can *censored* the fans but not the players" ;)
Why is it that the papers are always wrong according to wacoyote? :chuckle: 20 years ago the papers were wrong and now they are wrong again.
You are fun to debate the wolf issue with, sometimes I just let you step all over yourself before I say anything, and then poof yer gone. :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on June 11, 2010, 10:01:51 AM
Please if you have not written Judge Donald Molloy yet please do so now as he is about to rule in favor of putting the wolf back on the endangered list as I heard on the news tonight. Take the time to write again. It does not have to be a long letter - Just a sentence or two stating you would disagree with any decision to do so.
Judge Donald W. Molloy
U.S. District Court
PO Box 8537
Missoula, Montana 59807
It only takes a few minutes to drop a line or two and our future hunts will depend on the outcome.
_____________________________________
WOLF POLL STILL ACTIVE
The question this poll asks is "Do you agree with the decision by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to at least double the number of wolves that hunters can kill next year?
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/opinions/poll_eebadb72-6139-11df-a987-001cc4c03286.html (http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/opinions/poll_eebadb72-6139-11df-a987-001cc4c03286.html)>"
The environmentalists are weighing in heavily. At the time I voted, the
numbers were 40% "yes" and 60% "no".
We need to switch those numbers by going to this link - and voting.
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/opinions/poll_eebadb72-6139-11df-a987-001cc4c03286.html (http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/opinions/poll_eebadb72-6139-11df-a987-001cc4c03286.html)
Montana, like Idaho, is overrun by wolves. And the problem is getting
worse with each new crop of pups.
Post by: Special T on June 11, 2010, 10:10:44 AM
Post by: jackelope on June 11, 2010, 10:38:35 AM
Quote
I know that the people who object to WB rants on this subject have provided few facts/studies that run counter to his argument...
I assume that I am lumped into this group. I think I should try to make it clear where at least I stand on this. I don't know where the rest of this "group" lies but here's where I stand.
I don't object to what Wolfbait says. I respect what he says and appreciate all the info he posts...really I do...he's right smack in the middle of ground zero wolf country. The problem that I have with all of this is the processes kind of...If you watch what people say on here regarding wolf sightings, most go un-reported. We need to report them, regardless of how we feel the WDFW or the Feds are going to handle it. This is the only way we will move towards delisting and management at a state level. The more we get reported and the more we get confirmed, the sooner we will be able to manage them on a state level. I know it's not the popular route, but at this point it's the only route. This is what I try to push...if folks see a wolf, report it. If nothing gets done about it, keep track of who you spoke to and go over their head if you don't get any follow up from it.
Post by: wolfbait on June 11, 2010, 11:02:13 AM
*To eliminate hunting
*To eliminate gun owner numbers by eliminating hunting
*To destroy family traditions like annual get-togethers
*To further emasculate rural economic activity and health
*To eliminate grazing on public lands
*To eliminate ranching on private property
*To create political-cover "science" to justify more Public Land Closures from Wilderness and Road Closures to "Critical" and Pagan Land Closures, like "Corridors", "Wildlands", and "Commons"
*To eliminate the management and use of renewable natural resources like timber, forage, wildlife, and fisheries
*To replace the funding of state and federal agency budgets with revenues from funding with hunting, fishing, grazing and timber cutting with increased federal funds from the national Treasury that is so "Broke"
*To make current residents of rural communities fearful and stressed such that they will move to cities where they must give up guns, ride public transportation, and live dictated lives where powerful government authority is unchallenged
*To reduce rural land prices as people move away, businesses go broke, and new residents no longer see business or retirement or comfortable living circumstances
*To make rural land prices ever cheaper as federal and state agencies pick up parcels and non-government profiteers like The Nature conservancy profit from taking Easements and reselling parcels to government bureaucrats at a healthy profit
*To grow the power and budgets of federal bureaucrats and agencies as they claim more land and species that need protection (i.e. lock-up)
*To assure re-election of "concerned" politicians as they brag at election time and get "support" from radical organizations for "saving" this, that, and other environmental nonsense
*To strengthen the state/federal fish and wildlife agency alliance at the expense of state government and rural residents
*To create the future (immeasurable and never-ending) publicly-funded goal of "Restoring the Ecosystem" for state and federal natural resource agencies
*Finally, to please the imaginings of urban American voters (often a voting majority) that controls the national government and many state governments wherein the destruction of rural voter's rights in the emerging democracy that is replacing the constitutional Republic has become acceptable
Thus far, wolves have been the result of urban voters' acceptance of propaganda and misinformation about the havoc and ruin that wolves have been wreaking on "others". The urban voters turn a blind eye to the loss of rural America and traditions and cultures that they neither know nor will miss. Urban voters and their children are told the lie that wolves are tolerable and that a few rural eggs must be broken to make an imaginary "ecosystem" wherein they may hear a wolf howl during some future but improbable vacation. for mentioning these things I am described as everything from a "lunatic" to an "anti-predator" extremist that just wants to "kill animals". Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Published 6/10/10
An excellent article, read more at: http://www.lobowatch.com/WhyWolves.html (http://www.lobowatch.com/WhyWolves.html)
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 11, 2010, 12:00:15 PM
I'm not sure you've debated anything wolfbait. You make dumb jokes like the one above, and outrageous claims about conspiracies and wolf transplants but give no evidence to that effect. To me, and to most rational folks, a newspaper article is not considered to be a 'scientific paper' as they are often inaccurate.
I guess you forget about that old saying, " you can *censored* the fans but not the players" ;)
Why is it that the papers are always wrong according to wacoyote? :chuckle: 20 years ago the papers were wrong and now they are wrong again.
You are fun to debate the wolf issue with, sometimes I just let you step all over yourself before I say anything, and then poof yer gone. :chuckle:
If you want to make a claim, you need to be the one to prove it. It is not up to me to prove that there was not a wolf plant in WA, the burden of proof falls on you to prove that there was one...
Can you imagine writing a paper or report in the professional world without citing your 'facts'...you would get laughed out of the room. SAVEelk, lobowatch, and Kat Urbigkit are not exactly credible sources... :twocents: Talk to a wolf biologist or someone that works with them to get information. If you are on the right track then somewhere there will be legitimate documentation. Find those sources to prove your point.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 11, 2010, 12:16:21 PM
So Wacoyote... Since you have access to this biological data that I'm guessing tax dollars have paid for please share... I know you have said that you have acquaintances working on different aspects of this issue.... What do I need to do/ who do i need to make a request to to receive copies of the information that has been collected on this subject? I know that the people who object to WB rants on this subject have provided few facts/studies that run counter to his argument... I lean toward WB oppinion on wolves because there are so few facts to refute what he is saying.... I always like a good debate.... There is a quote that i like in reference to debate. "Instead of raising your voice, you should bolster your argument with facts!"
Post by: haus on June 11, 2010, 12:28:17 PM
That's not a bad theory Special T. I think that determining the 'local stock' of wolves is important in this situation. The wolves in the methow (the lookout pack anyway) are smaller animals (weighed in at 75 and 65 lbs in the summer) and are coastal BC animals. They are likely the native animal for the north cascades and the west side.You do realize the wolf proposals don't say *censored* about subspecies? The whole reintroduction is entirely dependent upon downplaying the significance of most wolf subspecies. So if your telling us that you believe those wolves are a separate subspecies which is native to WA.......your standing on the 'Easy Button' jump on it and do us all a favor!
The animals in PO county are larger (108lb male) the female has not been weighed but looks much smaller. He is from Glacier np and was native to that area (not introduced lines).
Both of the documented packs in WA are small, 5 animals in Diamond and 7 in the lookout pack. They should be raising young now, so we'll see how many of the subadults hang around and how many disperse or die.
I think the wolves we have now are native animals, they are not the McKenzie river valley animals everyone likes to scream about.
Post by: wolfbait on June 11, 2010, 12:41:42 PM
I'm not sure you've debated anything wolfbait. You make dumb jokes like the one above, and outrageous claims about conspiracies and wolf transplants but give no evidence to that effect. To me, and to most rational folks, a newspaper article is not considered to be a 'scientific paper' as they are often inaccurate.
I guess you forget about that old saying, " you can *censored* the fans but not the players" ;)
Why is it that the papers are always wrong according to wacoyote? :chuckle: 20 years ago the papers were wrong and now they are wrong again.
You are fun to debate the wolf issue with, sometimes I just let you step all over yourself before I say anything, and then poof yer gone. :chuckle:
If you want to make a claim, you need to be the one to prove it. It is not up to me to prove that there was not a wolf plant in WA, the burden of proof falls on you to prove that there was one...
Can you imagine writing a paper or report in the professional world without citing your 'facts'...you would get laughed out of the room. SAVEelk, lobowatch, and Kat Urbigkit are not exactly credible sources... :twocents: Talk to a wolf biologist or someone that works with them to get information. If you are on the right track then somewhere there will be legitimate documentation. Find those sources to prove your point.
(a newspaper article is not considered to be a 'scientific paper' as they are often inaccurate.)
I didn't mean it as a joke wacoyote, you said that what was in the papers in the80's and 90's was BS, now you are saying that the papers of today made a mistake. So what you are saying is, don't believe anything that the papers say unless we verify it with you first?
SAVEelk, lobowatch, and Kat Urbigkit are not exactly credible sources... Once again why do I bother with you?? The sites above have been dealing with the wolves far longer than Washington, they have seen, and showed without a doubt what the Canadian wolves have done. You on the other hand contribute nothing.
Post by: haus on June 11, 2010, 02:20:35 PM
Can you imagine calling yourself a wildlife biologist but only presenting preferencial facts to the public? You'd get laughed out of the room. Are you going to tell us that a majority percentage of the biologists studying these wolves are being entirely neutral and withholding any of their social or economic views from their reports? :rolleyes:I'm not sure you've debated anything wolfbait. You make dumb jokes like the one above, and outrageous claims about conspiracies and wolf transplants but give no evidence to that effect. To me, and to most rational folks, a newspaper article is not considered to be a 'scientific paper' as they are often inaccurate.
I guess you forget about that old saying, " you can *censored* the fans but not the players" ;)
Why is it that the papers are always wrong according to wacoyote? :chuckle: 20 years ago the papers were wrong and now they are wrong again.
You are fun to debate the wolf issue with, sometimes I just let you step all over yourself before I say anything, and then poof yer gone. :chuckle:
If you want to make a claim, you need to be the one to prove it. It is not up to me to prove that there was not a wolf plant in WA, the burden of proof falls on you to prove that there was one...
Can you imagine writing a paper or report in the professional world without citing your 'facts'...you would get laughed out of the room. SAVEelk, lobowatch, and Kat Urbigkit are not exactly credible sources... :twocents: Talk to a wolf biologist or someone that works with them to get information. If you are on the right track then somewhere there will be legitimate documentation. Find those sources to prove your point.
Post by: jackelope on June 11, 2010, 02:25:03 PM
is there anyone posting anything on here thats neutral?
Post by: haus on June 11, 2010, 02:29:26 PM
isn't everyone only presenting preferencial facts?On here? lol there's no neutral facts on here. I'm refering to reports from biologists regarding their thorough studies. It seems there are just enough of them to give every side some ammunition :chuckle:
is there anyone posting anything on here thats neutral?
Post by: wolfbait on June 11, 2010, 02:56:46 PM
Hay bobcat kid check out saveourelk.com. Yea wolves were here before but these are not the same wolves. They are canadian timber wolves, much larger and have much larger feet, adapted to living on tundra. It is apparent you have not seen the first hand damage that they cause. In the winter when game is pushed in low spots and congregated they just kill one after another after another. I have seen as many as 6 white tails dead in a quarter mile without a ounce of them eaten. There is a reason our grand fathers got rid of them. I could go on and on but what is the point, without having first hand knowledge I would just be talking to a deaf ear. You know there is a problem when biologist are saying shoot shovel and shut up. I am sure that there are a lot of people could back me up on this
http://www.taxidermy.net/forum/index.php/topic,200402.0.html (http://www.taxidermy.net/forum/index.php/topic,200402.0.html)
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 11, 2010, 06:07:55 PM
Can you imagine calling yourself a wildlife biologist but only presenting preferencial facts to the public? You'd get laughed out of the room. Are you going to tell us that a majority percentage of the biologists studying these wolves are being entirely neutral and withholding any of their social or economic views from their reports? :rolleyes:
Without speaking for the biologists that are working on the wolves in WA, I would guess that they are tired of being flamed (generally irrational rants) by the public for something they have no real control over. They didn't put the wolves here, they're just trying to do their job and learn what they can about them. Maybe there is bias, i suppose it would be easy to form...but I think the people (at least the field staff) are trying to do their best with the situation.
I guess the stuff I've seen from the agencies has been pretty accurate. Without going into ridiculous conspiracy theories, what have they said that was untrue? What evidence does anyone here have to refute their biology?
The whole documentation thing is a challenge. The agency can't really produce a news release about a wolf sighting...they needed to gather REAL information and document reproduction before they could 'go public'. I'm doubtful that they ever denied having some wolves in the state. Instead they were wary about making a claim of a pack when it wasn't reproducing. I think they were right to err on the side of caution.
Post by: bearpaw on June 11, 2010, 06:24:57 PM
I do agree with both wacoyote and wolfbait on certain aspects of what they are each saying. The state must use proven data, but on the other side of the issue, the agencies have known wolf lovers who are manipulating the process in order to get as many wolves on the ground as possible.
One thing I am sure of, if we can't quit argueing amoungst ourselves, how can we ever get organized to get reasonable management. :twocents:
Post by: wolfbait on June 11, 2010, 07:25:48 PM
Post by: jackelope on June 11, 2010, 08:30:08 PM
If everyone would lose the friggin attitudes and we start working together...you know, the way we should be, we'd get a helllllllllllllllllll of a lot more accomplished. I don't know if some of you folks know the kind of knowledge and contacts there are at your disposal just with the folks on this site alone. Open your eyes a little and you'll see it. The attitudes and arguing and pissing and moaning that goes on here is ri*censored*diculous!!
There are farmers and ranchers, outfitters, biologists, there are people running trail cams for WDFW and whoever else trying to get the wolves on camera right here on this BB....everything that we need to make a difference right here. If you all could stop pissing in each other's cheerios we'd be a lot further ahead than where we are now.
Open your damn eyes people!
Post by: wolfbait on June 11, 2010, 09:03:10 PM
Post by: Wazukie on June 11, 2010, 09:31:36 PM
Post by: jackelope on June 11, 2010, 09:51:29 PM
Calm down there Jack, you will blow a fuse, I just checked and nobody has pissed in my cheerios yet ;) How about you Haus? :chuckle: I thought we were doing pretty good there exchanging info. I suppose you are mostly talking about wacoyote and I. Tell you what after this I will just nod my head and not reply to the him. Hows that. As far as all the people that you just mentioned that we can get help from, they can jump in on this any time they want, cause it is a fact we need all the help we can get. ;)
WB...you do fine as long as folks agree or don't question what you say or what you paste onto the site. As soon as someone challenges(wacoyotehunter or me) what you're saying, you start moaning. It's old. The same goes for the other guys in your camp lately.
p.s. the last thing I'm gonna blow a fuse over is this stuff...
No biologist in his right mind is gonna want to come on here and try to carry on a discussion with you guys.
Post by: mulehunter on June 11, 2010, 10:00:02 PM
NO Discuss.
Mulehunter >:(
Post by: wolfbait on June 12, 2010, 08:32:15 AM
Calm down there Jack, you will blow a fuse, I just checked and nobody has pissed in my cheerios yet ;) How about you Haus? :chuckle: I thought we were doing pretty good there exchanging info. I suppose you are mostly talking about wacoyote and I. Tell you what after this I will just nod my head and not reply to the him. Hows that. As far as all the people that you just mentioned that we can get help from, they can jump in on this any time they want, cause it is a fact we need all the help we can get. ;)
WB...you do fine as long as folks agree or don't question what you say or what you paste onto the site. As soon as someone challenges(wacoyotehunter or me) what you're saying, you start moaning. It's old. The same goes for the other guys in your camp lately.
p.s. the last thing I'm gonna blow a fuse over is this stuff...
No biologist in his right mind is gonna want to come on here and try to carry on a discussion with you guys.
Well owl be be darned, I never realized that Jack, I always thought that when someone questioned what I put up about wolves or said, well then I slapped up more documented facts. Lets see I think what started this last go around was when I put the article about the wolves already being here in the 80's and 90's. and your "side" called *censored*. so then I showed a gov. article that said the same thing. As far as a biologist coming and "talking to us" quite sure we have talk to a few biologists, maybe not the I love the wolf kind, but they were biologists. Tell you what I will speak to "my side" and see if they will stop the moaning. ;)
Post by: Lowedog on June 12, 2010, 09:43:39 AM
(Edit...the above is my personal opinion, not saying I speak for anyone else)
Post by: wolfbait on June 12, 2010, 10:08:48 AM
Here is your problem WB... no rational person will ever take you serious. Your outlandish claims of conspiracy are not helping your cause. Your attacks against anyone who questions them are old news. You are the boy who cries wolf. The more you type the less credible you are.
(Edit...the above is my personal opinion, not saying I speak for anyone else)
(Edit...the above is my personal opinion, not saying I speak for anyone else)
Well that sure is a relief, you really had me in a panic there for a minute. :chuckle:
Post by: wolfbait on June 12, 2010, 10:11:00 AM
Post by: bearpaw on June 12, 2010, 10:17:47 AM
The simple fact of the matter is this...
If everyone would lose the friggin attitudes and we start working together...you know, the way we should be, we'd get a helllllllllllllllllll of a lot more accomplished. I don't know if some of you folks know the kind of knowledge and contacts there are at your disposal just with the folks on this site alone. Open your eyes a little and you'll see it. The attitudes and arguing and pissing and moaning that goes on here is ri*censored*diculous!!
There are farmers and ranchers, outfitters, biologists, there are people running trail cams for WDFW and whoever else trying to get the wolves on camera right here on this BB....everything that we need to make a difference right here. If you all could stop pissing in each other's cheerios we'd be a lot further ahead than where we are now.
Open your damn eyes people!
I didn't want to put it as bluntly as this, but this is the absolute truth. We need to show respect for each other and we must make our efforts credible. You can't bark at people and expect them to like you or to help you with anything. Discussion and debate about a subject is a good thing, but when the name calling starts, it really does turn people off. The groups that are making headway in Idaho and Montana are doing it by using credible arguments with photos of the carnage and reduced game counts to back up their claims, they are not doing it with name calling.
Jackelope I think it's a good thing you stated the obvious as bluntly as you did. Maybe we can all think about this a bit and find a way to help each other rather than using all the name calling which is really hurting the effort to get reasonable wolf management in Washington.
It's not only on this forum that this is occurring, I see it in some of the email I get from all over the west. I have had to step back and ask myself which people are helping, and which people are actually hurting the effort to get reasonable wolf management. I guess this is just another good example of why the greennies are winning.
We all need to forget the little differences in opinion, we need to offer each of our help toward the greater cause of getting reasonable wolf management. We can only do this if we quit bickering amoungst ourselves. :twocents:
Post by: Magnum_Willys on June 12, 2010, 10:42:49 AM
Post by: wolfbait on June 12, 2010, 10:45:30 AM
QuoteI know that the people who object to WB rants on this subject have provided few facts/studies that run counter to his argument...
I assume that I am lumped into this group. I think I should try to make it clear where at least I stand on this. I don't know where the rest of this "group" lies but here's where I stand.
I don't object to what Wolfbait says. I respect what he says and appreciate all the info he posts...really I do...he's right smack in the middle of ground zero wolf country. The problem that I have with all of this is the processes kind of...If you watch what people say on here regarding wolf sightings, most go un-reported. We need to report them, regardless of how we feel the WDFW or the Feds are going to handle it. This is the only way we will move towards delisting and management at a state level. The more we get reported and the more we get confirmed, the sooner we will be able to manage them on a state level. I know it's not the popular route, but at this point it's the only route. This is what I try to push...if folks see a wolf, report it. If nothing gets done about it, keep track of who you spoke to and go over their head if you don't get any follow up from it.
I agree with you jack everyone should report wolf sightings regardless of what they do with the info. My question is why do the wolves need to be DNA confirmed now and they didn't have to be in the 80's and 90's? After all wolves inter breed with coyotes etc. Is the DNA testing to prove that these wolves are Canadian wolves? Should it matter where the wolves came from? Does the wolf recovery have to have Canadian wolves in order for it to be a recovery? Surely the wolves back in the 80's and 90's must have been wolves.
Post by: bearpaw on June 12, 2010, 11:01:39 AM
If a pro-hunting, redneck, conservative state like Idaho couldn't politically stop the wolves from already killing off more than half their elk - guess whats in store for the ultra-liberal state of Washington ? Its over folks. Don't know how to plan for a hunting future in this state. Start saving $ for out-of-state hunts in wolf-managed areas I guess. Liberals figured out they don't have to try to outlaw hunting - they just have to get rid of all the animals and hunters will dissapear ! Wolves are their perfect tool to do it. Say goodnight Gracie. :P
Your logic is absolutely correct. However, let me ask you this: Are you willing to let it all go without a fight?
How we each answer this question will determine what really happens. Idaho and Montana are both making positive headway, we can use what they have learned to make a difference here in Washington. If you really want to throw in the towel on hunting so be it, but I intend to fight this to the bitter end, I hope it will be with you and thousands of others help. :twocents:
Post by: Ray on June 12, 2010, 11:03:48 AM
When I look at what the federal government has permitted to happen to the elk herds in Idaho and other areas where wolves have been either reintroduced or where the federal government has not permitted management at the state level, my first instinct on the matter is to not trust the feds.
What seems evident is that the federal government doesn't seem to have a handle on how many wolves there are in the Okanagon or anywhere else which I have read about. The result is an utter destruction of elk and deer numbers when wolf management is non existent. What else seems obvious is the lowballing of wolf populations. Now that might not be attributable to a conspiracy theory but it seems factual that this low balling of wolf population counts is taking place and some here expect it to be done. Including some stating that they approve of this openly. That's ok, and I do not personally criticize those people. However there are consequences for matters such as this.
I believe the feds need to stay out of the way of local management issues with regards to wolves and avoid introducing any species which are not native. The wolf is not an endangered species in my book. They thrive quite well in Canada , Alaska and many parts of the northern portions of the lower 48 states. When I take that into consideration it is evident to me that states should have the full authority to manage them how they please. Specifically without federal oversight.
Now if we are aware that most estimates on wolf populations are very inaccurate and biolgists tend to make their estimates on the lower end of the spectrum then we should demand better management, more public exposure into the process and responsibility from the state and federal agencies. The officers and biologists of these agencies will continue to lose credibility and public trust the more they whitewash evidence. Evidence doesn't mean it is only valid when it is obtained by the government. Human witnesses can provide credible evidence by personal accounts. You don't always need a photo and a carcass. If the government employees continue to discard personal accounts as they have been , then they are asking for a struggle with the citizens and are responsible for some of the negative reaction they are dealing with on this matter.
The critics who want more accountability from the government would be best served being somewhat aware of how they send their messages by considering how it will be received. Most of this can be achieved by careful review on how wolf management proponent articles and criticism is written. Yelling matches back and forth are not very productive. Think results. Frankly I think that one or several of you management proponents should create a well written web log and detail encounters and evidence in Washington as well as provide a space to share thoughtful and intelligent opinion. It should probably be sprinkled with ideas and reasoning for wolf management. The wolf info pages are a big step in that direction.
I'm not really a hardcare proponent of wolf management in Washington. However I think that there should be more attention on the matter because I don't trust the federal government to get anything half correct.
Post by: wolfbait on June 12, 2010, 11:15:24 AM
If a pro-hunting, redneck, conservative state like Idaho couldn't politically stop the wolves from already killing off more than half their elk - guess whats in store for the ultra-liberal state of Washington ? Its over folks. Don't know how to plan for a hunting future in this state. Start saving $ for out-of-state hunts in wolf-managed areas I guess. Liberals figured out they don't have to try to outlaw hunting - they just have to get rid of all the animals and hunters will dissapear ! Wolves are their perfect tool to do it. Say goodnight Gracie. :P
Kind of have to agree with you Magnum, take the Methow Valley in few more years there won't be anything left to hunt, and with wolf sightings throughout the state and no effort to confirm wolf packs, no wolf management plan yet, and how many years before delisting? On the other hand if enough people get involved an fight for honest management maybe not all of Washington will have to end up like the Methow valley. How do we force WDFW to confirm wolf packs? Some folks have suggested putting together a wolf team to go through Washington and document wolf packs and then go public, maybe shame WDFW into being honest. :dunno: I discussed this with a WDFW employee, her reply was that all wolf packs have to be DNA tested in order to confirm and WDFW does no have the man power to chase down wolf packs on someones say so. :dunno:
Post by: wolfbait on June 12, 2010, 11:19:16 AM
Post by: Special T on June 12, 2010, 12:32:12 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 12, 2010, 01:24:41 PM
Quote
Frankly I think that one or several of you management proponents should create a well written web log and detail encounters and evidence in Washington as well as provide a space to share thoughtful and intelligent opinion. It should probably be sprinkled with ideas and reasoning for wolf management. The wolf info pages are a big step in that direction.
Good Idea, I have talked about doing this in the past to my wolf info site, not quite sure how to add a blog/log or whatever to allow people to add comments, info, etc. But I would like to do it.
Post by: Little Dave on June 12, 2010, 09:06:51 PM
I discussed this with a WDFW employee, her reply was that all wolf packs have to be DNA tested in order to confirm and WDFW does no have the man power to chase down wolf packs on someones say so. :dunno:
Private citizens can capture probable wolves and collect specimens for testing. This is arranged through the "scientific permit." The permit is issued by WDFW. Presumably, during capture, if the animal is determined by a credible biologist to be a hybrid, it could be dispatched as provided by law.
We don't have to wait for the state to do any of this. We can do this... and I have some experience working with the state in this capacity.
Post by: Little Dave on June 12, 2010, 09:38:10 PM
They loved seeing the wolves there. It was May, so there weren't hordes of tourists along the road yet, but they saw bison, they did see elk, they saw wolves eating elk, pulling an elk's carcass out of the Madison River. A bald eagle eating scraps off of it the next day. Lots of bison, a few close encounters that they were thrilled about. They noted that the park ranger there said that one whole pack of wolves died off this last year, the original "Druid" pack. The ranger cited the cause was mange and other diseases spread to the wolves by an unauthorized release of domestic dogs containing these diseases.
My friends don't hunt but they say that they don't have any problem with hunting particularly when the hunter uses the whole animal. Their opinion on wolves is that wolves are a great way of bringing a natural balance back to nature. They percieve human attempts to balance animal populations as unsuccessful suggesting that we've been at this for 200 years, and it isn't working.
They seemed a bit surprised when I described the natural setting 100 years ago as a wasteland and nothing that we would recognize today. What we see and have become accustomed to seeing the product of a century of restoration sustained by the personal investment of sportsmen.
In other words, we need to re-teach the story with a few key points:
100 years ago, the woods were silent.
We did it, we restored it to what you see today.
It cannot stay this way on its own.
You have to know this story and tell it to everybody you know. You also have to re-tell the story to people every five years.
Post by: jackelope on June 12, 2010, 10:10:42 PM
QuoteI know that the people who object to WB rants on this subject have provided few facts/studies that run counter to his argument...
I assume that I am lumped into this group. I think I should try to make it clear where at least I stand on this. I don't know where the rest of this "group" lies but here's where I stand.
I don't object to what Wolfbait says. I respect what he says and appreciate all the info he posts...really I do...he's right smack in the middle of ground zero wolf country. The problem that I have with all of this is the processes kind of...If you watch what people say on here regarding wolf sightings, most go un-reported. We need to report them, regardless of how we feel the WDFW or the Feds are going to handle it. This is the only way we will move towards delisting and management at a state level. The more we get reported and the more we get confirmed, the sooner we will be able to manage them on a state level. I know it's not the popular route, but at this point it's the only route. This is what I try to push...if folks see a wolf, report it. If nothing gets done about it, keep track of who you spoke to and go over their head if you don't get any follow up from it.
I agree with you jack everyone should report wolf sightings regardless of what they do with the info. My question is why do the wolves need to be DNA confirmed now and they didn't have to be in the 80's and 90's? After all wolves inter breed with coyotes etc. Is the DNA testing to prove that these wolves are Canadian wolves? Should it matter where the wolves came from? Does the wolf recovery have to have Canadian wolves in order for it to be a recovery? Surely the wolves back in the 80's and 90's must have been wolves.
The photo's that have been posted on here from Wacoyotehunter should provide you with more than enough reason to understand why DNA is now used to verify wolves.
We've had threads on here before about wolf sightings in Maple Valley....
This one's a great reason alone for requiring DNA:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,38112.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,38112.0.html)
Post by: wolfbait on June 13, 2010, 04:36:41 AM
QuoteI know that the people who object to WB rants on this subject have provided few facts/studies that run counter to his argument...
I assume that I am lumped into this group. I think I should try to make it clear where at least I stand on this. I don't know where the rest of this "group" lies but here's where I stand.
I don't object to what Wolfbait says. I respect what he says and appreciate all the info he posts...really I do...he's right smack in the middle of ground zero wolf country. The problem that I have with all of this is the processes kind of...If you watch what people say on here regarding wolf sightings, most go un-reported. We need to report them, regardless of how we feel the WDFW or the Feds are going to handle it. This is the only way we will move towards delisting and management at a state level. The more we get reported and the more we get confirmed, the sooner we will be able to manage them on a state level. I know it's not the popular route, but at this point it's the only route. This is what I try to push...if folks see a wolf, report it. If nothing gets done about it, keep track of who you spoke to and go over their head if you don't get any follow up from it.
I agree with you jack everyone should report wolf sightings regardless of what they do with the info. My question is why do the wolves need to be DNA confirmed now and they didn't have to be in the 80's and 90's? After all wolves inter breed with coyotes etc. Is the DNA testing to prove that these wolves are Canadian wolves? Should it matter where the wolves came from? Does the wolf recovery have to have Canadian wolves in order for it to be a recovery? Surely the wolves back in the 80's and 90's must have been wolves.
The photo's that have been posted on here from Wacoyotehunter should provide you with more than enough reason to understand why DNA is now used to verify wolves.
We've had threads on here before about wolf sightings in Maple Valley....
This one's a great reason alone for requiring DNA:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,38112.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,38112.0.html)
I guess for me that is not a good enough reason, maybe if the public was doing the confirming of wolves then I could understand. But the WDFW are supposed to be able to recognize the difference between wolves and dogs. I don't have the training that a biologist has, but I have seen many wolves and knew without a doubt that it wasn't someone's Malamute. In my opinion DNA testing has good scientific value, but when it is used as an excuse for questionable or illegal behavior it detracts from the value intended. As you know, wolves do not always remain purebreds as they tend over time to mate with coyotes and dogs, hence the black and red-legged wolf. In my opinion the DNA testing to confirm is just another way to move the goal post in confirming wolves and the packs.
Post by: wolfbait on June 13, 2010, 04:59:30 AM
I discussed this with a WDFW employee, her reply was that all wolf packs have to be DNA tested in order to confirm and WDFW does no have the man power to chase down wolf packs on someones say so. :dunno:
Private citizens can capture probable wolves and collect specimens for testing. This is arranged through the "scientific permit." The permit is issued by WDFW. Presumably, during capture, if the animal is determined by a credible biologist to be a hybrid, it could be dispatched as provided by law.
We don't have to wait for the state to do any of this. We can do this... and I have some experience working with the state in this capacity.
Dave, how hard would it be to get one of those permits?
Post by: haus on June 13, 2010, 12:33:33 PM
While the science is just one part of the politics, public opinion is a key component. I spoke to some good friends today that returned from a trip to Yellowstone last month.people seem to forget this lands been hunted for +15,000 years. Might one assume that several million hunter gatherers were providing balance to the environment? Nature is not in balance without our influence, how would we know that it would be? Do we have any evidence to support such a claim of balance? Only our influence balances nature. 'Natural Balance' is bambi nonsense. I believed in the 'balance' pipedream for most of my life until I finally asked the question.....if there were several million natives here before us, then has this land ever gone without hunting by humans for one reason or another? So if we want balance the land must be hunted, therefore "I hunt because someone has to" :chuckle:
They loved seeing the wolves there. It was May, so there weren't hordes of tourists along the road yet, but they saw bison, they did see elk, they saw wolves eating elk, pulling an elk's carcass out of the Madison River. A bald eagle eating scraps off of it the next day. Lots of bison, a few close encounters that they were thrilled about. They noted that the park ranger there said that one whole pack of wolves died off this last year, the original "Druid" pack. The ranger cited the cause was mange and other diseases spread to the wolves by an unauthorized release of domestic dogs containing these diseases.
My friends don't hunt but they say that they don't have any problem with hunting particularly when the hunter uses the whole animal. Their opinion on wolves is that wolves are a great way of bringing a natural balance back to nature. They percieve human attempts to balance animal populations as unsuccessful suggesting that we've been at this for 200 years, and it isn't working.
They seemed a bit surprised when I described the natural setting 100 years ago as a wasteland and nothing that we would recognize today. What we see and have become accustomed to seeing the product of a century of restoration sustained by the personal investment of sportsmen.
In other words, we need to re-teach the story with a few key points:
100 years ago, the woods were silent.
We did it, we restored it to what you see today.
It cannot stay this way on its own.
You have to know this story and tell it to everybody you know. You also have to re-tell the story to people every five years.
I'm thinking the natives consumed what they needed until supplies ran scarce then moved to another area, rinse repeat. Based on stories from settlers I'd say there is plenty of evidence to support this.
Post by: haus on June 13, 2010, 12:44:55 PM
So whats your opinion of the wolf information on the NPS page? I believe the links been provided several times.
Can you imagine calling yourself a wildlife biologist but only presenting preferencial facts to the public? You'd get laughed out of the room. Are you going to tell us that a majority percentage of the biologists studying these wolves are being entirely neutral and withholding any of their social or economic views from their reports? :rolleyes:
Without speaking for the biologists that are working on the wolves in WA, I would guess that they are tired of being flamed (generally irrational rants) by the public for something they have no real control over. They didn't put the wolves here, they're just trying to do their job and learn what they can about them. Maybe there is bias, i suppose it would be easy to form...but I think the people (at least the field staff) are trying to do their best with the situation.
I guess the stuff I've seen from the agencies has been pretty accurate. Without going into ridiculous conspiracy theories, what have they said that was untrue? What evidence does anyone here have to refute their biology?
The whole documentation thing is a challenge. The agency can't really produce a news release about a wolf sighting...they needed to gather REAL information and document reproduction before they could 'go public'. I'm doubtful that they ever denied having some wolves in the state. Instead they were wary about making a claim of a pack when it wasn't reproducing. I think they were right to err on the side of caution.
Contradictory reports have been coming out for a long time, I've yet to see unanimous reporting, so the question is, who's accurate? Some biologists are stating massive losses in ungulate populations due to wolf predation while some studies are blaming hunters or bad winters, and they're studying the same locations. So who's accurate? This is in reference to ID and MT. Those studies are important because the WWG's wolf proposal keeps citing these studies and using said data from some of the wolf studies in those states to make assumptions about wolves in our state. It looks like cherry picking to me.
back to my original question, if these wolves in the Methow are showing signs of different physical characteristics and social behavior as compared to wolves that were transplanted, then why is the possibility of these wolves being from a different subspecies not being discussed?
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 13, 2010, 01:22:07 PM
Post by: haus on June 13, 2010, 01:37:02 PM
The subspecies should be discussed. That is one of the problems with translocating (not introducing to the state, but moving within) wolves from Eastern Wa to the Cascades...some people lump some people split...in this case we should probably think about it before wolves are moved from here to there. It might not be appropriate for the wolves in PO county to be in the cascades, but there is little evdidence to tell us what was where... :twocents:why wasn't this part of the conversation and why hasn't it been mentioned in the WWG proposals then? why would the WWG ramrod legislation that ignores such information and leaves out any window of opportunity for it to be discussed? If such possibilities are even remotely true then why is it being ignored by our states biologists? Why would it not be mentioned by them? You know a simple "hang on guys we see there are possibly some fundamental differences between the two packs, its possible the ecological impact could differ between the two if placed in western wa" why is that so hard to say?
Post by: bearpaw on June 14, 2010, 03:22:19 PM
The subspecies should be discussed. That is one of the problems with translocating (not introducing to the state, but moving within) wolves from Eastern Wa to the Cascades...some people lump some people split...in this case we should probably think about it before wolves are moved from here to there. It might not be appropriate for the wolves in PO county to be in the cascades, but there is little evdidence to tell us what was where... :twocents:
I agree and will add:
It's not right to hold up management in one part of the state for wolves to recover in another part of the state (olympics) as the state is requiring in the DEIS. Even the USFWS has delisted in the eastern 1/3 of Washington.
(of course Mallloy begins hearings tomorrow and may put wolves back as listed)
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 14, 2010, 04:56:23 PM
I agree.The subspecies should be discussed. That is one of the problems with translocating (not introducing to the state, but moving within) wolves from Eastern Wa to the Cascades...some people lump some people split...in this case we should probably think about it before wolves are moved from here to there. It might not be appropriate for the wolves in PO county to be in the cascades, but there is little evdidence to tell us what was where... :twocents:
I agree and will add:
It's not right to hold up management in one part of the state for wolves to recover in another part of the state (olympics) as the state is requiring in the DEIS. Even the USFWS has delisted in the eastern 1/3 of Washington.
(of course Mallloy begins hearings tomorrow and may put wolves back as listed)
Post by: haus on June 14, 2010, 04:59:00 PM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,38112.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,38112.0.html)I think its safe to say that was a joke :rolleyes: I didn't realize anyone took that post seriously.
Post by: jackelope on June 14, 2010, 05:04:23 PM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,38112.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,38112.0.html)I think its safe to say that was a joke :rolleyes: I didn't realize anyone took that post seriously.
I think the dude that posted it took it seriously. Once Kain explained the invisible fence collars(that apparently don't work..) he never came back.
:dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on June 15, 2010, 01:06:19 AM
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=432121858242# (http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=432121858242#)!/notes/keely-hopkins/-and-the-westside-remains-silent/432121858242
Keely Hopkins: ... and the Westside remains silent.
When I was 10 years old, Oregon passed an initiative that banned the use of cougar hunting with dogs. I am not a hunter, and I am not a rancher, but Measure 18 forever changed my life. I am now a law school graduate and heavily immersed in Oregon politics and policy-making because of one initiative. Measure 18 was passed by Oregon’s urban majority with a campaign led by the Humane Society of the United States out of Washington D.C.. In the years following Measure 18, Oregon’s cougar population doubled the recommended level for Oregon. I sat by with the rest of Wallowa County to witness the effects. Ranchers lost cattle, horses were killed, and the deer and elk populations were dramatically depleted. The urban majority was happy to govern Eastern Oregon’s wildlife until the negative effects were voiced, and then the Westside remained silent. To me, there is something inherently wrong with Rural Oregon not having meaningful say on what are primarily rural issues. Determined to help Wallowa County’s voice be heard, I made the big move across the mountains to Oregon’s Capital and enrolled in law school.
Fast forward to today. The Board of Commissioners are asking the Governor to declare a state of emergency in Wallowa County. For the last month, a pack of 10 wolves have killed two calves per week east of Joseph. Wallowa County is a small ranching community of about 7,200 people, with agriculture being one of our only remaining industries. 10 calves killed in 3 weeks and a state agency reluctant to acknowledge the kills has obviously stirred up the community.
So, how are our leaders responding? Oregon’s current administration has already failed Wallowa County, since it was their wolf plan that lacked management tools to help prevent kills or to respond effectively thereafter. Let's hope for better from Chris Dudley, who wants to be our next people’s representative as the Governor of Oregon, but at this point he has also remained silent on Wallowa County’s issues.
Eastern Oregon shouldn’t be discouraged though, some of our state legislators understand Oregon's issues extend beyond those of the I-5 corridor and are addressing our concerns. During the interim committee session, the House Committee on Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Rural Communities heard from Jim Beers, a former state wildlife agency official, who presented to the legislature on the potential for transmission of diseases by wolves near urban areas. Beers explained that 24 out of 29 diseases carried by wolves are transmittable to humans, with urban areas impacted the most due to close contact and more interaction. Representative Krieger, who worked with the Oregon Cattleman’s Association to bring Beers before the committee, questioned the possibility of wolves dramatically effecting Oregon’s deer and elk herds, citing Montana and Idaho’s herds being down 50-70% due to predation. Representative Smith also urged the legislature to consider revisiting the Oregon Wolf Plan.
With a letter in to the Governor, numerous media stories, and a few legislators going to bat for us, hopefully those with the ability to make changes will hear Wallowa County’s call for help. In the meantime, we just wait, while the Westside yet again remains silent.
Post by: Little Dave on June 15, 2010, 02:47:20 AM
Private citizens can capture probable wolves and collect specimens for testing. This is arranged through the "scientific permit." The permit is issued by WDFW. Presumably, during capture, if the animal is determined by a credible biologist to be a hybrid, it could be dispatched as provided by law.
We don't have to wait for the state to do any of this. We can do this... and I have some experience working with the state in this capacity.
Dave, how hard would it be to get one of those permits?
The plan needs to be a structured scientific study. Setting up a plan would be the first step. It should be prepared by a respected biologist who is familiar with both wolves, the study area, the process of collecting DNA samples, trapping and collaring methods, safety precautions, considerations for the public, opportunity for education and community outreach, volunteer training and so forth. I could help prepare an outline for something like this but my training is in other sciences. The detail is best managed by a wildlife biologist.
The difficulty in the case of the Methow might be that Mr. Fitkin, whom you have mentioned several times, would be one of the biologists assigned to review the plan. I know nothing of the man except for what you have described. However, if you have something set up where you are legitimately monitoring the wolves you might someday reach an awkward situation where you are funded but the state not so much. Guess who knocks on your door for a job?
Post by: haus on June 16, 2010, 03:51:06 PM
Can you imagine calling yourself a wildlife biologist but only presenting preferencial facts to the public? You'd get laughed out of the room. Are you going to tell us that a majority percentage of the biologists studying these wolves are being entirely neutral and withholding any of their social or economic views from their reports? :rolleyes:
Without speaking for the biologists that are working on the wolves in WA, I would guess that they are tired of being flamed (generally irrational rants) by the public for something they have no real control over. They didn't put the wolves here, they're just trying to do their job and learn what they can about them. Maybe there is bias, i suppose it would be easy to form...but I think the people (at least the field staff) are trying to do their best with the situation.
I guess the stuff I've seen from the agencies has been pretty accurate. Without going into ridiculous conspiracy theories, what have they said that was untrue? What evidence does anyone here have to refute their biology?
The whole documentation thing is a challenge. The agency can't really produce a news release about a wolf sighting...they needed to gather REAL information and document reproduction before they could 'go public'. I'm doubtful that they ever denied having some wolves in the state. Instead they were wary about making a claim of a pack when it wasn't reproducing. I think they were right to err on the side of caution.
So you don't think the personal opinions, general beliefs, and any possible or real affiliations to any organization has any impact on how a biologist goes about his/her profession? You don't think it shows in how they've interpreted the data and how they are presenting it in their reports?
If your answers no then congradulations for this being the sole profession that conducts its business without the interference of personal opinion. By no means do I see this as a bad thing or see this as a reason to view any biologist negatively. I just don't take any biologists' word as the gospel, but it seems that in general our society does.
Post by: RidgeRunner_07 on June 16, 2010, 04:14:26 PM
Post by: Special T on June 16, 2010, 08:25:20 PM
Post by: Lowedog on June 16, 2010, 10:17:57 PM
What would you guys think about a question answer session with a wolf biologist... especially one that we may not agree with... Do you think we could just ask intelligent Questions? We may not be able to get one on our forum but get answers via email... I guess i should start a poll...
As long as it's not someone who reads much on this site you might be able to find someone who will talk with you. :chuckle:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 17, 2010, 06:45:07 AM
good point... one major concern of mine would be that folks on here would just call BS because the answers don't match what they believe to be the case. Hopefully this does not happen. Otherwise, I think it's a great idea!What would you guys think about a question answer session with a wolf biologist... especially one that we may not agree with... Do you think we could just ask intelligent Questions? We may not be able to get one on our forum but get answers via email... I guess i should start a poll...
As long as it's not someone who reads much on this site you might be able to find someone who will talk with you. :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on June 17, 2010, 07:01:40 AM
My hope is to offer biologists, wolf experts, and noted individuals each their own page on the blog to comment. I will offer any biologist a page on the wolf blog. Every Biologist reads and interpets data in different ways, I would prefer to get as many different people as possble.
Post by: haus on June 17, 2010, 07:51:26 AM
one major concern of mine would be that folks on here would just call BS because the answers don't match what they believe to be the case.that would depend on the biologist in question
Post by: wolfbait on June 17, 2010, 09:27:13 AM
The subspecies should be discussed. That is one of the problems with translocating (not introducing to the state, but moving within) wolves from Eastern Wa to the Cascades...some people lump some people split...in this case we should probably think about it before wolves are moved from here to there. It might not be appropriate for the wolves in PO county to be in the cascades, but there is little evdidence to tell us what was where... :twocents:why wasn't this part of the conversation and why hasn't it been mentioned in the WWG proposals then? why would the WWG ramrod legislation that ignores such information and leaves out any window of opportunity for it to be discussed? If such possibilities are even remotely true then why is it being ignored by our states biologists? Why would it not be mentioned by them? You know a simple "hang on guys we see there are possibly some fundamental differences between the two packs, its possible the ecological impact could differ between the two if placed in western wa" why is that so hard to say?
September 8, 1991
Removing the wolf from the endangered-species list is the primary objective of Montana's recovery plan.
Although wolves generally prefer to prey upon elk and deer, and although attacks on humans almost never happen, livestock owners contend that they prey indiscriminately. But Fish and Wildlife Service figures indicate that domestic livestock are rarely killed by wolves.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/archive/?date=19910908&slug=1304367 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/archive/?date=19910908&slug=1304367)
Wednesday, February 5, 1992
The gray wolf, listed as endangered in every state but Minnesota and Alaska, disappeared from Washington in the early 1900s. But reports of wolf sightings in the wild North Cascades have increased in recent years. In 1990 biologists discovered two dens - the first time wolves had been sighted in the state since 1975.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/archive/?date=19920205&slug=1473981 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/archive/?date=19920205&slug=1473981)
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)
Copyright (c) 1992
It must also be remembered that the wolf is listed as an endangered or threatened species in all the 48 lower states and that plans are under way for wolf recovery in Utah, Colorado (Bennett 1994), Arizona, and New Mexico. Washington state may already have more wolves than Montana. Wolf reintroductions are being considered for New York and Maine (Van Ballenberghe 1992), and the red wolf has already been released in the Southeast. Under the present Endangered Species Act, wolves must be restored to every state with suitable habitat; at least, that is how the act is being interpreted by environmental organizations.
http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/endangered/wolfreport.htm (http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/endangered/wolfreport.htm)
December 6, 1992
TWISP, Okanogan County - We may not be dancing with wolves, but they're here, their numbers are growing and it is possible to coexist with them in relative peace.
For example, 100 sightings were reported in 1981, and last year there were 200, ranging as far south as Mount St. Helens, Almak said.
Biologists are trying to write a wolf-recovery plan for 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.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19921206&slug=1528536 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19921206&slug=1528536)
Copyright (c) 1997
In 1990, adults with pups were seen in the Hozomeen area. This was the first known reproduction of wild wolves in Washington State in at least 50 years! Since 1990, biologists have seen three separate groups of adult wolves with pups in the Cascades.
http://www.nps.gov:80/archive/noca/wolf.htm (http://www.nps.gov:80/archive/noca/wolf.htm)
Friday, November 1, 2002
WASHINGTON — Two conservation groups are calling on the federal government to restore gray wolves to Washington state, saying it's time to "hear the call of the wild again" in Western Washington forests.
Defenders of Wildlife and the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance said yesterday they have sent a petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, requesting that the agency restore and protect gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/archive/?date=20021101&slug=graywolves01m (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/archive/?date=20021101&slug=graywolves01m)
07/19/2008
A state biologist said Monday that he believes one or more packs of gray wolves are living in the Methow Valley...
Packers have made numerous reports of wolves in the high country in the past couple of years, and there have been increasing reports by residents in lower elevations, he said.
Fitkin said there have been reliable wolf sightings in the Methow dating to the early 1990s, but only sporadic, unconfirmed reports of wolf packs.
http://daily.sightline.org:80/daily_score/archive/2008/07/19/washingtons-wolves-are-back (http://daily.sightline.org:80/daily_score/archive/2008/07/19/washingtons-wolves-are-back)
WDFW doesn’t want anything to do with remembering the first wolf recovery in Washington. Without the Mackenzie wolves it is not considered wolf recovery. ;)
Post by: bearpaw on June 17, 2010, 09:32:31 AM
HSUS’ Conspiracy Theory
Wednesday, June 16, 2010 5:01:20 PM
By Doug Jeanneret, Vice President of Marketing
Do you like conspiracy theories? Apparently, the Humane Society of the United States’ President and CEO, Wayne Pacelle, does.
You could not ask for a more crystal clear description of the views the HSUS has about hunting than this little piece from a previous Wayne Pacelle blog dealing with Alaska’s wolf management program:
“Many state fish and wildlife agencies cater to sport hunting enthusiasts by managing deer, elk, moose, and caribou for elevated population levels. They treat wild areas as open-area wildlife game ranchers, viewing wild ungulates like cattle and sheep, and killing the predators that threaten them—just like ranchers do. More predation by wolves, bears, or mountain lions means fewer game animals for hunters to shoot. They’ve got an economic stake in the matter: with inflated populations of hoofed game mammals, they can sell more hunting licenses and generate revenue for their bureaucracy.”
In the mind of the head honcho at HSUS, state agencies are basically conspiring to sell licenses in order to increase their bureaucracy. If this is an accurate reflection of how they feel, how can any reasonable person not believe that they are adamantly anti-hunting? Instead of acknowledging science, they assume underhanded motivations on behalf of wildlife professionals.
I wonder how the agency folks feel about being accused of this?
Post by: bearpaw on June 17, 2010, 09:38:44 AM
Post by: jackelope on June 17, 2010, 11:18:21 AM
one major concern of mine would be that folks on here would just call BS because the answers don't match what they believe to be the case.that would depend on the biologist in question
What it would really depend on is the willingness from the folks on both sides to listen to stuff they might not want to hear.
What biologist in their right mind is gonna want to come on here, explain wolf science, and then get their heads torn off by all the folks on here, then called a liar, then called a DOW supporter, then on and on...I don't see it happening. I'd love to see it but I don't think you'll convince a bio to do it.
:twocents:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 17, 2010, 11:31:31 AM
you forgot "WOLF LOVER" the worst thing you can call someone here!!!! :chuckle:one major concern of mine would be that folks on here would just call BS because the answers don't match what they believe to be the case.that would depend on the biologist in question
What it would really depend on is the willingness from the folks on both sides to listen to stuff they might not want to hear.
What biologist in their right mind is gonna want to come on here, explain wolf science, and then get their heads torn off by all the folks on here, then called a liar, then called a DOW supporter, then on and on...I don't see it happening. I'd love to see it but I don't think you'll convince a bio to do it.
:twocents:
I agree though. It would require some restraint and consideration of other folks views. It might happen though. There are a few that might appreciate the opportunity to volunteer some information.
Post by: Curly on June 17, 2010, 11:49:55 AM
Post by: haus on June 17, 2010, 12:10:16 PM
'Damn digital camera's these days, just dont' make them like they use to you know! and you can't find a quality DNA tester anywhere!!! Gaawwwddd its such a nightmare! The DoW said they would handle the shipping and processing of our collected samples, I'm not sure why its taking them so long to get back to me?!!'......
:chuckle:
Post by: wolfbait on June 17, 2010, 03:11:58 PM
January 5, 2010
There exists a divide between the “educated” wildlife biologist and the hunter, fisherman, trapper and outdoors person. It is unfortunate that this divide prohibits better wildlife management. Let’s call the divide what it is. On the one side you have the college educated intellectual who can prove most anything he or she wants to using data and computer modeling. Generally speaking, these intellectuals look down their noses at the average “Joe” who spends far more time in the field than the biologist. And of course on the other sideof the divide, is the outdoor sportsmen, some of whom have spent countless hours and years witnessing first hand what’s going on in the woods. One would think putting the two together would be like dipping your chocolate into the jar of peanut butter. Such is not the case.
Today, Thomas Sowell writes:
Those whose careers are built on the creation and dissemination of ideas– the intellectuals– have played a role in many societies out of all proportion to their numbers. Whether that role has, on net balance, made those around them better off or worse off is one of the key questions of our times.
Sowell’s article of course is about the impact that intellectuals have had on the world’s societies – good and bad. Ideas are great and God only knows where we would be without those who can produce ideas. But as Sowell points out, only time can tell whether those ideas are for the better or the worse.
Wildlife management these days is born in the field of academia, where once it seemed more important to rely on the experience of the man in the field. With an ever shifting to the left within our educational industry, wildlife biologists are coming fresh out of school indoctrinated with a host of ideas, many of them idealistic and not grounded in sound scientific facts or matching what exists on the ground. With the passing of each successive generation it seems we are witness to snotty-nosed graduates bucking up against seasoned outdoorsmen. Instead of the forces working against each other, they should be working together as both sides can contribute valuable resources.
There is an organization in Idaho that has a website called Save Our Elk. Their mission is to educate and draw attention to the facts of what is really taking place in the field. Their goal is simple – saving elk. As part of their strategy, they send out emails containing news, stories, studies and just about anything to inform and educate. I am privileged to receive those emails.
It seems that one of the leaders of Save Our Elk, Tony Mayer, received an email from a professor at the University of Idaho, who works for the Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, requesting that Mr. Mayer remove her from his “repulsive email campaign”. As Mr. Mayer pointed out, sometimes the truth is hard to take.
What is most disturbing and yet telltale about this action/reaction is that an academic of fish and wildlife, would be so close-minded to other thoughts and information being collected from those who spend so much time in the outdoors. Bear in mind that this person is responsible for some of the education and teaching that our young wildlife biologists are getting. Dare we question why these young biologists choose not listen to the crusty old veterans of the woods?
One gentleman responded to the professor’s lack of interest in “repulsive” facts this way:
Even if you don’t like, or disagree with, the message in the article, I would think that a mature, curious scientist, who had an interest in the “interface” between science and policy – particularly in the very area of her expertise -, would actively seek communication with an existing, robust, substantial community of interest, such as Idaho hunters. The opposite appears to be the case.
Steve Alder, President of Idaho for Wildlife, reminded his members that it took two years from the time that a seasoned outdoorsmen began informing the Idaho Department of Fish and Game that the severe winter of 1996-1997 had destroyed the state’s elk herd in the Lolo Region, until they were willing to admit he was right.
This same man informed the IDFG in the Spring of 1997 that they had lost over 50%,(Approximately 10,000) of the elk in the Lolo zone alone due to the horrible winter of 96-97 and he was quickly enlighten how wrong he was and that the elk had suffered an average winter kill and a warm thaw had saved the elk that year. This man was led to the computer where he was shown in the monitor that the elk were doing just fine.
The same has held true in reports of elk and mule deer being destroyed by wolves and other large predators. These people are valuable eyes on the front of where it all happens. This divide between idealistic computer modeling and true to life events in the field needs to disappear before more damage is done.
Alder also quotes one of those experienced outdoor sportsmen and what he had to say about wildlife management.
The late legendary Montana and Idaho Cowboy, outfitter, Outdoor writer and gun expert Elmer Keith, (1899-1984), in his biography, “Hell I was there”, (1979), wrote, “Here in this Country, (Salmon, ID region), Our biologists labor under the delusion that the predators kill off the old, crippled and sick game which could never be farther from the truth.” “These ecologist have never seen a mule deer out in the crusted deep snow up to its belly as it floundered along and a pack of coyotes or wolves crowding along beside eating the poor animal alive.” “First the guts hurtle out and they eat them up and pull them out.” “Finally the poor thing goes down and they literally eat him alive with no attempt to kill him clean first.” “With proper management, game can be brought back but it requires proper management by men who have lived with the game and understand it and not by some biologist with a four-year degree from college alone.”
Idaho is not alone when it comes to problems with wildlife management. Maine is currently in the midst of a major whitetail deer problem. Hunters have been complaining for several years that portions of the state didn’t have any deer. I think the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) agreed that in the northern, eastern and portions of western Maine, the deer herd was struggling. What I think they didn’t realize is just how bad it was. But those in the field knew. Is this a case of this same divide causing the demise of Maine’s deer herd because the “intellectuals” didn’t want to listen?
I remember that it was right after the deer hunting season in Maine, December 2006, when I first was notified by some disgruntled hunters in Northern Maine. They wanted to start a petition drive asking MDIFW to close down the deer hunting season until the herd had been rebuilt. Whether that would work is really immaterial. This issue is that the hunters already knew there was a problem and MDIFW hadn’t admitted it.
As a matter of fact, MDIFW wants to lay the biggest part of the blame for the decimation of the herd on the two back-to-back severe winters – the winters of 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. As you can see, the complaints I began receiving from unhappy hunters was prior to those two severe winters.
We can point fingers and spread the blame everywhere but it won’t do much good until we can shrink the divide. I have written about this before. The hunters, the trappers, the fishermen and everyone who ventures afield have to be the eyes and ears of the fish and game. Fish and game has to be accepting of this.
We can’t have academia refusing to consider facts because they find them “repulsive”, or probably more accurately defined as in disagreement with one’s ideals.
Intellectuals float ideas, some good and some bad. Those in the field come armed with what they see. Meshing these two together could be quite productive.
Tom Remington
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/01/05/intellectuals-and-wildlife-management/ (http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/01/05/intellectuals-and-wildlife-management/)
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 17, 2010, 03:27:28 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 17, 2010, 06:01:07 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 17, 2010, 07:39:12 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 17, 2010, 10:27:49 PM
wolves. We do know wolf recovery benefits the people who make money
off the animal. These are the special interest groups, biologists
and researchers who study and promote the animal -- often at great
taxpayer expense. Further, there are those who use endangered
species as a surrogate for personal agendas such as anti-hunting and
land control. There's also a conflict of interest involved: "Those
who write recovery plans for wolves and other endangered species,
choose the alternatives, conduct and edit the science, edit the
comments and make all the decisions, are the same ones who benefit
directly from their own contrived determinations."
Wildlife management is an art science, not a specific science. A
specific science is something that is specific and can be tested,
tested and re-tested with the same results every time. Chemistry is
an example. A chemist can mix one element with another element and
get a certain and definite reaction every time. That is specific.
Wildlife management is an art science in that there are so many
variables that two biologists can look at the same studies and come
up with different conclusions. Quite often wolf biologists do not
agree with each other in their studies about wolves.
This is the very reason for the need to review history. History
helps biology and wildlife management become realistic.
http://www.aws.vcn.com/fact.html (http://www.aws.vcn.com/fact.html)
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 18, 2010, 07:38:44 AM
I think there are still a lot of well meaning biologists that have foremost interest in the wildlife and the habitat (I'd like to think that I am one). Biologists are not exactly getting rich off their studies or any of the legislation or persuasion of the FWS.
Post by: wolfbait on June 18, 2010, 08:50:53 AM
Quote from: WAcoyotehunter on June 13, 2010, 01:22:07 PM
The subspecies should be discussed. That is one of the problems with translocating (not introducing to the state, but moving within) wolves from Eastern Wa to the Cascades...some people lump some people split...in this case we should probably think about it before wolves are moved from here to there. It might not be appropriate for the wolves in PO county to be in the cascades, but there is little evdidence to tell us what was where...
why wasn't this part of the conversation and why hasn't it been mentioned in the WWG proposals then? why would the WWG ramrod legislation that ignores such information and leaves out any window of opportunity for it to be discussed? If such possibilities are even remotely true then why is it being ignored by our states biologists? Why would it not be mentioned by them? You know a simple "hang on guys we see there are possibly some fundamental differences between the two packs, its possible the ecological impact could differ between the two if placed in western wa" why is that so hard to say?
September 8, 1991
Removing the wolf from the endangered-species list is the primary objective of Montana's recovery plan.
Although wolves generally prefer to prey upon elk and deer, and although attacks on humans almost never happen, livestock owners contend that they prey indiscriminately. But Fish and Wildlife Service figures indicate that domestic livestock are rarely killed by wolves.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/archive/?date=19910908&slug=1304367 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/archive/?date=19910908&slug=1304367)
Wednesday, February 5, 1992
The gray wolf, listed as endangered in every state but Minnesota and Alaska, disappeared from Washington in the early 1900s. But reports of wolf sightings in the wild North Cascades have increased in recent years. In 1990 biologists discovered two dens - the first time wolves had been sighted in the state since 1975.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/archive/?date=19920205&slug=1473981 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/archive/?date=19920205&slug=1473981)
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)
Copyright (c) 1992
It must also be remembered that the wolf is listed as an endangered or threatened species in all the 48 lower states and that plans are under way for wolf recovery in Utah, Colorado (Bennett 1994), Arizona, and New Mexico. Washington state may already have more wolves than Montana. Wolf reintroductions are being considered for New York and Maine (Van Ballenberghe 1992), and the red wolf has already been released in the Southeast. Under the present Endangered Species Act, wolves must be restored to every state with suitable habitat; at least, that is how the act is being interpreted by environmental organizations.
http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/endangered/wolfreport.htm (http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/endangered/wolfreport.htm)
December 6, 1992
TWISP, Okanogan County - We may not be dancing with wolves, but they're here, their numbers are growing and it is possible to coexist with them in relative peace.
For example, 100 sightings were reported in 1981, and last year there were 200, ranging as far south as Mount St. Helens, Almak said.
Biologists are trying to write a wolf-recovery plan for 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.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19921206&slug=1528536 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19921206&slug=1528536)
Copyright (c) 1997
In 1990, adults with pups were seen in the Hozomeen area. This was the first known reproduction of wild wolves in Washington State in at least 50 years! Since 1990, biologists have seen three separate groups of adult wolves with pups in the Cascades.
http://www.nps.gov:80/archive/noca/wolf.htm (http://www.nps.gov:80/archive/noca/wolf.htm)
Friday, November 1, 2002
WASHINGTON — Two conservation groups are calling on the federal government to restore gray wolves to Washington state, saying it's time to "hear the call of the wild again" in Western Washington forests.
Defenders of Wildlife and the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance said yesterday they have sent a petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, requesting that the agency restore and protect gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/archive/?date=20021101&slug=graywolves01m (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/archive/?date=20021101&slug=graywolves01m)
07/19/2008
A state biologist said Monday that he believes one or more packs of gray wolves are living in the Methow Valley...
Packers have made numerous reports of wolves in the high country in the past couple of years, and there have been increasing reports by residents in lower elevations, he said.
Fitkin said there have been reliable wolf sightings in the Methow dating to the early 1990s, but only sporadic, unconfirmed reports of wolf packs.
http://daily.sightline.org:80/daily_score/archive/2008/07/19/washingtons-wolves-are-back (http://daily.sightline.org:80/daily_score/archive/2008/07/19/washingtons-wolves-are-back)
WDFW doesn’t want anything to do with remembering the first wolf recovery in Washington. Without the Mackenzie wolves it is not considered wolf recovery.
I am still wondering why WDFW will not address the fact that WDFW already had wolf recovery started in the 1980's and 90's. What seems to be the problem in being honest with the people of Washington?
Post by: bearpaw on June 18, 2010, 10:19:26 AM
The greenies love nature and wildlife just as us hunters do. There are many who get into the biologist field, that is just the way it is. However what I see happening in WDFW is that it seems top managers are not keeping a balance in management. It seems like there must be mostly managers and bios with a non-hunting or even anti-hunting stance who have control of the wolf program in particular. The Draft Wolf Plan they have presented to the public reeks of preservationism and anti-hunting motives. They seem to be totally ignoring the facts that are coming out of Idaho and Montana areas that have been overun and severley hurt by mismanagement of wolves.
The simple fact is: Only by making a huge fuss can the hunting public and rural residents in Washington hope to get a reasonable wolf plan. :twocents:
Post by: Special T on June 18, 2010, 11:56:54 AM
Post by: wolfbait on June 18, 2010, 09:19:06 PM
Wolf Fight Overlies Wider Conflicts -- Yellowstone Plan Opens Question Of Who Will Control Future Of The West
Hearings are also scheduled in Helena, Mont., Seattle, Salt Lake City and Boise. Boise and Seattle were selected because the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan also identifies central Idaho and the Northern Cascades as possible reintroduction areas.
Since the plan was drafted in the 1980s, wolves have naturally migrated into Washington without human help, and there have been wolf sightings farther south every year along the Continental Divide in Montana. It is possible that wolves eventually could migrate to Yellowstone without assistance, but many biologists have said it's unlikely.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920830&slug=1510070 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920830&slug=1510070)
Saturday, June 23, 1990 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
E-mail article Print view
Second Finding Reported This Year Of Gray Wolf Den In North Cascades
Times Staff: AP
State and federal biologists yesterday reported the discovery of the second gray-wolf den found in the North Cascades this year.
Scientists found two pups Monday in a remote area of the Okanogan National Forest. The pups and an adult wolf were heard by seven biologists the next day.
``I guess it's about as confirmed as you can get,'' said Ed Isenson, Washington Department of Wildlife spokesman. ``To say we're excited is an understatement. Two wolf dens in Washington after their eradication decades ago is truly a happy event.''
The sighting, northwest of Winthrop, Okanogan County, was in an area near the Pasayten Wilderness Area, in the Okanogan National Forest. Isenson said the biologists uttered wolf calls and saw two wolf pups cross in front of their vehicle headlights.
Sightings of adult gray wolves have been reported for years, the most recent sighting being 15 years ago.
On May 23, biologists confirmed the existence of a wolf den in the Ross Lake National Recreation area, about 40 miles northwest of the Okanogan discovery.
The biologists in the first discovery have yet to see the wolves. They installed infrared cameras in an attempt to photograph the wolves but as of yesterday had not photographed any, a Forest Service official said.
Copyright (c) 1990 Seattle Times Company, All Rights Reserved.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19900623&slug=1078636 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19900623&slug=1078636)
Friday, May 25, 1990 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
E-mail article Print view
Corrected version
Wolves In Cascades -- First Sighting In 15 Years
By Hal Spencer
AP
OLYMPIA - Wolf pups are living in a den deep in the North Cascade Mountains, the first sighting in 15 years in a state where wolves were virtually exterminated decades ago, biologists said today.
``This is a marvelous surprise. We're very excited about it,'' said Ray Ryan, deputy director of the state Department of Wildlife.
The gray-wolf den was discovered Wednesday by state and federal biologists in the Hozomeen area of Ross Lake National Recreation Area near the British Columbia border, officials said.
``We don't know how many pups there are because we didn't want to disturb the den by getting close
enough to count them,'' said Ed Gastellun, assistant superintendent at North Cascades National Park.
Cindy Barry, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said biologists ``heard the yips of the wolves'' and could tell from the sounds that some were pups and some were adults. ``They didn't actually see the wolves,'' she said, but officials still consider it a sighting.
Gastellun said the last wolf sighting in Washington occurred in 1975 when two wolves were killed. Biologists confirmed a sighting of wolf tracks last year.
Gray wolves are classified as endangered in the lower 48 states, except for Minnesota, where they are listed as threatened. Alaska has several thousand wolves and a continuing controversy over methods to control their numbers to boost the population of moose, on which they
sometimes feed.
``This sighting confirms that we have the habitat for wolves,'' Gastellun said. He said wolves feed largely on small animals such as squirrels.
``It's an exciting time for the park and for this area. It's only the third area in the lower 48 where they live.'' The others are Isle Royale in Minnesota and Glacier National Park in Montana, he said.
Gastellun said the sighting will spark temporary closures of parts of the area, probably through June. ``The next 30 days are critical for the pups, and for protecting the den,'' he said. ``The closures shouldn't be controversial since we get relatively few users, and fishing doesn't open until July 1.''
Biologists suspect the wolves migrated from Canada, and have suspected for years that they are present in the North Cascades, a state biological report said.
The federal Endangered Species Act under which wolves are protected makes it illegal to kill, harass, harm, pursue, trap or capture wolves.
Published Correction Date: 90/05/26 - This Associated Press Article About The Apparent Reappearance Of Gray Wolves In The North Cascade Mountains, Included Erroneous Information On Where The Wolves Are Known To Live In The Lower 48 States. Those Three Areas Are Isle Royale In Michigan, Northern Minnesota And Glacier National Park In Montana.
Copyright (c) 1990 Seattle Times Company, All Rights Reserved.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19900603&slug=1075265 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19900603&slug=1075265)
Sunday, June 3, 1990 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
E-mail article Print view
Northwest Briefly
Rare Wolf Pups To Be Isolated, Photographed
Times Staff: Times News Services
Wildlife biologists hope to capture the first wolf pups known to have been born in Washington in decades - but only on film from unmanned, infrared cameras set up near the den site in the North Cascades.
State and federal biologists in May located the gray wolf den containing pups by howling at them and getting distinctive barks and howls in return. It is the first confirmation in 15 years that wolves are living in Washington, says Harriet Allen, state biologist.
More importantly, she said, ``it's the first wolf den, first indication of breeding since the early 1900s. We've always thought there were transient wolves in the Cascades based on tracks.''
Biologists will not attempt to get close enough to see the den in the Hozomeen area of Ross Lake National Recreation Area for another month for fear of disturbing the she-wolf and causing her to move her pups.The road into the Hozomeen has been closed to all traffic until June 14.
Copyright (c) 1990 Seattle Times Company, All Rights Reserved
Friday, April 17, 1992 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
E-mail article Print view
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19900603&slug=1075265 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19900603&slug=1075265)
Originally published Thursday, July 24, 2008 at 12:00 AM
E-mail article Print view
DNA confirms wolf comeback
State wildlife officials say genetic tests have confirmed that two animals captured last Friday in western Okanogan County are wild, gray...
By The Associated Press
OLYMPIA — State wildlife officials say genetic tests have confirmed that two animals captured last Friday in western Okanogan County are wild, gray wolves.
Before releasing the wolves — a male and a lactating female — biologists fitted them with radio collars to track their movements.
The state Fish and Wildlife Department also noted Wednesday that a remote camera operated by a private group has photographed the radio-collared male wolf at a location where six pups also were photographed.
Wildlife officials say this is the first documented resident wolf pack in Washington since the 1930s.
Wolves are considered endangered in Washington state.
Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008069663_wolfreturn24.html (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008069663_wolfreturn24.html)
The list of wolves in the 1980's and 1990's keeps growing, I especially like this part, (It is the first confirmation in 15 years that wolves are living in Washington, says Harriet Allen, state biologist.) >:( >:(
This sighting confirms that we have the habitat for wolves,'' Gastellun said. He said wolves feed largely on small animals such as squirrels. :chuckle:
Sounds like the wolf push was going on in the 80's and 90's also ;)
Post by: wolfbait on June 20, 2010, 09:34:45 PM
E-mail article Print view
Olympic Revival For Wolf? -- N. Cascades Sighting Stirs New Discussion
By Mary Ann Gwinn
The wolf, that embattled symbol of the wild, is back in the North Cascades. And, spurred by recent confirmed sightings of gray wolves, a movement is building to reintroduce the independent predator into Olympic National Park.
A symposium in Seattle yesterday, sponsored by the pro-wolf Greater Ecosystem Alliance, addressed the pros and cons of the prospect of bringing the wolf back to the Olympic Peninsula, part of its historical range.
But speakers from Montana, Washington and British Columbia offered a frank assessment of the politics of making such a reintroduction on the Peninsula, an area reeling from the effect of accommodating another endangered species, the spotted owl.
"Wolves bring controversy wherever they go," said Steve Fritts, head of Rocky Mountain wolf recovery efforts for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "They're very symbolic. People's basic values start coming out."
On May 24, a sighting of a gray wolf in the Hozemeen area of the Ross Lake National Recreation area was confirmed by several North Cascades National Park employees. The wolf was later photographed by a Washington Department of Wildlife employee.
In the same area in May 1990, researchers got vocal responses from two adults and several pups, though the den was never found.
The den was the first documented case of wolves reproducing in the state since the early 1900s. Biologists believe wolves may be roaming elsewhere in Washington, including the Methow Valley, the Okanogan National Forest and the Selkirk mountain range in northeastern Washington.
Wolves and grizzly bears have now been documented in the North Cascades - grizzly tracks found by biologists near Mount Baker and Cle Elum last year confirmed the presence of the bears.
Experts believe a rebounding wolf population in British Columbia is responsible for the new wolf immigrants. In Montana, the wolf population is increasing at a rate of 40 percent a year.
Wolves once roamed the length and breadth of Washington state. On the Olympic Peninsula, "it's likely one or more packs occupied each of the major drainages," said Maureen Finnerty, superintendent of Olympic National Park. The last known wolf in the park was trapped and killed in 1930.
The park could offer wolves a comfortable living. Abundant prey roams there, including elk, deer and a surplus of mountain goats. Wolves could rapidly repopulate the area, because a wolf can generate six to nine pups each year. Finnerty suggested that the park could support as many as five packs of 7 to 10 animals each.
But wolves would almost certainly roam beyond the boundaries of the park in the winter, looking for elk in lower elevations. Moving beyond the park boundaries would send the wily wolf into a political mine field.
Wolves do display a certain amount of political savvy. They do not normally attack humans. (The sole exceptions have been a couple of rapid wolf attacks, plus a few cases of minor injuries involving what Fritts called "mistaken identity." Wolves pounced on people, but realizing what they were tangling with, the wolves always ran away.)
But they do kill livestock and pets, and their biggest human adversaries have been ranchers.
Ranching on the Peninsula is limited, and Gov. Booth Gardner last month signed a proclamation encouraging the reintroduction of the wolf to the Peninsula.
But embattled logging communities may not feel very hospitable toward the wolf after recent land-use restrictions imposed to protect the spotted owl, said John Pierce of the wildlife department's "non-game" program.
Fritts, a Montana resident, said wolves pose almost no threat to logging, except for keeping a mile radius of undisturbed territory around their dens three to four months out of the year. A large wolf population coexists with intensive logging on Vancouver Island, said Ralph Archibald of the B.C. Ministry of Environment.
Any move to reintroduce the wolf to the Peninsula awaits the completion of a wolf recovery plan for Washington state and an extensive public-comment program, said Pierce. That will take at least three to four years.
But Finnerty said there's another problem. While the independent animals have recolonized areas of their own accord, they have never been reintroduced successfully with human help.
Copyright (c) 1991 Seattle Times Company, All Rights Reserved.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19910609&slug=1287917 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19910609&slug=1287917)
(June 9, 1991, The den was the first documented case of wolves reproducing in the state since the early 1900s. Biologists believe wolves may be roaming elsewhere in Washington, including the Methow Valley, the Okanogan National Forest and the Selkirk mountain range in northeastern Washington.
Wolves and grizzly bears have now been documented in the North Cascades - grizzly tracks found by biologists near Mount Baker and Cle Elum last year confirmed the presence of the bears.
Experts believe a rebounding wolf population in British Columbia is responsible for the new wolf immigrants. In Montana, the wolf population is increasing at a rate of 40 percent a year) :o
Post by: denali on June 20, 2010, 09:51:24 PM
Post by: Special T on June 20, 2010, 10:13:26 PM
Post by: haus on June 21, 2010, 03:47:42 PM
Wacoyote if the Bio's that are in charge of the wolf programs shared info and wanted a discussion like BP said i think there wouldn't be as much heat in the discussion... I agree with BP that you show more fortitude than most when we are :bash: with each other...His mind hasn't been warped by years of drinking the koolaid :chuckle: maybe he's been saved. WC you owe us a beer, especially WB.
Post by: haus on June 21, 2010, 04:07:34 PM
You're right about the art science part of biology, however- a person trained in the habits and motivations of wildlife can make more accurate and precise (though still imperfect) decisions about management. In any population there are going to be outlyers. I'm not saying that it takes a 'trained' (college) biologist to make accurate assumptions and decisions, but it takes someone that understands the function of a natural system.It's not the skill level that concerns me as much as the application of the data and how its being interpreted by the managers overseeing the biologists. Most often we are receiving filtered information from biologists. Who the intent of the filterer can sway the overall impression of a biologist, especially when it comes to media reports. As for items off of the WDFW, I'm seeing a filter being applied to everything thats coming out of the department. From basic website layout to the details of each regional wildlife report. I'm doubting that biologists have much control over this and I'm curious how much it bothers them. WC in your opinion, what sort of perspective do biologists have towards the media and fish/wildlife departments? Do the read reports from each and feel like they were interpreted properly or do they feel like their data's being cherry picked to serve special interest?
I think there are still a lot of well meaning biologists that have foremost interest in the wildlife and the habitat (I'd like to think that I am one). Biologists are not exactly getting rich off their studies or any of the legislation or persuasion of the FWS.
Post by: Special T on June 21, 2010, 10:29:25 PM