Post by: bearpaw on September 25, 2011, 12:35:49 AM
Post by: winshooter88 on September 25, 2011, 01:49:04 AM
Post by: tsimp1211 on September 25, 2011, 10:46:18 AM
[/quote]
:tup:
I agree 100% with this paragraph. It sounds like this is just another attempt by politicians to slide something by. We don't want to hear well don't worry we will fix it later. That type of bs doesn't work any longer! Say what you mean, and mean what you say. If you want 500 wolves in Washington, then say so, but don't try to bs the public.
Hunters were the first conservationists in America, and are still the best. Ask us about wolves, and I am certain that the resounding answer will be to manage them like a game species, and not a protected one.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 25, 2011, 03:22:13 PM
Post by: high country on September 25, 2011, 07:13:21 PM
Post by: predator guy on September 25, 2011, 07:26:55 PM
Post by: rebal69972 on September 25, 2011, 08:52:08 PM
Post by: bearpaw on September 26, 2011, 09:57:26 AM
Thanks Again,
Dale
Post by: TheHunt on September 26, 2011, 10:35:33 AM
Post by: Killercolin on September 26, 2011, 02:32:45 PM
Post by: high country on September 26, 2011, 02:41:56 PM
Post by: bobcat on September 26, 2011, 02:50:11 PM
Post by: high country on September 26, 2011, 02:52:37 PM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=57411.0 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=57411.0)
Post by: bobcat on September 26, 2011, 03:05:58 PM
Post by: high country on September 26, 2011, 03:13:07 PM
Post by: bobcat on September 26, 2011, 03:20:17 PM
Quote
the state will have way more conflict than all others.
No doubt about that. But I really don't think the WDFW actually WANTS wolves in this state. Sure, maybe some of the employees might lean that way. But overall as an agency I doubt they would choose wolves over "us". (hunters)
Post by: leed on September 26, 2011, 05:02:54 PM
Lee Davis - Kittitas County Field & Stream Club
Post by: bearpaw on September 26, 2011, 09:31:55 PM
Thanks for your post Lee.... :tup:
Post by: sebek556 on September 26, 2011, 09:39:31 PM
Post by: fireweed on September 27, 2011, 08:34:32 AM
Post by: silverdalesauer on September 27, 2011, 08:41:19 AM
Back in 1988 I think a report was submitted to Congress and USFWS. It stated that the Greater yellowstone ecosystem could sustain up to 100 wolves without interfernce to the predators and prey that are part of the greater North American Conservation model. So, why would any state want more that that? Further these wolfes are NOT indeginous to Wa. They are in FACT a different species from Alberta, Canada. More summer reading lists have include, White, Christianson, and many others.I have read, contacted and exchanged e-mails with KentLaudon/Montana Wolf Specialist, and the USFWS Wolf Specialist in wyoming. When you contact them one on one they give you a slightly different picture. Bleak and truthful. I have shared those stories and comments with our WDFW Commission and Director Anderson. Let's step back and look at the big picture. Wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone knowing they would not stay. That was their goal (The invironmental groups) They also knew that destruction they would create and decreased huntter harvest would occur. That is what they intended. Less harvest, less hunters, less opposition to hunting and then the big push on gun control. Let me ask you the real question that is before us now. Why is the wolf being managed as BREEDING PAIRS versus a total capped popultion? Answer - breeding pairs obscure the real numbers of wolves. The wolf will be the ONLY animal managed on breeding pairs instead of a total population. Make your voices be heard! GO TO THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING AND ASK FOR THE TRUTH!
Lee Davis - Kittitas County Field & Stream Club
:yeah: :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on September 27, 2011, 09:09:17 AM
Take another 30 seconds and sign the petition asking congress to delist wolves: http://biggameforever.org/ (http://biggameforever.org/)
If every hunter will do these things now, it will help to make a difference.
I also recommend voting in the wolf poll and watching the informational video here: http://biggameforever.org/ (http://biggameforever.org/)
Post by: bearpaw on September 28, 2011, 08:33:44 AM
Post by: Skillet on September 28, 2011, 12:26:10 PM
Post by: KillBilly on September 29, 2011, 01:01:04 PM
Post by: bearpaw on September 29, 2011, 01:06:51 PM
Bob is correct, we have wolves filtering from Idaho and Canada. As far as conflict goes, I agree with you high country. We have as much sustainable Wolf habitat as any of the other states but in a much smaller area with higher densities of population. We are bound to have conflicts. We are not going to be able to make wolves go away. What we can do is amass the numbers and insist that the Commission reject the current Wolf Management Plan. They need to focus on managing a much smaller popluation of wolves. We ar suggesting that 8 BPs or 80 Wolves is a managable number and would allow us to better keep our predator/prey numbers under control.
:yeah:
Post by: jackelope on September 29, 2011, 01:12:52 PM
:bumpin:
Post by: bobcat on September 29, 2011, 01:16:45 PM
Post by: bearpaw on September 29, 2011, 01:25:57 PM
Did you see my quote from Oregon's plan? Please see page 29: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/2010_wcmp_wolf_conservation.pdf (http://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/2010_wcmp_wolf_conservation.pdf)
Oregon Wolf Plan details how small wolf populations are viable:
Because secure habitat is limited in Oregon, biologists predict that fewer wolves will occupy Oregon than are found in similar but much more abundant habitat in Idaho. The federal recovery goal for the Idaho wolf population was 10 breeding pairs in what has been described as the best remaining wolf habitat in the lower 48 states. Oregon, on the other hand, was not selected as a recovery state primarily due to lack of large blocks of contiguous public land habitat.
Research published in 2003 suggested that the smallest viable wolf populations might be two to three adjacent packs with four wolves each, located 40-60 kilometers apart (Fuller et al. 2003). Each pack might cover 117 square kilometers if the ungulate density averaged eight deer per square kilometer. The authors also wrote that such small populations could persist anywhere if the prey density was at average population levels and productivity, and where wolf production exceeded mortality.
Several notable examples of small wolf populations can be found in the scientific literature. The Isle Royale wolf population began from a single pair of wolves in about 1949. The population has fluctuated between 12-90 individuals. This population has persisted for more than 50 years despite being isolated on an island and apparently losing 50 percent of their original genetic diversity. Remnant wolf populations in Europe (i.e., Italy, Spain and Portugal) numbering fewer than 100-200 wolves persisted for decades and have since expanded their numbers and range, and avoided extinction (USFWS 1994).
Post by: whacker1 on September 29, 2011, 01:26:50 PM
Zone management requirements and total number of breeding pairs are the 2 big concerns from my end.:yeah:
:bumpin:
Post by: asl20bball on September 29, 2011, 01:52:43 PM
Post by: Sumpnneedskillin on September 29, 2011, 02:12:55 PM
Post by: KillBilly on September 29, 2011, 03:57:17 PM
In answer to another question, The feds are more concerned with Washington Wildlife Managers using Good Sound Science in creating this recovery plan. Therefore if 2 or 4 or 6 were the absolute best science and scientific data being used then the feds would approve. Truly, it is all down to the Science being used. The reason WFW is strongly admonishing the Commission to reject the current Wolf Recovery and Management is because of the lack of Sound Science and Data. Their plan is full of holes and un-answered questions.
The plan should consider various approaches to meeting recovery objectives including, but not limited to regulation, mitigation, acquisition, incentive, and compensation mechanisms.
We as hunters and wildlife enthusiasts find it very difficult to see how WDFW is meeting these requirements and would like to remind the WDFW and the Commission of two other major commitments:
1. Mission: To preserve, protect and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable
fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities.
2. To meet the requirements of the Federal Endangered Species Act. Which requires the Management
of endangered species using Science & Scientific Data.
Post by: mulehunter on September 29, 2011, 04:11:33 PM
WDFW need expand Fish hatcheris use funds because we use fish to eat. They need confirmed 15 BP then OPEN HUNT. No three years after 15 Bp. because it will grow faster and WDFW doesnt care about fish and they want no food for us by hunting Elk,Deer. WDFW want raise funds and borrow 75,000.00 To study and expand more wolves. It pissed me off more because WDFW doesnt want read story, history, experiences from other states. WDFW think they have good Balls than them. Oh sure they will have to fix all problem over again by not listen to what happen to other states. WDFW need to learn that " WE " need food Fish, Elk, Deer. But WDFW all cares about letting wolves wipe out healthy Herds. :bash:
WDFW need to be loyality with us as hunter friendship. if WDFW want to hurt our friendship they loose Tags dollars. WDFW need to help us to keep tradation alive. but they dont want to listen to 1925's problem Now what happen to whole hunters start to quit, avoiding, many busniess got slow down, who fault is it. all F/G as MANAGEMENT WHO SUPPORT WOLVES. WE DONT NEED WOLVES IN American.. period.
Mulehunter.
Post by: fillthefreezer on September 29, 2011, 04:16:06 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on September 29, 2011, 05:00:54 PM
Post by: Tman on September 29, 2011, 05:59:44 PM
Post by: KillBilly on September 29, 2011, 06:03:05 PM
in one year my german shepherd had 2 litters totalling 21 pups. she was only 1 year old. about half of the litter were females, they too would be ready to breed at one year old. how many wolves could we have if they followed a similar pattern by year three...? :bdid:
Well wolf breeding patterns and number of whelp are totally different than any domestic dog. However, the fact remains that during the 3 year waiting period, there is portential for the total count to reach the 6-700 wolves. That is why WFW is asking for 8BPs or 80 wolves without a 3 year waiting period.
Post by: runamuk on September 29, 2011, 06:07:05 PM
my 13 cents :)
Post by: Skyvalhunter on September 29, 2011, 06:15:26 PM
Post by: gaddy on September 29, 2011, 06:25:40 PM
Post by: KillBilly on September 29, 2011, 06:28:13 PM
Chapter 4 is about Wolf-Livestock Conflicts and Chapter 5 is about Wolf-Ungulate Interactions.... It is a tedious read but very worthwhile.
Post by: sled on September 29, 2011, 07:24:28 PM
On an average summer camping and hiking we see about twelve cougar kills in the woods. They cant even manage them right. We need to bring back hounds.
I voted! :tup:
Post by: norsepeak on September 29, 2011, 07:36:03 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on September 29, 2011, 07:55:38 PM
Washington has the smallest area and largest population of all of the western states. We absolutely cannot support that many wolves and hunters as well. Why can't wdfw learn from Idaho and Montana, why do they have to do things the hard way all the time. Absolutely against the wolf plan.I think it is the bios. They used a method of overlays to determine suitable wolf habitat. They mostly copied the model used by the feds for Idaho and Montana, but changed a few things. The one the feds used included sheep grazing land. WDFW assumes that sheep grazing is negligible in WA, so they omitted that overlay. The result if I remember correctly is that they used forested land and major population areas. They might have included major hiways too (don't recall). In the end they came up with WA having more suitable wolf habitat than ID or even more than WY and MT combined. :dunno: The chart they had said WA had the most of all the western states.
Post by: KillBilly on September 29, 2011, 08:23:55 PM
Washington has the smallest area and largest population of all of the western states. We absolutely cannot support that many wolves and hunters as well. Why can't wdfw learn from Idaho and Montana, why do they have to do things the hard way all the time. Absolutely against the wolf plan.I think it is the bios. They used a method of overlays to determine suitable wolf habitat. They mostly copied the model used by the feds for Idaho and Montana, but changed a few things. The one the feds used included sheep grazing land. WDFW assumes that sheep grazing is negligible in WA, so they omitted that overlay. The result if I remember correctly is that they used forested land and major population areas. They might have included major hiways too (don't recall). In the end they came up with WA having more suitable wolf habitat than ID or even more than WY and MT combined. :dunno: The chart they had said WA had the most of all the western states.
The Wolf Group chose to use only 4 of 8 indicators included in the Oakleaf model.
The model showed that sheep have a negative impact because they are more closely watched but sheep are a very small portion of the livestock industry in WA.
They did not have a good scientific explanation for why but we do know that we have wolves currently inhabiting traditional cattle grazing areas and that has not proven to be a very successful strategy in other states.
After studying the model, it is a fact that Washington does have more Suitable and Sustainable Wolf Habitat than the other states. The Olympic Peninsula was not included in the model even though it offers less conflict because it contains large tracts of Federal land including Olympic National Park.
The most contiguous wolf habitat is on the peninsula, no cattle, no sheep, and less people. One of the Commissioners stated that there was no scientific basis for not including the coastal area in the model. The WDFW response was in regard to connectivity. They are unsure how wolves would get across the I-5 corridor.
Post by: gaddy on September 30, 2011, 05:48:26 PM
Post by: KillBilly on September 30, 2011, 06:31:04 PM
only 163 ?
pathetic isn't it.
Post by: gaddy on September 30, 2011, 07:14:15 PM
Post by: nwwanderer on September 30, 2011, 09:08:24 PM
Post by: Justin7mm on September 30, 2011, 09:27:37 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/comments.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/comments.html)
Most of them are from the pro-wolf groups. Most of them are long on opinions and short on facts.
They want us to think that 15 breeding pairs is no where near enough to have a self sustaining population with genetic diversity.
The facts: News flash folks, idaho released 15 wolves in 1995 and 20 in 1996 for a grand total of 35. in 2 years this turned into 120 wolves, 6 more years put the number around 500. Now Idaho has so many wolves that they can only estimate the number. That seems pretty self sustaining to me.
They want us to think that wolves will complete the ecosystem, killing the old and the sick members of the herds.
The facts: "Jason Husseman, Salmon Region wolf biologist, conducted a winter wolf and mountain lion predation study in Unit 28 from 1999 - 2001 for his Master's thesis. During that period, Husseman examined 120 wolf kills, comprised of elk (77%) and deer (23%). Wolves selected for elk calves (60%) but also killed cows (32%) and bulls (8%). Deer taken by wolves were mostly fawns (65%)." This passage was from an essay written by Jim Lukens, IDFG salmon region supervisor. I think the point here is clear enough, young animals die too, the future of the herd.
They want us to think that wolves will bring great benefit to the state in the form of tourist dollars.
The facts: While there is no hard fast evidence on this subject. When was the last time you heard about Idaho and Montana's booming wolf tourism industry. I hunt in Idaho and Montana. I spend $1000 dollars for out of state tags before i even step foot into the state. Add in food, gear, gas, hotel, etc. and you have a huge loss of money. Idaho sold every single out of state elk tag a few years ago...this year to date there are 6,024 tags left in their quota at $417/per. That works out to over 2.5million in out of state money that they aren't getting on tags alone. Did I mention that there are 10,718 non-resident deer tags left too? ..only 3.25 million left on the table with those.
I am getting tired of writing for now, but one other thing that i think we need in the plan is to have the ability to defend our dogs and animals from wolf attacks without being persecuted for basic self defense. The information is hard to find but many, many wolves were killed for "control" in idaho over the years, including entire problem packs, and that didn't seem to slow their growth at all.
Post by: KillBilly on September 30, 2011, 10:15:32 PM
I 5 corridor? Walk I suppose. Where did we find these folks?
Yes that is pretty funny... all the other predators cross the I-5 corridor all the time.
Post by: KillBilly on September 30, 2011, 10:22:07 PM
Quote
According to WAC 232-12-297 “Recovery and management of listed species”
11.1.3 An implementation plan for reaching population objectives which will promote cooperative management and be sensitive
to landowner needs and property rights. The plan will specify resources needed from and impacts to the department, other
agencies (including federal, state, and local), tribes, landowners, and other interest groups. The plan shall consider various
approaches to meeting recovery objectives including, but not limited to regulation, mitigation, acquisition, incentive, and compensation
mechanisms.
They don't even follow the rules of the state.
Post by: mulehunter on September 30, 2011, 11:07:26 PM
We want your vote to make better for all hunters and Ranchers.
This picture show me a Beauitful bull. I dont see him being sick. But being stuck in lake, thats why wolves are killer machine. Wolves have always plow them in to death no matter what. Wolves kill 6 Cows pull out pregency stomach and leave just one day
This bull wont be here for any tag. Choice are yours.
Join with us Vote for our future. SAVE ELK for your future hunting and coming children to hunting.
Three years later just remember that Bearpaw, killbilly, all people 169 who involed done everything to save our hunting tradation. More vote the better. :tup:
Mulehunter.
Post by: scoyoc5 on October 01, 2011, 12:10:28 PM
Post by: high country on October 01, 2011, 12:10:59 PM
Post by: runamuk on October 01, 2011, 04:28:34 PM
169 votes. :yike: I wish it would show 6,000 voted. :'( I feel bad for most hunters. They spend most of time in wood and get nothing but burn 300-1,000 dollar one weekend. Bio tell u all B.S. Like they said wolves are good to manage Sick Herd. Larry lost two cows, We lost two hounds, friend of guy lost two Great pygrene. Thats fine if you dont believe it.
We want your vote to make better for all hunters and Ranchers.
This picture show me a Beauitful bull. I dont see him being sick. But being stuck in lake, thats why wolves are killer machine. Wolves have always plow them in to death no matter what. Wolves kill 6 Cows pull out pregency stomach and leave just one day
This bull wont be here for any tag. Choice are yours.
Join with us Vote for our future. SAVE ELK for your future hunting and coming children to hunting.
Three years later just remember that Bearpaw, killbilly, all people 169 who involed done everything to save our hunting tradation. More vote the better. :tup:
Mulehunter.
hold it that is heresy wolves kill sick and weak only...your picture must be photoshopped it shows a bull being taken down :rolleyes: :dunno: note immense sarcasm in vocal tone
and a HUGE thing being left out of this equation in the past wolves were only eradicated from select areas using trapping and poison there is no way man can exterminate wolves by just hunting if it was possible there would be no coyotes left since they have an open season year round and yet we still have healthy populations of coyotes. Heck big cities like LA and San Diego can't control their feral dog populations, canines are extremely adept survivors and they are smart the people currently trying to manage them seem to be rather inept.
Post by: bow_hunter44 on October 03, 2011, 05:55:02 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on October 03, 2011, 05:59:04 AM
Post by: Sumpnneedskillin on October 03, 2011, 11:46:43 AM
hold it that is heresy wolves kill sick and weak only...your picture must be photoshopped it shows a bull being taken down :rolleyes: :dunno: note immense sarcasm in vocal tone
and a HUGE thing being left out of this equation in the past wolves were only eradicated from select areas using trapping and poison there is no way man can exterminate wolves by just hunting if it was possible there would be no coyotes left since they have an open season year round and yet we still have healthy populations of coyotes. Heck big cities like LA and San Diego can't control their feral dog populations, canines are extremely adept survivors and they are smart the people currently trying to manage them seem to be rather inept.
Not just feral dogs. Coyotes too. When I was stationed in San Diego they had several incidents where they called in exterminators to take care of agressive coyotes in neighborhoods.
Post by: just in joy on October 03, 2011, 11:24:04 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on October 05, 2011, 11:07:20 AM
Post by: demontang on October 05, 2011, 11:35:57 AM
Post by: Jason on October 05, 2011, 12:01:50 PM
Post by: yakimarcher on October 05, 2011, 12:02:15 PM
Another factor that really concerns me is the Wolves impact on the small heard of Woodland Caribou up in the Selkirks. I have found absolutely no information on this matter.
Post by: Cowboy on October 05, 2011, 12:11:20 PM
Post by: brianmtsinc on October 05, 2011, 12:19:53 PM
Bringing these NON NATIVE species "back" serves no purpose for the general public, and will only serve to harm our wildlife that WDFW is suppose to be managing. If they "must" be allowed then the only way is to manage them by the total numbers and to legally allow anyone that feels his/her life, property, livestock or pets are in danger to kill them and report the incident to the WDFW.
Allowing this to happen is another clear example of the minority dictating to the majority.
Post by: DuckDr.Duke on October 05, 2011, 12:34:36 PM
Post by: demontang on October 05, 2011, 01:10:09 PM
Post by: bobcat on October 05, 2011, 01:19:41 PM
Quote
Aren’t the wolves that were re-introduced in other places non-native or different from earlier wolves?
No. The belief that the wolves reintroduced in the mid-1990s to Idaho and Yellowstone National Park from west-central Alberta and east-central British Columbia differed (being larger and more aggressive) from the wolves that originally occurred in the northern Rocky Mountain states is erroneous for several reasons.
First, wolves from the Canadian and northern U.S. Rockies, interior British Columbia, Northwest Territories, and nearly all of Alaska are closely related and belong to a single subspecies known as Canis lupus occidentalis. This conclusion is based on the examination of historical and recent wolf specimens collected throughout North America. Those originating from the region described above have proven to be genetically and morphologically similar. Examples of this are seen in the wolves harvested during the 2009 hunting seasons in Montana and Idaho. Adults from Montana weighed an average of 97 lbs with a maximum of 117 lbs, whereas adults from Idaho weighed an average of 101 lbs with a maximum of about 130 lbs. These weights are similar to the sizes of the wolves that occurred in these states in the 1800s and early 1900s.
Second, wolves are well known for their ability to disperse long distances from their birth sites. Radio-tracking data show that wolves from southeastern British Columbia and southwestern Alberta mix both with wolves from Idaho and Montana, and with wolves from farther north near the source locations of the animals used in the Idaho and Yellowstone reintroductions. When combined with recent research that reveals considerable genetic mixing among wolf populations in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, this information shows that wolves form a single population across the Rocky Mountains of the northern U.S. and southern Canada.
Third, recent genetic research involving hundreds of wolves sampled from Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming in the 1990s and 2000s found no evidence that the remnant native population of wolves that differed from the reintroduced wolves. Thus, the wolves present in these states before wolf recovery began were genetically similar to those used in the reintroduction.
Post by: Swannytheswan on October 05, 2011, 01:32:16 PM
Post by: sebek556 on October 05, 2011, 01:43:58 PM
Post by: bobcat on October 05, 2011, 01:48:17 PM
Quote
Were wolves ever re-introduced to Washington?
No. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has never reintroduced or transplanted wolves from other states or provinces into Washington, nor has any other state or federal authority. There are no plans to ever do this. There is no reason to bring wolves into Washington because they are returning naturally from dispersing populations in nearby states and provinces.
Post by: greenhead_killer on October 05, 2011, 02:42:10 PM
Post by: VarmintVentilator on October 05, 2011, 03:38:57 PM
Post by: sebek556 on October 05, 2011, 05:53:09 PM
Post by: L8NITE on October 05, 2011, 07:06:53 PM
Post by: KillBilly on October 05, 2011, 07:27:00 PM
we are starting to get them in, keep the votes coming we are running out of time!
Yes we are, thanks for your votes guys.
Post by: demontang on October 05, 2011, 09:56:57 PM
Post by: firefighter4607 on October 06, 2011, 03:55:59 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on October 06, 2011, 05:45:01 AM
Post by: bowhuntersd on October 06, 2011, 12:14:03 PM
Post by: sebek556 on October 06, 2011, 03:21:30 PM
Post by: sebek556 on October 07, 2011, 09:24:51 AM
Post by: bearpaw on October 07, 2011, 12:38:30 PM
Post by: 6x6in6 on October 07, 2011, 12:41:49 PM
HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: runamuk on October 08, 2011, 08:00:15 AM
Another myth seems to be that wolves were, or are being, introduced into the state. Also not true:
QuoteWere wolves ever re-introduced to Washington?
No. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has never reintroduced or transplanted wolves from other states or provinces into Washington, nor has any other state or federal authority. There are no plans to ever do this. There is no reason to bring wolves into Washington because they are returning naturally from dispersing populations in nearby states and provinces.
that statement does not make sense when compared with this statement
Quote
Third, recent genetic research involving hundreds of wolves sampled from Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming in the 1990s and 2000s found no evidence that the remnant native population of wolves that differed from the reintroduced wolves. Thus, the wolves present in these states before wolf recovery began were genetically similar to those used in the reintroduction.
either wolves were reintroduced or werent and its hard to have remnant populations of a species supposedly eradicated/exterminated/or for all intents and purposes supposedly wiped to extinction...lies lies and more lies
Post by: high country on October 08, 2011, 12:46:38 PM
Post by: sebek556 on October 08, 2011, 09:01:07 PM
Post by: KillBilly on October 09, 2011, 05:38:31 PM
i agree completely high country, I still find it hard to beleave that the state would value a wolf, over a tax payer.. :dunno:
Give this some thought please. Although the WDFW's credibility is thinner than high altitude cold air as far as the Wolf Plan is concerned. The Federal Government is the one forcing us to recover and manage an endangered species. As sad as it is, there are certain areas where WDFW's hands are tied. One of those areas is manpower budget and the use of lethal take. Even if they wantd to utilize lethal take as a primary means, the lovers would have them tied up in Federal Court for sure. So, bottom line is this they aren't really wanting to not allow us to protect our pets and livestock, they just can't say it's okay.....
And.... genetic testing has confirmed that are of the same species that we first had here in Wa.
Post by: bearpaw on October 10, 2011, 02:34:27 AM
What happens to the other 2/3 of the state is where we are hung up with the feds.
Post by: winshooter88 on October 10, 2011, 02:48:58 AM
Post by: Little Dave on October 10, 2011, 03:22:32 AM
Quote
And.... genetic testing has confirmed that are of the same species that we first had here in Wa.
Just for a point of trivia, the gray wolf is the same species as the domestic dog. Both are classified as the species canis lupus, and distinguished by a subspecies name. Should a day ever come when the gray wolf population is low enough to merit legitimate special protection, a term such as endangered subspecies might make more sense.
What I would like the commission to do is to remove the extirpated gray wolf from the state endangered species list since gray wolves are neither endangered, nor species.
15 breeding pairs sounds expensive. It also sounds like the advice for 15 breeding pairs comes from the type of people that visit zoos - where the ways of nature are carefully sanitized for urban sensibilities. It would be so much better to calibrate the number of wolves as they arrive to some currently unknown population level that we determine we can manage without bankrupting the Department of Fish and Wildlife by a wild and careless guess.
Post by: KillBilly on October 10, 2011, 05:08:26 AM
QuoteAnd.... genetic testing has confirmed that are of the same species that we first had here in Wa.
Just for a point of trivia, the gray wolf is the same species as the domestic dog. Both are classified as the species canis lupus, and distinguished by a subspecies name. Should a day ever come when the gray wolf population is low enough to merit legitimate special protection, a term such as endangered subspecies might make more sense.
What I would like the commission to do is to remove the extirpated gray wolf from the state endangered species list since gray wolves are neither endangered, nor species.
15 breeding pairs sounds expensive. It also sounds like the advice for 15 breeding pairs comes from the type of people that visit zoos - where the ways of nature are carefully sanitized for urban sensibilities. It would be so much better to calibrate the number of wolves as they arrive to some currently unknown population level that we determine we can manage without bankrupting the Department of Fish and Wildlife by a wild and careless guess.
Good Point :tup:
Post by: sebek556 on October 11, 2011, 10:52:49 AM
Post by: KillBilly on October 11, 2011, 01:47:17 PM
Thanks
Al
Post by: sebek556 on October 11, 2011, 02:28:30 PM
Post by: jager on October 11, 2011, 06:27:53 PM
Post by: sebek556 on October 11, 2011, 07:38:20 PM
Post by: firefighter4607 on October 12, 2011, 04:11:01 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on October 12, 2011, 05:35:48 AM
every time this pops we get a few more votes, lets keep it going! :tup:True true obviously some don't care enough to get involved and would rather take the back seat attitude.
Post by: KillBilly on October 12, 2011, 06:07:00 AM
Post by: bearpaw on October 13, 2011, 06:15:34 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on October 13, 2011, 06:18:54 AM
Post by: firefighter4607 on October 13, 2011, 12:37:25 PM
Post by: grundy53 on October 13, 2011, 01:19:38 PM
Post by: sebek556 on October 14, 2011, 03:50:01 PM
Post by: thatdamguy on October 14, 2011, 04:20:37 PM
Hunters with their wolf kills
watch this video it just might make you guys smile as big as I did :chuckle:
Post by: sebek556 on October 14, 2011, 08:49:52 PM
Post by: Yummy and Tasty Animal on October 25, 2011, 12:25:22 AM
P.S. We should petition Randy Anderson to start a new line of wolf howler calls.
Post by: bearpaw on October 31, 2011, 02:37:23 PM
Post by: bearpaw on November 02, 2011, 01:48:05 PM