Post by: bearpaw on June 03, 2011, 08:22:24 PM
Do you think we need 15 breeding pairs in Washington?
Post by: seth30 on June 03, 2011, 08:25:01 PM
Post by: seth30 on June 03, 2011, 08:26:37 PM
Post by: elkaholic on June 03, 2011, 08:29:04 PM
Post by: jackelope on June 03, 2011, 08:31:16 PM
:twocents:
Post by: 3nails on June 03, 2011, 08:35:41 PM
Post by: Ridgeratt on June 03, 2011, 08:37:49 PM
It was attended by Quadrafire,Whacker and Myself.
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,72248.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,72248.0.html)
The thing that I found most disturbing is that they will only count a pack if they breed in this state, not those that are close to a border either Canada or Idaho. Even though they are crossing the lines to feed on the resource we have here.
The Bio even made mention of a pack in the Salmo that spends it time in all 3 parts but it doesn't count.
There have been wolves in this state since the late 70's along the border but just not to the extent that they wish to have now.
Post by: carpsniperg2 on June 03, 2011, 08:41:54 PM
Post by: danderson on June 03, 2011, 08:45:50 PM
Post by: kennedy244 on June 03, 2011, 08:48:26 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 03, 2011, 08:49:17 PM
Sorry if I sound so blunt. Not trying to offend anyone.
Seth, we are talking wolf wars, let it all out, I want to hear your real thoughts on this. This topic is posted to get real thoughts, forget about politically correct. Tell us what you think.... :twocents:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 03, 2011, 08:54:51 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 03, 2011, 09:00:58 PM
Guess what, it's pretty darn abvious Malloy is going to overrule Congress anyway. :twocents:
Post by: DoubleJ on June 03, 2011, 09:06:19 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 03, 2011, 09:17:57 PM
Post by: DoubleJ on June 03, 2011, 09:22:51 PM
Post by: 3nails on June 03, 2011, 09:31:12 PM
I would like to know the real driving force behind the reintroduction. What is the real reason they are pushing this so hard?To put "balance" in natures hand so that hunters are'nt needed to control the animals. Then, since they won't need hunters, there will be less need for gun ownership. And no better way to control the people than disarming and brainwashing them.
Post by: DoubleJ on June 03, 2011, 09:34:23 PM
How many states down south have a "deer problem" because they have few natural predators? What do those states do? Look at Georgia. A resident can spend $9 for a deer license, $16 for a 2 year license, or $500 for a lifetime license. For that money, each hunter gets at least a 1 month hunting season, some counties are 4 months. Bag limits for your $9, $16, or $500 is 10 antlerless AND 2 antlered deer, each season!
12 frickin' deer for $9. That's how you manage an ungulate population without adding an invasive, un-needed species.
Post by: waoutdoorsman on June 03, 2011, 09:34:35 PM
[ To put "balance" in natures hand so that hunters are'nt needed to control the animals. Then, since they won't need hunters, there will be less need for gun ownership. And no better way to control the people than disarming and brainwashing them.
:yeah:
Post by: bearpaw on June 03, 2011, 09:35:07 PM
I would like to know the real driving force behind the reintroduction. What is the real reason they are pushing this so hard?To put "balance" in natures hand so that hunters are'nt needed to control the animals. Then, since they won't need hunters, there will be less need for gun ownership. And no better way to control the people than disarming and brainwashing them.
3nails, you hit the nail on the head... :chuckle:
Post by: asl20bball on June 03, 2011, 09:41:36 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 03, 2011, 09:44:12 PM
I believe we are being narrow minded. It is not just to eliminate the need for human hunting it is to eliminate the need for human interaction with the "Wildland" period. If the Game is eradicated we will no longer venture out there. Yes, the "Viewing Revenue" in bunk and also irrelevant. It is apples and oranges. The plan is to lower the numbers of some species to levels that are not sustainable. That is the plan, and or, the results. Next is the Ranchers, then the Farmers. Close the roads to logging. Corridors Complete. We are in a War folks, we need to wake up.
Post by: DoubleJ on June 03, 2011, 09:47:12 PM
1. Vote our dems out of office? Good luck with that. Besides, having a conservative gov't body hasn't helped Montana or Idaho fight this battle.
2. Voice our concerns? Seems like after the past decade of doing this, it falls on deaf ears.'
3. Try to work with those in power to come to an amicable resolution? Doesn't seem like their interested.
4. SSS? Illegal if caught. Tough to find the animals and probably too many to shoot, especially without getting caught.
I hate feeling like there is nothing that can be done but, I'm starting to feel like that about the wolves.
Post by: Jack Diamond on June 03, 2011, 10:04:51 PM
However if we take the stance that there is nothing we can do, well you just surrendered my chance and yours. one voice in the wilderness is not heard, however voices united can and will be heard.
Join organizations that are fighting for our rights, not just H&F rights , but Livestock groups, and neighborhoods that will be impacted. Do Not resign yourself that nothing can be done.
Post by: Button Nubbs on June 03, 2011, 10:23:07 PM
Post by: rebal69972 on June 03, 2011, 10:27:46 PM
Post by: mulehunter on June 03, 2011, 10:35:28 PM
Mulehunter.
Post by: Bob33 on June 03, 2011, 10:37:24 PM
wolves's? well they concern me. I run sheep and cattle on a pasture that is just west of the SR 17 line, so they may impact me,over and above the concern for wildlife.Many, but not all of the wolf lovers are naive, ill informed sheeple. They can be educated, and may change their perspectives. They've probably never seen a sheep get ripped apart by a wolf, and left to die unmercifully. They're probably never considered the plight of the farmer or outfitter who has to lay off a worker, or sell his business because of lost revenues caused by wolves causing wildlife loss. They don't understand the contributions that hunters have made to wildlife preservation, and how that is in jeopardy.
However if we take the stance that there is nothing we can do, well you just surrendered my chance and yours. one voice in the wilderness is not heard, however voices united can and will be heard.
Join organizations that are fighting for our rights, not just H&F rights , but Livestock groups, and neighborhoods that will be impacted. Do Not resign yourself that nothing can be done.
Reach out to them with clear logic, and the argument may turn in our favor. Doing nothing is a cop out.
Post by: Labredog on June 03, 2011, 10:38:52 PM
:twocents::bdid: :bdid:
Post by: hub on June 03, 2011, 10:50:57 PM
Post by: True Sportsman on June 03, 2011, 10:51:36 PM
So, what can be done?
1. Vote our dems out of office? Good luck with that. Besides, having a conservative gov't body hasn't helped Montana or Idaho fight this battle.
2. Voice our concerns? Seems like after the past decade of doing this, it falls on deaf ears.'
3. Try to work with those in power to come to an amicable resolution? Doesn't seem like their interested.
4. SSS? Illegal if caught. Tough to find the animals and probably too many to shoot, especially without getting caught.
I hate feeling like there is nothing that can be done but, I'm starting to feel like that about the wolves.
First, I'd like to say, I don't care for wolf threads because they never seem productive, but I will take a stab at this... To answer the previous post, there is always something to be done.
I feel that all hunters are governed by laws. Some laws I feel are ridiculous, but I follow them anyway. Other laws i vehemently disagree with and choose to not follow.
I am in the woods a lot. I would love to run into a wolf in the wild, or heaven forbid, find myself amidst a pack of wolves up in the NE.
When the majority of hunters feel a specific way about control of a certain population, it is up to us to do what we think is correct. Unwritten rule, I say...
Post by: Malottguy on June 03, 2011, 11:43:35 PM
Where humans live we are top dog(pardon the pun) and in places that we can't live well the wolf is more the top predator. It is a balancing act NATURE has intended. There was a reason we killed wolves off. One being they were our competition and we are the species that succeeded, not the wolf.
So to answer the question NO we DO NOT need wolves here. If I want to see a wolf in the wild I will go to places that humans are not in enough numbers to be the top predator, like Siberia.
Post by: rtspring on June 04, 2011, 03:52:59 AM
I have given a whole hell of alot to this state as far as time and energy and money in wildlife conservation.
I refuse to just sit and hope that some politician of judge will make things right. We all know that *censored* don't work, anyone look in the whitehouse lately??? I am sick and tired of all the bickering and money spent fighting these idiots who don't have a clue on what they are trying to do. Like I said in a earlier post, the state has there plan and I have mine...
Post by: Lowedog on June 04, 2011, 06:44:50 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 04, 2011, 07:07:09 AM
Post by: jackelope on June 04, 2011, 10:14:17 AM
Has WA ever had 15 breeding pairs? Maybe before white man was here. My understanding is a wolf pack has a large territory encompassing 100+ square miles. IMO 15 breeding pairs is a number that will never be obtained and will keep the wolf a protected species in WA.
Especially with the distribution requirements of those 15 breeding pairs.
Post by: bearpaw on June 04, 2011, 10:19:01 AM
Has WA ever had 15 breeding pairs? Maybe before white man was here. My understanding is a wolf pack has a large territory encompassing 100+ square miles. IMO 15 breeding pairs is a number that will never be obtained and will keep the wolf a protected species in WA.
Especially with the distribution requirements of those 15 breeding pairs.
very good points....
I am going to add a HW poll for this topic. I want to use discussion from the entire HW membership to make a proposal for a position to be taken by WFW.
Please everyone, keep adding your comments and any ideas you may have on the wolf issue.
Post by: bearpaw on June 04, 2011, 10:29:04 AM
Should wolves be allowed everywhere in the state?
Should wolves be kept only in wilderness and the most remote areas of Washington?
Should all wolves be removed from Washington?
Post by: hogsniper on June 04, 2011, 10:42:10 AM
Post by: HighCountryHunter88 on June 04, 2011, 10:42:37 AM
Post by: DoubleJ on June 04, 2011, 10:43:50 AM
Post by: alecvg on June 04, 2011, 10:48:50 AM
Post by: greenhead_killer on June 04, 2011, 11:09:37 AM
Post by: robertg on June 04, 2011, 11:10:50 AM
I don't want wolves in this state, especially a non native species. But lets be honest here, there is no way in hell that we are gonna be able to go back to having zero any more. I think now, we need to push for a managed population. What that would be? I don't know, but we need to treat them like any other species, and manage them.
gray wolves are a native species. The population will be managed when there are 15 breeding pairs. you hunters who are advocating "sss" are no better than poachers.
Post by: robertg on June 04, 2011, 11:16:49 AM
its one of the worst ideas they have ever had. the wolves have been gone for so long that to reitroduce them is going to be MORE damaging to wildlife than if they never came here. it almost calls for a need to cut the state in half. westsiders are trying to make rules and implement things on the eastside, quite frankly i think because they will never have to personally deal with anything that passes. why are they so intent on placing wolves on the eastside? they have been found on the westside. why not plant 6 breeding pairs between bellevue and north bend? that way there, people who are pushing this will have to deal with the consequences of their actions. vote wolves in, they get dropped in YOUR backyard. you want them, perfect, you deal with them. dont try to push them on everyone else in the state where you will never deal with them. i think that with the ranchers and farmers, raising the prices of their goods would come as well. they start losing cattle, sheep, horses, pigs etc, the price per animal is going to have to go up so they can maintain their profit margin. we have plenty of predators with plenty of overbearing laws on them as it is, why add another, non- native species mind you, of predator that will make the current preds seem like kittens. they will destroy and decimate everything that people have worked for the last 60 years in the wildlife world. antelope, cya. bhs, cya. moose, cya. elk, deer, you guessed it, cya. we will go on outdoor hikes to look at bronze statues of what these animals looked like becuase there wont be any if these pukes have their way
I don't know where you are getting your misinformation from, but gray wolves are a NATIVE species and always have been.
Post by: DoubleJ on June 04, 2011, 11:17:12 AM
Post by: DoubleJ on June 04, 2011, 11:17:43 AM
its one of the worst ideas they have ever had. the wolves have been gone for so long that to reitroduce them is going to be MORE damaging to wildlife than if they never came here. it almost calls for a need to cut the state in half. westsiders are trying to make rules and implement things on the eastside, quite frankly i think because they will never have to personally deal with anything that passes. why are they so intent on placing wolves on the eastside? they have been found on the westside. why not plant 6 breeding pairs between bellevue and north bend? that way there, people who are pushing this will have to deal with the consequences of their actions. vote wolves in, they get dropped in YOUR backyard. you want them, perfect, you deal with them. dont try to push them on everyone else in the state where you will never deal with them. i think that with the ranchers and farmers, raising the prices of their goods would come as well. they start losing cattle, sheep, horses, pigs etc, the price per animal is going to have to go up so they can maintain their profit margin. we have plenty of predators with plenty of overbearing laws on them as it is, why add another, non- native species mind you, of predator that will make the current preds seem like kittens. they will destroy and decimate everything that people have worked for the last 60 years in the wildlife world. antelope, cya. bhs, cya. moose, cya. elk, deer, you guessed it, cya. we will go on outdoor hikes to look at bronze statues of what these animals looked like becuase there wont be any if these pukes have their way
I don't know where you are getting your misinformation from, but gray wolves are a NATIVE species and always have been.
And they were exterminated for a reason
Post by: robertg on June 04, 2011, 11:19:07 AM
I don't want wolves in this state, especially a non native species. But lets be honest here, there is no way in hell that we are gonna be able to go back to having zero any more. I think now, we need to push for a managed population. What that would be? I don't know, but we need to treat them like any other species, and manage them.
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 reintroductions.
Post by: DoubleJ on June 04, 2011, 11:21:01 AM
Post by: robertg on June 04, 2011, 11:23:38 AM
So, if they migrate so well, why plant them?
Wolves were never planted in Washington. They came over naturally from Idaho and other states. There is no reason to reintroduce wolves to Washington when they are already come over naturally from places like Idaho and Canada.
Post by: DoubleJ on June 04, 2011, 11:24:42 AM
So, if they migrate so well, why plant them?
Wolves were never planted in Washington. They came over naturally from Idaho and other states. There is no reason to reintroduce wolves to Washington when they are already come over naturally from places like Idaho and Canada.
Really? I think you are the one who has mistaken info
Post by: 3nails on June 04, 2011, 11:26:34 AM
Hmmm.... I wonder how those WDFW radio collars got around thier necks.So, if they migrate so well, why plant them?
Wolves were never planted in Washington. They came over naturally from Idaho and other states. There is no reason to reintroduce wolves to Washington when they are already come over naturally from places like Idaho and Canada.
Post by: greenhead_killer on June 04, 2011, 11:26:55 AM
So, if they migrate so well, why plant them?thats what i was thinking. if they are meant to be, then let them move themselves. why is it that we feel the need to undo things that are forefathers did 200 years ago? why is it our responsibility to undo it all? there was a reason they were removed in the first place and just b/c they once were here before, doesnt mean that they need to be brought back. and sorry about the non-native species, i dont really care what species, they dont need to be brought back. PERIOD.
Post by: robertg on June 04, 2011, 11:27:15 AM
I have to support the science again, and specialists in morphology and genetics on wolves indicate that the wolf that was brought down from Canada is the same wolf that lived here previously. And I did some research into books on early wolves that were captured in the Northern Rockies, even as far south as Colorado during the days that wolves were being hunted down in the 1930s; and the body weights were very much the same.
So I feel that this wolf that was brought from Canada is the same species and genetics as the wolves that lived here once upon a time. I think people have to remember that the northern Rockies -- we call it the northern Rockies in Idaho and Montana, but actually we’re a southern extension of the northern Rockies out of Canada -- and all of those wolves in Canada have the potential and the ability to disperse. I believe what happened over the last 50-60 years is that individual wolves have come from Canada following the Rocky Mountain chain and ended up periodically in places like Montana and Idaho.-Carter Niemeyer
Post by: robertg on June 04, 2011, 11:31:04 AM
Hmmm.... I wonder how those WDFW radio collars got around thier necks.So, if they migrate so well, why plant them?
Wolves were never planted in Washington. They came over naturally from Idaho and other states. There is no reason to reintroduce wolves to Washington when they are already come over naturally from places like Idaho and Canada.
They captured the wolves in WA and put radio collars on them to monitor their movements and survival. These wolves were in Washington already. Naturally coming over from places like Idaho and Canada. Given the fact that wolves travel a lot of miles, it is not a shock for them to come over to Washington.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 04, 2011, 11:31:14 AM
Post by: robertg on June 04, 2011, 11:32:35 AM
So, if they migrate so well, why plant them?thats what i was thinking. if they are meant to be, then let them move themselves. why is it that we feel the need to undo things that are forefathers did 200 years ago? why is it our responsibility to undo it all? there was a reason they were removed in the first place and just b/c they once were here before, doesnt mean that they need to be brought back. and sorry about the non-native species, i dont really care what species, they dont need to be brought back. PERIOD.
That is how you personally feel. Others in Washington feel like they should be brought back. I'm just telling you how it is.
Post by: DoubleJ on June 04, 2011, 11:34:27 AM
So, if they migrate so well, why plant them?thats what i was thinking. if they are meant to be, then let them move themselves. why is it that we feel the need to undo things that are forefathers did 200 years ago? why is it our responsibility to undo it all? there was a reason they were removed in the first place and just b/c they once were here before, doesnt mean that they need to be brought back. and sorry about the non-native species, i dont really care what species, they dont need to be brought back. PERIOD.
That is how you personally feel. Others in Washington feel like they should be brought back. I'm just telling you how it is.
Anyone in Washington that feels they should be brought back have no vested interest in them being here
Post by: jackelope on June 04, 2011, 11:44:21 AM
So, if they migrate so well, why plant them?
Wolves were never planted in Washington. They came over naturally from Idaho and other states. There is no reason to reintroduce wolves to Washington when they are already come over naturally from places like Idaho and Canada.
Really? I think you are the one who has mistaken info
DoubleJ-
Do you have information showing they were planted in Washington?
Post by: Kain on June 04, 2011, 11:46:28 AM
Post by: robertg on June 04, 2011, 11:47:30 AM
So, if they migrate so well, why plant them?
Wolves were never planted in Washington. They came over naturally from Idaho and other states. There is no reason to reintroduce wolves to Washington when they are already come over naturally from places like Idaho and Canada.
Really? I think you are the one who has mistaken info
How's that? Do you have any proof that wolves were planted or is this just another conspiracy theory? You said wolves were wiped out for a reason. Elk. bison, grizzlies, etc were also. Humans don't have any right to have wipe out any species.
Post by: jackelope on June 04, 2011, 11:50:25 AM
Hmmm.... I wonder how those WDFW radio collars got around thier necks.So, if they migrate so well, why plant them?
Wolves were never planted in Washington. They came over naturally from Idaho and other states. There is no reason to reintroduce wolves to Washington when they are already come over naturally from places like Idaho and Canada.
Wolves were trapped in Washington and collared. This is a pic of this happening. There are others on here, Bearpaw being one of them, that will verify this is a wolf that was trapped and collared in Washington.
That's how the collars got on them.
If we're going to debate the wolves on here, then so be it... please have evidence to back up claims. Otherwise, unfounded claims just look kinda silly. If we as hunters and outdoorsmen in this state are going to make a stand against the wolves and push towards management on a state level here too, then we need it to be an educated push and not just a bunch of people throwing stones.
:twocents:
Post by: jackelope on June 04, 2011, 11:53:30 AM
Im going to start calling anyone who says wolves are endangered a liar. There somewhere around 70,000 wolves in North America. Personally I dont have a problem with a few wolves in WA that migrate here naturally but they need to be managed as soon as they cross the border. They cannot be allowed to leave a path of destruction in their wake as they work their way to the ocean. The fed has delisted the wolf in almost one third of the state. I say we demand that any money going towards wolves is cut by one third. If wolves can adapt to modern landscapes and human populations then they belong here. They will live and survive where there is the fewest conflicts. That is natures way.
Where'd that number come from?
Post by: Kain on June 04, 2011, 11:57:37 AM
Where'd that number come from?
http://library.fws.gov/pubs3/wolves00.pdf (http://library.fws.gov/pubs3/wolves00.pdf)
http://www.defenders.org/wildlife_and_habitat/wildlife/wolf,_gray.php (http://www.defenders.org/wildlife_and_habitat/wildlife/wolf,_gray.php)
Doesnt give the population for Canada but its still around 50000.
Quote
Population
There are an estimated 7,000 to 11,200 wolves in Alaska and more than 5,000 in the lower 48 states. Around the world there are an estimated 200,000 in 57 countries, compared to up to 2 million in earlier times.
If you can trust Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grey_wolf_populations_by_country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grey_wolf_populations_by_country)
Quote
Canada has over 52,000-60,000 wolves which are legally considered a big game species, though they are afforded protection in 3% of Canada's territory. The Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon have 5,000 wolves each, British Columbia has 8000 wolves, Alberta 4,200, Saskatchewan 4,300, Manitoba 4,000-6,000, Ontario 9,000, Quebec 5,000 and Labrador 2,000. Canada currently has no livestock damage compensation programmes.[2]
The United States as a whole has up to 9,000 wolves which are increasing in number in all their ranges.
Post by: 3nails on June 04, 2011, 12:02:03 PM
Post by: jackelope on June 04, 2011, 12:10:51 PM
Im going to start calling anyone who says wolves are endangered a liar. There somewhere around 70,000 wolves in North America. Personally I dont have a problem with a few wolves in WA that migrate here naturally but they need to be managed as soon as they cross the border. They cannot be allowed to leave a path of destruction in their wake as they work their way to the ocean. The fed has delisted the wolf in almost one third of the state. I say we demand that any money going towards wolves is cut by one third. If wolves can adapt to modern landscapes and human populations then they belong here. They will live and survive where there is the fewest conflicts. That is natures way.
Where'd that number come from?
http://library.fws.gov/pubs3/wolves00.pdf (http://library.fws.gov/pubs3/wolves00.pdf)
http://www.defenders.org/wildlife_and_habitat/wildlife/wolf,_gray.php (http://www.defenders.org/wildlife_and_habitat/wildlife/wolf,_gray.php)
Doesnt give the population for Canada but its still around 50000.QuotePopulation
There are an estimated 7,000 to 11,200 wolves in Alaska and more than 5,000 in the lower 48 states. Around the world there are an estimated 200,000 in 57 countries, compared to up to 2 million in earlier times.
If you can trust Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grey_wolf_populations_by_country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grey_wolf_populations_by_country)QuoteCanada has over 52,000-60,000 wolves which are legally considered a big game species, though they are afforded protection in 3% of Canada's territory. The Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon have 5,000 wolves each, British Columbia has 8000 wolves, Alberta 4,200, Saskatchewan 4,300, Manitoba 4,000-6,000, Ontario 9,000, Quebec 5,000 and Labrador 2,000. Canada currently has no livestock damage compensation programmes.[2]
The United States as a whole has up to 9,000 wolves which are increasing in number in all their ranges.
Good info, Kain. My post was not because I was doubting your claim...just looking for solid info. A posted source helps to display that.
Thanks
Post by: Kain on June 04, 2011, 12:13:42 PM
Post by: jackelope on June 04, 2011, 12:14:02 PM
And now it appears this robertg fellow has succeeded in derailing this thread and turning us against each other. This is why we can never unite as hunters. If he is on here with an open, honest opinion on a HUNTING forum I would like to see some of his big-game hunting pics posted. Otherwise he is on solely to divide us. :twocents:
This thread is not derailed and nobody has turned against anyone else.
This is good discussion. Some eyes will be opened in these type threads and that's what we need.
Hopefully you don't think my earlier post was aimed to turn myself against you. You asked how the collars got on the wolves and I showed you.
With that said, I highly doubt you'll see Robertg posting any hunting photo's anytime soon.
Post by: boneaddict on June 04, 2011, 12:15:37 PM
Post by: NWBREW on June 04, 2011, 12:20:43 PM
The best way to keep a species from extinction is to manage them for hunting. :twocents:
Post by: DoubleJ on June 04, 2011, 12:22:51 PM
They should be allowed to exist as much as Coyotes are. Open season all year long. If they can cut it they willl. They will survive as they have in years past, in the back country where they belong. Their population will never be large enough to hurt big game populations and yet they will survive just fine.
:yeah:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 04, 2011, 12:45:50 PM
You're right on the money robertg. Wolves were not introduced in WA and the wolves that have been collared have been native animals naturally dispersing from Coastal BC (the lookout pack) and animals from near Glacier NP (Salmo pack and Diamond pack) here in Pend Oreille County.So, if they migrate so well, why plant them?
Wolves were never planted in Washington. They came over naturally from Idaho and other states. There is no reason to reintroduce wolves to Washington when they are already come over naturally from places like Idaho and Canada.
I stuggle with the size exagerations made by most anti wolf folks- thanks for posting the harvest average again. I posted that same data a year or so ago to show the size structure of the harvested animals.
Post by: bucklucky on June 04, 2011, 12:46:41 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 04, 2011, 01:21:21 PM
So, if they migrate so well, why plant them?
Wolves were never planted in Washington. They came over naturally from Idaho and other states. There is no reason to reintroduce wolves to Washington when they are already come over naturally from places like Idaho and Canada.
Please get your facts straight Robert.
Non-native Northern canadian grays were planted in Idaho. ITS DOCUMENTED....
THEY are not natural to our environment. It would be like planting Alaska moose, our native Shiras moose would be bred and outcompeted into extinction.
Post by: bearpaw on June 04, 2011, 01:25:46 PM
There are those who say we brought the wrong wolves into Idaho in 1995 and 1996, that they’re bigger wolves than the ones that were here.
I have to support the science again, and specialists in morphology and genetics on wolves indicate that the wolf that was brought down from Canada is the same wolf that lived here previously. And I did some research into books on early wolves that were captured in the Northern Rockies, even as far south as Colorado during the days that wolves were being hunted down in the 1930s; and the body weights were very much the same.
So I feel that this wolf that was brought from Canada is the same species and genetics as the wolves that lived here once upon a time. I think people have to remember that the northern Rockies -- we call it the northern Rockies in Idaho and Montana, but actually we’re a southern extension of the northern Rockies out of Canada -- and all of those wolves in Canada have the potential and the ability to disperse. I believe what happened over the last 50-60 years is that individual wolves have come from Canada following the Rocky Mountain chain and ended up periodically in places like Montana and Idaho.-Carter Niemeyer
Carter,
Please get your facts straight. Scientists had the wolves broken into several different subspecies. More recently, scientists supporting wolf introduction have claimed there are no subspecies in order to support their agenda of importing canadian wolves. FACT
Post by: bearpaw on June 04, 2011, 01:56:31 PM
Post by: robertg on June 04, 2011, 02:01:13 PM
So, if they migrate so well, why plant them?
Wolves were never planted in Washington. They came over naturally from Idaho and other states. There is no reason to reintroduce wolves to Washington when they are already come over naturally from places like Idaho and Canada.
Please get your facts straight Robert.
Non-native Northern canadian grays were planted in Idaho. ITS DOCUMENTED....
THEY are not natural to our environment. It would be like planting Alaska moose, our native Shiras moose would be bred and outcompeted into extinction.
They were REINTRODUCED and that claim they are non native is bogus and incorrect. Those wolves in Washington came over NATURALLY from Idaho, Canada, etc. so they are natural to your environment. You're telling someone who has studied wolves for years and years to get his facts straight?
Post by: robertg on June 04, 2011, 02:03:54 PM
So, if they migrate so well, why plant them?
Wolves were never planted in Washington. They came over naturally from Idaho and other states. There is no reason to reintroduce wolves to Washington when they are already come over naturally from places like Idaho and Canada.
Please get your facts straight Robert.
Non-native Northern canadian grays were planted in Idaho. ITS DOCUMENTED....
THEY are not natural to our environment. It would be like planting Alaska moose, our native Shiras moose would be bred and outcompeted into extinction.
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 reintroductions.
Rumors of 150-pound wolves abound in the Idaho Panhandle, but most of the wolves taken by hunters are much smaller.
Adult females averaged 86 pounds, according to Idaho Department of Fish and Game officials, who also included the weights of wolves struck by vehicles in the survey. For adult males, 101 pounds was the average.
The exception was a 130-pound adult male killed in Boundary County that was weighed after its stomach had been removed.
It’s not surprising that wolf weights get exaggerated, said Jim Hayden, Fish and Game’s regional wildlife manager in Coeur d’Alene.
“They look huge,” he said. “They’ve got long legs, big heads and lots of fur.”
Wolves have 2- to 4-inch-long guard hairs around their necks, reinforcing the impression of a bulky body, said Jason Husseman, a Fish and Game wolf biologist in Salmon, Idaho. People see wolves, compare them to their dogs, and estimate that the wolves weigh 150 pounds.
“It’s a human tendency to overestimate. You see the same thing with bear sightings,” Husseman said.
In actuality, wolves have the lean, rangy build of distance runners – an adaption that helps them chase down prey, he said.
Some opponents of wolf reintroduction claim that the Canadian gray wolves released in Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho in the mid-1990s are a larger, more aggressive subspecies than native wolves, which were extinct by the 1930s. Biologists say there’s little or no evidence to back up that assertion.
“I’m curious that they throw out those numbers – that the Canadian wolves are 50 to 100 pounds bigger than the native Idaho wolves,” Husseman said. “I don’t know where those numbers come from.”
Hayden said the most authoritative research on wolf subspecies comes from a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service zoologist, Ronald Nowak, who studied 580 historic skulls of full-grown male wolves. Nowak concluded that North America had five subspecies of gray wolves. Two subspecies had historic ranges in Idaho – the Rocky Mountain wolf and the Great Plains wolf.
The Rocky Mountain subspecies outweighed the Great Plains wolf by about 20 pounds, Hayden said. But their ranges overlapped in the Idaho Panhandle, according to Nowak’s research.
“Realistically, there’s no difference between the subspecies. They interbreed,” Hayden said.
In addition, “we’ve got wolves that are walking here from Canada,” he said. “They’re the same species that would have been here in the past.”
Post by: bearpaw on June 04, 2011, 02:10:54 PM
Introduction is the release of a non-native specie.
FACT
The "introduced" Canadian Wolves are breeding and reproducing in idaho and crossing into Washington. Worst of all, it has also been proven at WSU that 62% of wolves tested from Idaho are carrying danferous hydatid tapeworms (E. Granulosus), so we have non-native parasite infested northern canadian wolves crossing into Washington from Idaho.
BC Wolves
There are some wolves migrating in from southern BC. Those are the only natural wolves migrating into Washington.
Post by: robertg on June 04, 2011, 02:15:50 PM
Re-introduction is bringing back of a native specie. Government documents prove these canadian wolves were imported from northern Canada. (how is that native)
Introduction is the release of a non-native specie.
FACT
The "introduced" Canadian Wolves are breeding and reproducing in idaho and crossing into Washington. Worst of all, it has also been proven at WSU that 62% of wolves tested from Idaho are carrying danferous hydatid tapeworms (E. Granulosus), so we have non-native parasite infested northern canadian wolves crossing into Washington from Idaho.
BC Wolves
There are some wolves migrating in from southern BC. Those are the only natural wolves migrating into Washington.
They are not referred to as "canadian" wolves by experts. They are gray wolves aka canis lupus, the SAME EXACT species of wolf that existed in Idaho, Washington, Montana, etc before they were wiped out. These are the same wolves that have been crossing the border to get into the northern rockies for years and years.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/feb/17/actual-wolf-weights-often-skimpier-than-hunters/ (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/feb/17/actual-wolf-weights-often-skimpier-than-hunters/)
"Some opponents of wolf reintroduction claim that the Canadian gray wolves released in Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho in the mid-1990s are a larger, more aggressive subspecies than native wolves, which were extinct by the 1930s. Biologists say there’s little or no evidence to back up that assertion."
Post by: bearpaw on June 04, 2011, 02:16:23 PM
The guy in the top photo is 6'6" tall and a big man.
Post by: jackelope on June 04, 2011, 02:19:01 PM
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2011/03/former_wolf_hit_man_carter_nie.html (http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2011/03/former_wolf_hit_man_carter_nie.html)
:dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on June 04, 2011, 02:24:06 PM
Take a good look at the head!
Post by: bearpaw on June 04, 2011, 02:29:32 PM
Carter has been at the frontline of introduction....
Every state brings him in to try and convince an unsuspecting populace that wolves frolic with the butterflies in the meadows. Everyone in idaho knows who he is and he is not the most popular person in Idaho. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on June 04, 2011, 02:39:46 PM
Here's a small smpling of livestock killed by wolves in Montana, Idaho, or Oregon, not sure how this happens since wolves only eat grasshoppers and chase butterflies in the meadows.... :chuckle:
Post by: Kain on June 04, 2011, 02:47:31 PM
This site is interesting because it lists several historic "subspecies" and most that would be found in Washington are extinct. I have no idea about its accuracy though.
http://www.graywolfconservation.com/Information/subspecies.htm (http://www.graywolfconservation.com/Information/subspecies.htm)
Quote
Mackenzie Valley Wolf/ Canadian Timber Wolf C.l. occidentalis Rocky Mountains of Canada & U.S. (reintroduced to Yellowstone & Idaho) Endangered / Threatened / Unprotected Largest subspecies in N.America
Cascade Mountain Wolf C.l. fuscus Cascade Mountains of Canada & U.S. Extinct by 1940 Usually had a brown or tawny coat
British Columbian Wolf C.l. columbianus Western Canada Extinct Usually had black coats; smaller than other Canadian wolves
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 04, 2011, 02:53:05 PM
Post by: WA hunter14 on June 04, 2011, 02:57:38 PM
[]
gray wolves are a native species. The population will be managed when there are 15 breeding pairs. you hunters who are advocating "sss" are no better than poachers.
wolfs are the same thing as poachers, human poachers are hunters who shoot more than they are legally supposed to,out of season,not obey the hunting laws. wolfs do all of those plus they don't humanely kill their prey, they don't limit their self's to 1elk a year. If you kill a wolf its like preventing a poacher that is really good at what he does to do it. hunters are managing the wildlife populations just fine why do we need wolfs? cause people want to look at them? 15 breeding pairs of talented poachers? stupid unnecessary idea. robertg why don't you say what you have said to hunters in a elk hunting camp in lolo or any area where wolves are destroying the elk population, someone might use SSS on you, and by the way saying someone "advocating" SSS is no better then a poacher is just stupid just because they are advocating it doesn't mean they are doing it and if they aren't doing it then they are better than the person doing it. someone who SSS wolves is like a game warden in a way :chuckle:
Post by: WA hunter14 on June 04, 2011, 02:58:28 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 04, 2011, 03:00:29 PM
If you don't believe wolves eat elk, one photo shows the wolves chasing an elk.
If you think wolves will avoid people, check out where some of these kills were made.
Post by: bearpaw on June 04, 2011, 03:05:29 PM
Post by: Kain on June 04, 2011, 03:08:51 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 04, 2011, 03:18:09 PM
My apologies for having to post these, but to understand the full impact of wolves, you need to know this. :sry:
I also posted a photo of a wild wolf trying to attack a man in Ontario, he was able to fend off the wolf, it is believed this wolf may have killed Kenton Carnegie only days later.
People are killed by wolves around the world. As wolves increase in the lower 48, eventually there is going to be attacks.
Post by: bearpaw on June 04, 2011, 03:22:33 PM
Rep. Lummis and Western Legacy Alliance Work to Expose Flaws in EAJ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9m4rAelet4#)
Post by: bearpaw on June 04, 2011, 03:24:57 PM
middle fork 0001 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0UGixipVRg#)
Post by: Kain on June 04, 2011, 03:25:03 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 04, 2011, 03:29:12 PM
Do you think WA will ever do arial hunts to control wolves?
Please view the future that our WDFW is planning for our moose herd! :yike:
wolves attack moose, Denali (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMC7aZNXnL8#ws)
Post by: bearpaw on June 04, 2011, 03:36:16 PM
Now that WDFW is welcoming wolves with open arms, how long will it be before stories like this will be on the King-5 or KHQ-6 news here in Washington? :yike: :yike: :yike:
Wolves become increasingly violent towards humans, pets (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSzEcfILITs#)
Post by: bearpaw on June 04, 2011, 03:38:20 PM
DO WE REALLY WANT WOLVES IN WASHINGTON ?
Post by: Kain on June 04, 2011, 03:44:20 PM
Post by: uncoolperson on June 04, 2011, 04:21:16 PM
These ladies live in Eagle River near Anchorage.
I think I used to walk that road with my mom when I was younger... crazy
Post by: DoubleJ on June 04, 2011, 04:21:37 PM
Washington has a slowly growing moose herd, how long beofre our moose disappear just like all the moose in Yellowstone have disappeared. In alaska the state conducts airial hunts in areas where wolves decimate moose and caribou populations.
Do you think WA will ever do arial hunts to control wolves?
Please view the future that our WDFW is planning for our moose herd! :yike:
wolves attack moose, Denali (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMC7aZNXnL8#ws)
Wish I had the opportunity to see that in person during modern firearm season. I can't say for sure but I think the outcome would have been drastically different
Post by: rock on June 04, 2011, 04:36:23 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 04, 2011, 04:50:43 PM
Post by: DoubleJ on June 04, 2011, 04:55:41 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 04, 2011, 05:00:54 PM
So, how do they protect rosies from extinction?
Well- maybe wolves will never make it that far. The WDFW plan does not say there has to be wolves in the Olympics to allow for delisting. It's only the pro-wolf people that want to see wolves in every piece of possible wolf habitat in the state. One comment I heard was that the state would make a lot of money from people coming to see the wolves. :rolleyes:
Post by: DoubleJ on June 04, 2011, 05:03:02 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 04, 2011, 05:09:52 PM
They can't be that stupid can they?
Sure they can. And just to clarify, the comment was not made by the WDFW, but by a pro-wolf person who was commenting on the draft wolf plan.
Post by: billythekidrock on June 04, 2011, 05:22:41 PM
So, how do they protect rosies from extinction?
They are not concerned about elk extinction as much as they are concerned (or using the issue) about the damage and over-eating the elk are doing to the riparian zones.
Post by: DoubleJ on June 04, 2011, 05:25:23 PM
They can't be that stupid can they?
Sure they can. And just to clarify, the comment was not made by the WDFW, but by a pro-wolf person who was commenting on the draft wolf plan.
So, they are actually trying to compare tourism dollars to hunting dollars? Did they actually try to insinuate that these wolf watchers would be able to make up the millions of dollars hunters shell out in tags alone? Holy *censored*, I knew that the WDFW has their head up their ass but, even they should be able to see this is BS.
Post by: cabin308 on June 04, 2011, 05:32:23 PM
About a month ago I was talking with the neighbor at our place near Clarkia/Bovill, Idaho. His logging friends had recently found 3 moose killed and only partially eaten when they got out to their logging site up Keeler Ck. Can't be absolutlely certain but the loggers were sure it was wolves that killed the 3 moose. They found a lot of wolf tracks in the mud and snow near the kills.
This winter we once went snowmobiling near that area and saw 2 healthy moose in a previously logged area. We had seen wolf tracks in the snow but they were several miles from where we saw the moose. Hate to think that those 2 we saw might not be alive now.
Wolves in Idaho is obviously not anything new but hearing about the moose numbers getting hammered in Yellowstone, the Washington wolf situation getting worse and what happened to the moose near our place really struck hard.
Post by: billythekidrock on June 04, 2011, 05:35:22 PM
They are not looking to restore historic levels and they are not looking to bring in wolves from out of state.
Up coming wolf meetings:
June 8 & 9 with Wolf Working Group in Ellensburg.
*Aug 4 Final/EIS presented to Commission in Olympia
*Aug/Sept FWC Wolf Plan Workshop in Ellensburg
*Oct 6 FWC Wolf Plan Workshop in Olympia
*Nov FWC Wolf Plan Workshop in Olympia
*Dec 3 & 4 FWC Finalize/Adopt Wolf Plan
*= Tentative dates.
Of the 65,000 responses for public input, 50,000 were form letters from out of state. They weigh/mean as much as any input from you or I.Even though the comment period is over, new comments will be catalogued and archived.
Post by: billythekidrock on June 04, 2011, 05:50:57 PM
They can't be that stupid can they?
Sure they can. And just to clarify, the comment was not made by the WDFW, but by a pro-wolf person who was commenting on the draft wolf plan.
So, they are actually trying to compare tourism dollars to hunting dollars? Did they actually try to insinuate that these wolf watchers would be able to make up the millions of dollars hunters shell out in tags alone? Holy *censored*, I knew that the WDFW has their head up their ass but, even they should be able to see this is BS.
Unfortunately hunting dollars don't come close to other recreation dollars anymore.
Post by: billythekidrock on June 04, 2011, 06:01:59 PM
They are not looking to restore historic levels and they are not looking to bring in wolves from out of state.
Up coming wolf meetings:
June 8 & 9 with Wolf Working Group in Ellensburg.
*Aug 4 Final/EIS presented to Commission in Olympia
*Aug/Sept FWC Wolf Plan Workshop in Ellensburg
*Oct 6 FWC Wolf Plan Workshop in Olympia
*Nov FWC Wolf Plan Workshop in Olympia
*Dec 3 & 4 FWC Finalize/Adopt Wolf Plan
*= Tentative dates.
Of the 65,000 responses for public input, 50,000 were form letters from out of state. They weigh/mean as much as any input from you or I.
Even though the comment period is over, new comments will be catalogued and archived.
Public Input:
Jasmine ******
Is with Conservation NW and was happy to work with an “incredible process and proud of the work over the last 3 years”. But she felt that the F&W wolf plan “was the minimum that could be done and still maintain scientific credibility”. She also said that the new provisions for lethal take “dilutes the scientific credibility”. She is concerned that the Ungulate/predator plans provide lethal removal to wolves to save ungulates and that “ they will look into and monitor” that plan. She said that WA is not Wyoming and hopes that we can be leaders in wolf management.
Hillary ****** (Jasmines assistant)
Said she was a college biology student from Monroe who had horses/chickens, a small farm basically. She supports the wolf plan, but says, “though extensive, it is a start”. She said she was glad that F&W “are making steps – not like Wyoming” and then reiterated that the wolf plan was “a start”.
I found it interesting that a Commission member sought out and spent time with both these women before and after the wolf portion of the meeting.
***
Shelly *****
Is a Wolf Haven volunteer who said that the Peer Reviews (#1 pg4 BG C) state the viable populations numbers (Wolf Plan) are a grey area” and “that numbers are still being considered a work in progress” to them.
***
Dane *****
He states he is a diverse military man from the other side of the country who has traveled extensively and has listened to many opinions on this issue. He says “WA is green and known for it so what is that statement without action”. He wants F&W to “consider all non lethal options to promote numbers for a sustainable population of wolves”. Then he went on to mention that he looked up many non lethal options and commented about all the trees in WA and how we should protect them as well.
***
Donna *****“key improvements are needed” and that the “numbers are too low”. The numbers “seem to be not sufficient for a sustainable population”. She “strongly urges” them to
consider higher numbers”. She also want the coast to be it’s own (additional recovery area and cited studies that state the coast “can hold up to 60 wolves”. She wants elk in the Olympic National Park “to control elk damage to the riparian zone”. She also wants to repeal the “caught in the act provisions. She also stated that the commission should “consider the economic value of eco-tourism”.
Post by: DoubleJ on June 04, 2011, 06:22:52 PM
They can't be that stupid can they?
Sure they can. And just to clarify, the comment was not made by the WDFW, but by a pro-wolf person who was commenting on the draft wolf plan.
So, they are actually trying to compare tourism dollars to hunting dollars? Did they actually try to insinuate that these wolf watchers would be able to make up the millions of dollars hunters shell out in tags alone? Holy *censored*, I knew that the WDFW has their head up their ass but, even they should be able to see this is BS.
Unfortunately hunting dollars don't come close to other recreation dollars anymore.
That's the fault of the WDFW, not the hunters
Post by: billythekidrock on June 04, 2011, 07:06:58 PM
They can't be that stupid can they?
Sure they can. And just to clarify, the comment was not made by the WDFW, but by a pro-wolf person who was commenting on the draft wolf plan.
So, they are actually trying to compare tourism dollars to hunting dollars? Did they actually try to insinuate that these wolf watchers would be able to make up the millions of dollars hunters shell out in tags alone? Holy *censored*, I knew that the WDFW has their head up their ass but, even they should be able to see this is BS.
Unfortunately hunting dollars don't come close to other recreation dollars anymore.
That's the fault of the WDFW, not the hunters
I don't think that is true. It is a numbers game and non-hunters out number hunters and it has to do with data collection as stated in other threads here.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 04, 2011, 08:04:51 PM
Post by: Special T on June 04, 2011, 08:58:56 PM
Today its wolves, Yesterday it was the spotted owl, and tomorrow? Maybe the wolverine... Animals are a TOOL and the ESA is the weapon. The facts are on our side in regards to wolves, just as they prove that spotted owls are in danger from other owls not timber cutting.
This issue is about $$$. The $$ made by "Nonprofits" and the FED grants that are doled out to those states that cooperate.
Everyone here can argue facts until they are blue in the face, but i gaurentee if you take the $$$ incentive away it will become a non issue.
I laugh at Wolf "management" 1) because i have little trust in the WDFW or the USFS. 2) If Idahos aerial gunning management can only kill 5 wolves how in the hell are you going to "manage" wolves in real timber like whats on the the West side of the Mts? 2 small facts that i gleaned from a couple of WB 3rd party posts... Legal hunting was only able to take 5% of the wolf population, and aprox 40-60% take was necessary to keep wolf populations in check... Most bush pilots used to have AR rifles in their planes for wolf control before aerial gunning was outlawed... That was the only method that came CLOSE to keeping them in check...
We can argue the "facts" with people like robertg and his ilk, but they just lead us away from the main issue, like a Kill-deer leads you away from the nest pretending a broken wing.
Post by: bucklucky on June 04, 2011, 09:05:48 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 04, 2011, 09:28:54 PM
June 2, 2011 Tom Remington Black Bear Blog
About a year ago, Dr. Valerius Geist, Profesor Emeritus of Environmental Science, The University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, present to the Montana Legislature’s Environmental Quality Council, information about echinococcus granulosus, echinococcus multilocularis, hydatid disease, the contraction of the disease and how it is spread, etc. At the end of his presentation, he provide some preventive measures to reduce the spread of hydatid disease among humans.
Here is that list:
In areas with hydatid disease, do not touch freshly killed wild canids, except with rubber gloves and always wash your hands thereafter.
Put fresh skin into a plastic bag, and do not allow family members to touch it till the skin has been cleaned.
Clean fresh skin off hydatid eggs: submerge fresh skin in water laced with an anti-helminthic agent.
When out hiking and discovering the scat of wolves, coyotes or foxes, do not poke around in it trying to discover what food remains can be identified. Hydatid eggs can become airborne and get into your mouth.
Avoid picking berries or mushrooms where you find wolf, coyote or fox scat, as hydatid eggs will float onto surrounding vegetation, berries and mushrooms included.
Before camping make sure that there are no wolf, coyote or fox scats close by.
Eat only with very clean hands.
After a successful deer, elk or moose hunt etc in hydatid infected regions, suspend the liver and lungs over your camp fire till well cooked, and dispose of it. That should kill hydatid cysts.
PS. At the time of this writing, I had not anticipated wolves hunting elk and deer among homes in rural hamlets and defecating infected feces on lawns, driveways and school yards. Dogs will roll on wolf feces and carry the infectious eggs into homes, while cars driving over infected feces in driveways will carry infectious eggs into the family garage. The only sensible precaution is to get rid of the these habituated wolves as they are also a danger to children.
Source:
http://tinyurl.com/3j34qmy (http://tinyurl.com/3j34qmy)
Post by: Dave Workman on June 05, 2011, 05:19:11 AM
Evergreen State hunting activists are sounding the alarm in the wake of Saturday’s Fish & Wildlife Commission discussion in Olympia on the revised wolf management plan.
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/washington-is-new-front-wolf-war (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/washington-is-new-front-wolf-war)
Post by: robertg on June 05, 2011, 06:29:30 AM
you are what I refer to as a hippy, and supporting a invasive species is far worse than SSS :twocents:its one of the worst ideas they have ever had. the wolves have been gone for so long that to reitroduce them is going to be MORE damaging to wildlife than if they never came here. it almost calls for a need to cut the state in half. westsiders are trying to make rules and implement things on the eastside, quite frankly i think because they will never have to personally deal with anything that passes. why are they so intent on placing wolves on the eastside? they have been found on the westside. why not plant 6 breeding pairs between bellevue and north bend? that way there, people who are pushing this will have to deal with the consequences of their actions. vote wolves in, they get dropped in YOUR backyard. you want them, perfect, you deal with them. dont try to push them on everyone else in the state where you will never deal with them. i think that with the ranchers and farmers, raising the prices of their goods would come as well. they start losing cattle, sheep, horses, pigs etc, the price per animal is going to have to go up so they can maintain their profit margin. we have plenty of predators with plenty of overbearing laws on them as it is, why add another, non- native species mind you, of predator that will make the current preds seem like kittens. they will destroy and decimate everything that people have worked for the last 60 years in the wildlife world. antelope, cya. bhs, cya. moose, cya. elk, deer, you guessed it, cya. we will go on outdoor hikes to look at bronze statues of what these animals looked like becuase there wont be any if these pukes have their way
I don't know where you are getting your misinformation from, but gray wolves are a NATIVE species and always have been.
Someone is a hippy because they speak the truth? Once again, gray wolves are very much a native species. You can keep on believing they are a non native species all you want, but that doesn't change the facts. Wolves are going to be in WA whether you want them or not. Shouting "sss" is not doing the hunters side any good.
Post by: Bob33 on June 05, 2011, 06:58:38 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 05, 2011, 07:45:01 AM
you are what I refer to as a hippy, and supporting a invasive species is far worse than SSS :twocents:its one of the worst ideas they have ever had. the wolves have been gone for so long that to reitroduce them is going to be MORE damaging to wildlife than if they never came here. it almost calls for a need to cut the state in half. westsiders are trying to make rules and implement things on the eastside, quite frankly i think because they will never have to personally deal with anything that passes. why are they so intent on placing wolves on the eastside? they have been found on the westside. why not plant 6 breeding pairs between bellevue and north bend? that way there, people who are pushing this will have to deal with the consequences of their actions. vote wolves in, they get dropped in YOUR backyard. you want them, perfect, you deal with them. dont try to push them on everyone else in the state where you will never deal with them. i think that with the ranchers and farmers, raising the prices of their goods would come as well. they start losing cattle, sheep, horses, pigs etc, the price per animal is going to have to go up so they can maintain their profit margin. we have plenty of predators with plenty of overbearing laws on them as it is, why add another, non- native species mind you, of predator that will make the current preds seem like kittens. they will destroy and decimate everything that people have worked for the last 60 years in the wildlife world. antelope, cya. bhs, cya. moose, cya. elk, deer, you guessed it, cya. we will go on outdoor hikes to look at bronze statues of what these animals looked like becuase there wont be any if these pukes have their way
I don't know where you are getting your misinformation from, but gray wolves are a NATIVE species and always have been.
Someone is a hippy because they speak the truth? Once again, gray wolves are very much a native species. You can keep on believing they are a non native species all you want, but that doesn't change the facts. Wolves are going to be in WA whether you want them or not. Shouting "sss" is not doing the hunters side any good.
What subspecies are you speaking of? Or are you "A wolf is a wolf is a wolf type. That would determine if the "facts" are true or not
Post by: Jack Diamond on June 05, 2011, 07:54:29 AM
Is there a lawyer on the forum,familiar with WDFW weaknesses.
I believe we sure could use some help??
Most interesting thread of the year. We need to apply for endangered specie's protection
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 05, 2011, 07:58:43 AM
Even though the comment period is over, new comments will be catalogued and archived.
Public Input:
Jasmine ******
Is with Conservation NW and was happy to work with an “incredible process and proud of the work over the last 3 years”. But she felt that the F&W wolf plan “was the minimum that could be done and still maintain scientific credibility”. She also said that the new provisions for lethal take “dilutes the scientific credibility”. She is concerned that the Ungulate/predator plans provide lethal removal to wolves to save ungulates and that “ they will look into and monitor” that plan. She said that WA is not Wyoming and hopes that we can be leaders in wolf management.
Hillary ****** (Jasmines assistant)
Said she was a college biology student from Monroe who had horses/chickens, a small farm basically. She supports the wolf plan, but says, “though extensive, it is a start”. She said she was glad that F&W “are making steps – not like Wyoming” and then reiterated that the wolf plan was “a start”.
I found it interesting that a Commission member sought out and spent time with both these women before and after the wolf portion of the meeting.
***
Which one??
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dane *****
He states he is a diverse military man from the other side of the country who has traveled extensively and has listened to many opinions on this issue. He says “WA is green and known for it so what is that statement without action”. He wants F&W to “consider all non lethal options to promote numbers for a sustainable population of wolves”. Then he went on to mention that he looked up many non lethal options and commented about all the trees in WA and how we should protect them as well.
Gunners mate?
Great people, my father was a chief gunners mate in the in the Pacific in WWII!
Some of you will get my drift on my last statement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Donna *****“key improvements are needed” and that the “numbers are too low”. The numbers “seem to be not sufficient for a sustainable population”. She “strongly urges” them to
consider higher numbers”. She also want the coast to be it’s own (additional recovery area and cited studies that state the coast “can hold up to 60 wolves”. She wants elk in the Olympic National Park “to control elk damage to the riparian zone”. She also wants to repeal the “caught in the act provisions. She also stated that the commission should “consider the economic value of eco-tourism”.
Eco WHAT? If I was to go eco touring ,I would not go to the smallest state west of the Mississippi with over 6 million population and expect to find it a perfect ecosystem
Looks like the wilderness society was well represented
Post by: Curly on June 05, 2011, 08:03:53 AM
Then the one comment about wanting more wolves and more trees. WTF, get a clue Dane. If they cut more trees, there would be more deer and elk and more food for your beloved wolves. :bash:
Post by: 3nails on June 05, 2011, 08:04:33 AM
Post by: danderson on June 05, 2011, 08:05:51 AM
Post by: TheHunt on June 05, 2011, 08:12:57 AM
Post by: stumprat on June 05, 2011, 08:16:12 AM
I think out of state comments should not allowed. Worthless comments!!!
We went through this with the hound issue. The WDFW recieves federal money. Because of that they have to recognize all comments.
They can also give no weighted preference for in state or out of state comments.
Post by: bobcat on June 05, 2011, 08:20:38 AM
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2011/05/24/dr-valerius-geist-address-boone-crockett-on-hydatid-disease/ (http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2011/05/24/dr-valerius-geist-address-boone-crockett-on-hydatid-disease/)
Good article, Bob. If Valerius Geist says it, I believe it. I've read a lot of books and articles by him, and he's why I am so adamantly against game farming. It's pathetic how the wolf lovers conveniently overlook the issue of hydatid disease.
Post by: Jack Diamond on June 05, 2011, 08:22:40 AM
Post by: stumprat on June 05, 2011, 08:28:31 AM
Judging by the public comments I heard at the meeting. Your group should be attending every meeting until this thing is finalized.
My only suggestion is. When you guys speak to the commission. Make sure to leave out any emotion you may have pertaining to this issue. And make damned sure that all comments are fact based. If you let your emotions get out of check at these meetings. It just hurts any chance of being taken seriously. Comments to the commission should be well thought out and written out to stay on topic.
Unfortunately the wolf issue is what it is. They WILL be here to stay. The hurdle now will be. Countering the wolf lovers, to keep the numbers as low as possible. And the number of zones to thier current numbers.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 05, 2011, 08:34:07 AM
I think you are all wrong! Including BP! This is not about the wolves or if they belong here. Wolves have been here for a long time. Just look thought Wolfbaits past posts that have 3rd party documentation about wolves in this state. Often they are article from newspapers like the Seattle times or PI with questions posed to WDFW employees.
Today its wolves, Yesterday it was the spotted owl, and tomorrow? Maybe the wolverine... Animals are a TOOL and the ESA is the weapon. The facts are on our side in regards to wolves, just as they prove that spotted owls are in danger from other owls not timber cutting.
This issue is about $$$. The $$ made by "Nonprofits" and the FED grants that are doled out to those states that cooperate.
Everyone here can argue facts until they are blue in the face, but i gaurentee if you take the $$$ incentive away it will become a non issue.
I laugh at Wolf "management" 1) because i have little trust in the WDFW or the USFS. 2) If Idahos aerial gunning management can only kill 5 wolves how in the hell are you going to "manage" wolves in real timber like whats on the the West side of the Mts? 2 small facts that i gleaned from a couple of WB 3rd party posts... Legal hunting was only able to take 5% of the wolf population, and aprox 40-60% take was necessary to keep wolf populations in check... Most bush pilots used to have AR rifles in their planes for wolf control before aerial gunning was outlawed... That was the only method that came CLOSE to keeping them in check...
We can argue the "facts" with people like robertg and his ilk, but they just lead us away from the main issue, like a Kill-deer leads you away from the nest pretending a broken wing.
RIGHT ON Special T.
And the Government Litigation Savings Act is a possible answer to the $$$$$$$$$ Issue
I could have swore there was a thread on here regarding it ,but I can't find it. So here is the discussion on BCR Posted by a Montana native
Note to self.... Hey Moron,Look down one thread! Must have been too close!
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,77056.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,77056.0.html)
http://www.backcountryrebels.com/showthread.php?t=15707 (http://www.backcountryrebels.com/showthread.php?t=15707)
Post by: robertg on June 05, 2011, 08:40:16 AM
Dale,
Judging by the public comments I heard at the meeting. Your group should be attending every meeting until this thing is finalized.
My only suggestion is. When you guys speak to the commission. Make sure to leave out any emotion you may have pertaining to this issue. And make damned sure that all comments are fact based. If you let your emotions get out of check at these meetings. It just hurts any chance of being taken seriously. Comments to the commission should be well thought out and written out to stay on topic.
Unfortunately the wolf issue is what it is. They WILL be here to stay. The hurdle now will be. Countering the wolf lovers, to keep the numbers as low as possible. And the number of zones to thier current numbers.
You cannot keep the #s low because you are afraid the wolves are going to kill a lot of deer and elk. It needs to be based on science. The science says you need 15 breeding pairs to produce a sustainable wolf population in Washington. This is the science talking, not the emotion.
Post by: bobcat on June 05, 2011, 08:45:36 AM
Dale,
Judging by the public comments I heard at the meeting. Your group should be attending every meeting until this thing is finalized.
My only suggestion is. When you guys speak to the commission. Make sure to leave out any emotion you may have pertaining to this issue. And make damned sure that all comments are fact based. If you let your emotions get out of check at these meetings. It just hurts any chance of being taken seriously. Comments to the commission should be well thought out and written out to stay on topic.
Unfortunately the wolf issue is what it is. They WILL be here to stay. The hurdle now will be. Countering the wolf lovers, to keep the numbers as low as possible. And the number of zones to thier current numbers.
You cannot keep the #s low because you are afraid the wolves are going to kill a lot of deer and elk. It needs to be based on science. The science says you need 15 breeding pairs to produce a sustainable wolf population in Washington. This is the science talking, not the emotion.
The wolf advocates were at the meeting and complained that the department's goal of 15 breeding pairs was much too low. I think that's why he said "countering the wolf lovers to keep numbers as low as possible". The WDFW has obviously done their homework and if they say 15 breeding pairs is good enough, then it is, and I have no doubt it's based on the best science available. But some people will never be happy with any number the WDFW comes up with, and they will always argue for a higher number. Reason for that- probably because they don't ever want to see wolves off the endangered species list in our state.
Post by: robertg on June 05, 2011, 08:51:24 AM
Dale,
Judging by the public comments I heard at the meeting. Your group should be attending every meeting until this thing is finalized.
My only suggestion is. When you guys speak to the commission. Make sure to leave out any emotion you may have pertaining to this issue. And make damned sure that all comments are fact based. If you let your emotions get out of check at these meetings. It just hurts any chance of being taken seriously. Comments to the commission should be well thought out and written out to stay on topic.
Unfortunately the wolf issue is what it is. They WILL be here to stay. The hurdle now will be. Countering the wolf lovers, to keep the numbers as low as possible. And the number of zones to thier current numbers.
You cannot keep the #s low because you are afraid the wolves are going to kill a lot of deer and elk. It needs to be based on science. The science says you need 15 breeding pairs to produce a sustainable wolf population in Washington. This is the science talking, not the emotion.
The wolf advocates were at the meeting and complained that the department's goal of 15 breeding pairs was much too low. I think that's why he said "countering the wolf lovers to keep numbers as low as possible". The WDFW has obviously done their homework and if they say 15 breeding pairs is good enough, then it is, and I have no doubt it's based on the best science available. But some people will never be happy with any number the WDFW comes up with, and they will always argue for a higher number. Reason for that- probably because they don't ever want to see wolves off the endangered species list in our state.
it needs to be based on science. Wolf lovers want more wolves and others want little to no wolves. Let the science do the talking. 15 breeding pairs is what the science says. If people want to disagree with what the science says, that's fine. Whether we agree with the science or not, the science is what it is.
Post by: robertg on June 05, 2011, 08:57:09 AM
Dale,
Judging by the public comments I heard at the meeting. Your group should be attending every meeting until this thing is finalized.
My only suggestion is. When you guys speak to the commission. Make sure to leave out any emotion you may have pertaining to this issue. And make damned sure that all comments are fact based. If you let your emotions get out of check at these meetings. It just hurts any chance of being taken seriously. Comments to the commission should be well thought out and written out to stay on topic.
Unfortunately the wolf issue is what it is. They WILL be here to stay. The hurdle now will be. Countering the wolf lovers, to keep the numbers as low as possible. And the number of zones to thier current numbers.
You cannot keep the #s low because you are afraid the wolves are going to kill a lot of deer and elk. It needs to be based on science. The science says you need 15 breeding pairs to produce a sustainable wolf population in Washington. This is the science talking, not the emotion.
The wolf advocates were at the meeting and complained that the department's goal of 15 breeding pairs was much too low. I think that's why he said "countering the wolf lovers to keep numbers as low as possible". The WDFW has obviously done their homework and if they say 15 breeding pairs is good enough, then it is, and I have no doubt it's based on the best science available. But some people will never be happy with any number the WDFW comes up with, and they will always argue for a higher number. Reason for that- probably because they don't ever want to see wolves off the endangered species list in our state.
it needs to be based on science. Wolf lovers want more wolves and others want little to no wolves. Let the science do the talking. 15 breeding pairs is what the science says. If people want to disagree with what the science says, that's fine. Whether we agree with the science or not, the science is what it is.
And I believe wdfw is going to listen to with what the science says and that is 15 breeding pairs. Wolf lovers are going to want more and others are going to want less. Some even want none. Science will reign supreme, not how many wolves some want and don't want in Wa.
Post by: Bob33 on June 05, 2011, 09:01:40 AM
Post by: huntnfmly on June 05, 2011, 09:02:55 AM
If "science reigns supreme" why are elk herds in Idaho and Montana being destroyed? Do they need different scientists?:yeah:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 05, 2011, 09:06:09 AM
If "science reigns supreme" why are elk herds in Idaho and Montana being destroyed? Do they need different scientists?:yeah:
X2
Post by: bobcat on June 05, 2011, 09:14:54 AM
Post by: stumprat on June 05, 2011, 09:26:27 AM
I am just warning those of you that were not at the meeting. 2 of the people that commented. Brought up the fact that 15 breeding pairs was a low number. My fear is that the attacks on the WDFW's scientific integrity could add more numbers. Like it or not they are very concerned about public image. And the wolf lovers are not afraid to be heard.
If you want some viable input. Complaining on a website won't direct anything. You will need to be at these meetings. And signed in for public comment. Also make sure that you have done your research ahead of time.
Post by: Jack Diamond on June 05, 2011, 09:39:03 AM
And I do not know if it is beneficial to attack the "science", but the science has been flawed here in this state before, simply to promote the "scientist" theory.
Post by: bearpaw on June 05, 2011, 09:47:01 AM
Dale,
Judging by the public comments I heard at the meeting. Your group should be attending every meeting until this thing is finalized.
My only suggestion is. When you guys speak to the commission. Make sure to leave out any emotion you may have pertaining to this issue. And make damned sure that all comments are fact based. If you let your emotions get out of check at these meetings. It just hurts any chance of being taken seriously. Comments to the commission should be well thought out and written out to stay on topic.
Unfortunately the wolf issue is what it is. They WILL be here to stay. The hurdle now will be. Countering the wolf lovers, to keep the numbers as low as possible. And the number of zones to thier current numbers.
You cannot keep the #s low because you are afraid the wolves are going to kill a lot of deer and elk. It needs to be based on science. The science says you need 15 breeding pairs to produce a sustainable wolf population in Washington. This is the science talking, not the emotion.
The wolf advocates were at the meeting and complained that the department's goal of 15 breeding pairs was much too low. I think that's why he said "countering the wolf lovers to keep numbers as low as possible". The WDFW has obviously done their homework and if they say 15 breeding pairs is good enough, then it is, and I have no doubt it's based on the best science available. But some people will never be happy with any number the WDFW comes up with, and they will always argue for a higher number. Reason for that- probably because they don't ever want to see wolves off the endangered species list in our state.
it needs to be based on science. Wolf lovers want more wolves and others want little to no wolves. Let the science do the talking. 15 breeding pairs is what the science says. If people want to disagree with what the science says, that's fine. Whether we agree with the science or not, the science is what it is.
Here is the problem with "your science", your science is based on biologists who love wolves and studies scewed in favor of wolves. There are also scientists opposed to wolves, but the state F&G and media choose to ignore their warnings.
We have all seen the results of too many wolves in YNP, Idaho, MT, WI, MN, and WY. The "proven" science from those states now indicates the F&G and wolf lovers all want too many wolves for the land to support and that will cause great losses of other animal populations resulting in impacts to citizens and livestock as hungry wolves are forced to invade populated areas.
This scenario "wolf science" is already being orchestrated in Washington exactly as it was done in the other states, it started with the wolf lovers promoting wolves and infiltrating the F&G programs. Then the past WDFW director appointed a Wolf Working Group that was weighted heavy to wolf supporters, no wonder the working group recommended 15 bp's. The minority position recommended half as many wolves. FACT (its in the draft wolf plan)
You know that with the current wolf plan there will be far more than the 15 bp's on the ground (that you say you desire). For every "documented" breeding pair, there will most likely be two or thee bp's (packs) of wolves eating elk, deer, and moose. The WDFW can't even spray noxious weeds on their small holdings, or respond to all the cougar complaints, how can we think they will possibly find and document all the wolves in Washington. Then to top it off, you already know that wolf groups will sue in Washington courts to stop any management and that wolves will continue to populate.
That is the "proven" science of wolves in a NUTSHELL and you know all that is true.
Let's hear some more of your "false" wolf propaganda!
I want to thank you for helping to educate our members who have not been exposed to the same lies and deceit that occurred in ID/MT/WY/MN/WI/MI. :twocents:
Post by: jackelope on June 05, 2011, 09:47:43 AM
Dale,
Judging by the public comments I heard at the meeting. Your group should be attending every meeting until this thing is finalized.
My only suggestion is. When you guys speak to the commission. Make sure to leave out any emotion you may have pertaining to this issue. And make damned sure that all comments are fact based. If you let your emotions get out of check at these meetings. It just hurts any chance of being taken seriously. Comments to the commission should be well thought out and written out to stay on topic.
Unfortunately the wolf issue is what it is. They WILL be here to stay. The hurdle now will be. Countering the wolf lovers, to keep the numbers as low as possible. And the number of zones to thier current numbers.
Well said, Adna...
That is 99% of the reason for whats behind my posts and thoughts on this topic.
We can't just take the ..."wolves suck, kill them all" route.
We need some serious backbone to our argument.
Post by: stumprat on June 05, 2011, 09:53:44 AM
I am on your side on this. I am just offering fair warning. Of what was said at the meeting.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 05, 2011, 09:55:04 AM
Post by: jackelope on June 05, 2011, 09:59:00 AM
How about hytadid science?. Not sure the exact spellingJust make sure you have the facts...not a bunch of he said she said stuff.
Post by: stumprat on June 05, 2011, 09:59:32 AM
Does the WFW group have an ORGANIZED front pertaining to the wolf issue yet?
Post by: robertg on June 05, 2011, 10:08:14 AM
Dale,
Judging by the public comments I heard at the meeting. Your group should be attending every meeting until this thing is finalized.
My only suggestion is. When you guys speak to the commission. Make sure to leave out any emotion you may have pertaining to this issue. And make damned sure that all comments are fact based. If you let your emotions get out of check at these meetings. It just hurts any chance of being taken seriously. Comments to the commission should be well thought out and written out to stay on topic.
Unfortunately the wolf issue is what it is. They WILL be here to stay. The hurdle now will be. Countering the wolf lovers, to keep the numbers as low as possible. And the number of zones to thier current numbers.
You cannot keep the #s low because you are afraid the wolves are going to kill a lot of deer and elk. It needs to be based on science. The science says you need 15 breeding pairs to produce a sustainable wolf population in Washington. This is the science talking, not the emotion.
The wolf advocates were at the meeting and complained that the department's goal of 15 breeding pairs was much too low. I think that's why he said "countering the wolf lovers to keep numbers as low as possible". The WDFW has obviously done their homework and if they say 15 breeding pairs is good enough, then it is, and I have no doubt it's based on the best science available. But some people will never be happy with any number the WDFW comes up with, and they will always argue for a higher number. Reason for that- probably because they don't ever want to see wolves off the endangered species list in our state.
it needs to be based on science. Wolf lovers want more wolves and others want little to no wolves. Let the science do the talking. 15 breeding pairs is what the science says. If people want to disagree with what the science says, that's fine. Whether we agree with the science or not, the science is what it is.
Here is the problem with "your science", your science is based on biologists who love wolves and studies scewed in favor of wolves. There are also scientists opposed to wolves, but the state F&G and media choose to ignore their warnings.
We have all seen the results of too many wolves in YNP, Idaho, MT, WI, MN, and WY. The "proven" science from those states now indicates the F&G and wolf lovers all want too many wolves for the land to support and that will cause great losses of other animal populations resulting in impacts to citizens and livestock as hungry wolves are forced to invade populated areas.
This scenario "wolf science" is already being orchestrated in Washington exactly as it was done in the other states, it started with the wolf lovers promoting wolves and infiltrating the F&G programs. Then the past WDFW director appointed a Wolf Working Group that was weighted heavy to wolf supporters, no wonder the working group recommended 15 bp's. The minority position recommended half as many wolves. FACT (its in the draft wolf plan)
You know that with the current wolf plan there will be far more than the 15 bp's on the ground (that you say you desire). For every "documented" breeding pair, there will most likely be two or thee bp's (packs) of wolves eating elk, deer, and moose. The WDFW can't even spray noxious weeds on their small holdings, or respond to all the cougar complaints, how can we think they will possibly find and document all the wolves in Washington. Then to top it off, you already know that wolf groups will sue in Washington courts to stop any management and that wolves will continue to populate.
That is the "proven" science of wolves in a NUTSHELL and you know all that is true.
Let's hear some more of your "false" wolf propaganda!
I want to thank you for helping to educate our members who have not been exposed to the same lies and deceit that occurred in ID/MT/WY/MN/WI/MI. :twocents:
bearpaw, science has absolutely nothing to do with whether one likes wolves or not. Science is determining how many wolves are needed to produce a sustainable wolf population.
Post by: NWBREW on June 05, 2011, 10:09:42 AM
If "science reigns supreme" why are elk herds in Idaho and Montana being destroyed? Do they need different scientists?
That is exactly how I feel too. It seems we are destroying one to elevate the other.
Post by: robertg on June 05, 2011, 10:10:50 AM
How about hytadid science?. Not sure the exact spelling
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/faq.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/faq.html)
Do wolves have tapeworms that can spread to other animals and people?
The Echinoccus granulosus tapeworm is found almost worldwide in canids, including wolves, dogs, coyotes, and foxes. The eggs of this tapeworm are spread in canid feces. Wild and domestic ungulates (deer, elk, moose, sheep, goats, swine, etc.) are the normal intermediate hosts, carrying a cyst form in their organs. When canids (including dogs) feed on these infected organs, they become tapeworm hosts. (For life-cycle information, see http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/DPDx/html/Echinococcosis.htm. (http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/DPDx/html/Echinococcosis.htm.) )
Humans are very rarely infected. Humans would have to ingest tapeworm eggs in canid feces or drink water contaminated with canid feces. It is extremely unlikely to be spread by handling ungulate capes or meat, unless those parts are contaminated with canid feces and handlers do not use good basic hygiene. Likewise, if a pet dog rolled in feces infected with tapeworm eggs, good hygiene is required after handling the dog. Humans cannot be infected by ingesting cysts found in ungulates. These parasitic tapeworms are not wind-born nor transmitted in any way other than direct ingestion of eggs in feces.
The Echinococcus parasite had not been recently documented in wildlife in Idaho until it was detected in some wild ungulates in 2006. After the finding was reported at a Wildlife Disease Association meeting, further study found it in wolves in Idaho and Montana and a paper on the findings was published in the Journal of Wildlife Diseases in October 2009. (Wildlife Disease Association Meeting Abstract at http://www.wildlifedisease.org/meetings.htm (http://www.wildlifedisease.org/meetings.htm) Connecticut meeting link, abstract #94; Journal of Wildlife Diseases Abstract at http://www.jwildlifedis.org/cgi/content/abstract/45/4/1208 (http://www.jwildlifedis.org/cgi/content/abstract/45/4/1208) )
The researchers do not know whether the parasite was introduced with the importation of wolves from Canada, or whether the parasite has always been present in other hosts, and wolves became a new definitive host. Ungulates in the Northwest have been documented with this parasite in the past. Such parasites are usually not fatal to hosts at any life cycle stage, but can diminish overall health.
All parasites or diseases harbored by any wildlife should be taken seriously and good hygiene used when handling live wild animals, dead wild animals, their secretions, or their products
Post by: luvtohnt on June 05, 2011, 10:13:13 AM
Also I would like some info preferably on line about the different species of wolves, and info that people use to determine that these wolves are in fact invasive species. Thanks.
As far as finding and following the wolves that is up to the USFWS until we are able to delist to state endangered. This is because they fall under federal protection under the ESA. So they will most likely be diligent until it is turned over to the state.
Brandon
Post by: mulehunter on June 05, 2011, 10:36:36 AM
We have almost 250,000 hunters purchased tags last year. IF 100,000 hunter decide to boycott on WDFW, they loose 10.2 million dollar this year. That's our KEY if we just do it for just one year or two. WDFW will start to think and listen to us.
Mulehunter.
Post by: mulehunter on June 05, 2011, 11:02:03 AM
just read the article on news paper on wolf plan .
and the new recommendations for dog owners are to keep dogs in sturdy gages overnight
So are we on CURFEW to allow wolves walk thur whole area FREELY to kill everything out there. If they knew wolves in danger. Why they suggest us to keep dogs in. Well reason they don't want pay u for ur loss. And we are allowed to shoot cougar if cougar kill our livestock or pet but we can't shoot wolf. WTF. I can't believe they try to tell us what better for us to handle things when wolves are out in wood. That's all BULLSH!T
Mulehunter. :bash:
Post by: bobcat on June 05, 2011, 11:06:50 AM
Actually one of the new revisions to the wolf plan that was brought up at the meeting yesterday was that people would be allowed to kill wolves caught in the act of killing livestock. Of course, at least one of the wolf advocates who spoke yesterday, complained about it.
Post by: Curly on June 05, 2011, 11:10:11 AM
Post by: Curly on June 05, 2011, 11:18:27 AM
Post by: Lowedog on June 05, 2011, 11:19:34 AM
My opinion is that it is not a realistic goal for WA. I don't believe WA has enough room for that many wolves and that we will never reach that number keeping wolves as a protected species here.
Post by: mulehunter on June 05, 2011, 11:24:29 AM
mulehunter,
Actually one of the new revisions to the wolf plan that was brought up at the meeting yesterday was that people would be allowed to kill wolves caught in the act of killing livestock. Of course, at least one of the wolf advocates who spoke yesterday, complained about it.
Thanks. I didn't know that. What did wolf Advocate said. I am curious what he or she said. And why Q.
hopefully they will allow us shoot if wolf cross inside pasture.
Mulehunter.
Post by: Curly on June 05, 2011, 11:24:43 AM
WDFW will always DEPENDS on hunters. Our families as 14 each one of them start to stop buying WDFW tags. They lost $1425.00 from us. Because its only way to show them we don't want wolves here period.
We have almost 250,000 hunters purchased tags last year. IF 100,000 hunter decide to boycott on WDFW, they loose 10.2 million dollar this year. That's our KEY if we just do it for just one year or two. WDFW will start to think and listen to us.
Mulehunter.
I like that idea. :tup:
Post by: Huntnphish on June 05, 2011, 11:29:25 AM
They should be allowed to exist as much as Coyotes are. Open season all year long. If they can cut it they willl. They will survive as they have in years past, in the back country where they belong. Their population will never be large enough to hurt big game populations and yet they will survive just fine.
+1 :yeah: Well said Bone.
So, if they migrate so well, why plant them?Wolves were never planted in Washington. They came over naturally from Idaho and other states. There is no reason to reintroduce wolves to Washington when they are already come over naturally from places like Idaho and Canada.
I'm not sure why you guys are debating this guy, he has already admitted there is no reason for reintroduction.
Post by: bobcat on June 05, 2011, 11:29:49 AM
If they want wolves in the Olympics, then I assume that means they want to transplant them. It's one thing for wolves to enter across the ID or Canadian border and allow them to live, but to transplant them is another thing altogether IMO.
If who wants them in the Olympics? There's nothing in the WDFW plan that says they need to be present in the Olympics before they can be delisted. One of the things the wolf advocates complained about yesterday, was the fact that one of the wolf management regions combined the Olympic Peninsula, all of SW Washington, and the South Cascades.
Post by: bobcat on June 05, 2011, 11:36:59 AM
Post by: bobcat on June 05, 2011, 11:44:51 AM
25 Lethal take in the act of attacking livestock: This provision allows lethal take of wolves “in the act”
26 of attacking livestock (defined as biting, wounding, or killing; not just chasing or pursuing) by
27 livestock owners, family members, and authorized employees on private land they own or lease
28 during all state listed statuses, if wolves are not federally listed. If federally listed, it would have to be
29 consistent with federal law, which prohibits killing an endangered species except in cases of self
30defense. At federal threatened status, there is more management flexibility through federal
31 regulations. Wherever wolves are federally listed in Washington, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
32 will be in the lead. WDFW will consult with and collaborate with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on
33 management decisions and actions to ensure consistency with federal law. Lethal take in the act of
34 attacking livestock is not allowed by citizens while wolves are federally endangered.
35
36 Under state law, killing an endangered species is prohibited under RCW 77.15.120, unless it has been
37 authorized by rule of the commission. Subject to limitations established by the commission, certain
38 private citizens may kill wildlife that is threatening human safety or causing property damage.
39 Under RCW 77.36.030, the conditions set by the Commission must include “appropriate protection
40 for threatened or endangered species.” It also states that in establishing the limitations and
41 conditions related to wolves, the Commission “shall take into consideration the recommendations
42 of the Washington state wolf conservation and management plan.”
43
44 While wolves are listed as state endangered and threatened, this management tool will be
45 reconsidered if used inappropriately or if more than two wolves are killed under this provision in a
46 year. WDFW will carefully monitor total statewide wolf mortality from all causes to ensure that
(page 87)
1 mortality from all causes is not adversely affecting recovery. After delisting, this provision will
2 include both private and public land owned or leased by the livestock producer.
3
4 According to WAC 232-36-051, it is unlawful to kill state endangered species causing damage to
5 commercial livestock unless authorized by Commission rule or WDFW permit. It is important for
6 livestock owners to understand that wolves stalking, looking at, or passing near livestock, present in
7 a field with livestock, standing over dead livestock, or present on private property are not considered
8 to be in the act of attacking. Wolves seen near domestic animals can and should be deterred with
9 non-lethal methods. Wolves may not be intentionally baited, fed, or deliberately attracted for any
10 purpose, including killing under this provision. Public education is necessary for this provision to be
11 used appropriately and to not adversely affect wolf recovery. Experience from the northern Rocky
12 Mountain states (Sime et al. 2007; E. Bangs, pers. comm.) suggests that this provision will likely be
13 rarely used in Washington and that very few wolves would be killed under it, especially during the
14 early stages of recovery when total wolf numbers are small.
15
16 Wolves killed under this provision must be reported to WDFW within 24 hours, with additional
17 reasonable time allowed if there is limited access to the take site. The wolf carcass must be
18 surrendered to WDFW and preservation of physical evidence from the scene of the attack for
19 inspection by WDFW is required.
Post by: bearpaw on June 05, 2011, 11:56:43 AM
Dale,
Judging by the public comments I heard at the meeting. Your group should be attending every meeting until this thing is finalized.
My only suggestion is. When you guys speak to the commission. Make sure to leave out any emotion you may have pertaining to this issue. And make damned sure that all comments are fact based. If you let your emotions get out of check at these meetings. It just hurts any chance of being taken seriously. Comments to the commission should be well thought out and written out to stay on topic.
Unfortunately the wolf issue is what it is. They WILL be here to stay. The hurdle now will be. Countering the wolf lovers, to keep the numbers as low as possible. And the number of zones to thier current numbers.
You cannot keep the #s low because you are afraid the wolves are going to kill a lot of deer and elk. It needs to be based on science. The science says you need 15 breeding pairs to produce a sustainable wolf population in Washington. This is the science talking, not the emotion.
The wolf advocates were at the meeting and complained that the department's goal of 15 breeding pairs was much too low. I think that's why he said "countering the wolf lovers to keep numbers as low as possible". The WDFW has obviously done their homework and if they say 15 breeding pairs is good enough, then it is, and I have no doubt it's based on the best science available. But some people will never be happy with any number the WDFW comes up with, and they will always argue for a higher number. Reason for that- probably because they don't ever want to see wolves off the endangered species list in our state.
it needs to be based on science. Wolf lovers want more wolves and others want little to no wolves. Let the science do the talking. 15 breeding pairs is what the science says. If people want to disagree with what the science says, that's fine. Whether we agree with the science or not, the science is what it is.
Here is the problem with "your science", your science is based on biologists who love wolves and studies scewed in favor of wolves. There are also scientists opposed to wolves, but the state F&G and media choose to ignore their warnings.
We have all seen the results of too many wolves in YNP, Idaho, MT, WI, MN, and WY. The "proven" science from those states now indicates the F&G and wolf lovers all want too many wolves for the land to support and that will cause great losses of other animal populations resulting in impacts to citizens and livestock as hungry wolves are forced to invade populated areas.
This scenario "wolf science" is already being orchestrated in Washington exactly as it was done in the other states, it started with the wolf lovers promoting wolves and infiltrating the F&G programs. Then the past WDFW director appointed a Wolf Working Group that was weighted heavy to wolf supporters, no wonder the working group recommended 15 bp's. The minority position recommended half as many wolves. FACT (its in the draft wolf plan)
You know that with the current wolf plan there will be far more than the 15 bp's on the ground (that you say you desire). For every "documented" breeding pair, there will most likely be two or thee bp's (packs) of wolves eating elk, deer, and moose. The WDFW can't even spray noxious weeds on their small holdings, or respond to all the cougar complaints, how can we think they will possibly find and document all the wolves in Washington. Then to top it off, you already know that wolf groups will sue in Washington courts to stop any management and that wolves will continue to populate.
That is the "proven" science of wolves in a NUTSHELL and you know all that is true.
Let's hear some more of your "false" wolf propaganda!
I want to thank you for helping to educate our members who have not been exposed to the same lies and deceit that occurred in ID/MT/WY/MN/WI/MI. :twocents:
bearpaw, science has absolutely nothing to do with whether one likes wolves or not. Science is determining how many wolves are needed to produce a sustainable wolf population.
robertg or Carter, whomever you are, you are absolutely correct, I totally agree. :tup: :twocents: :hello:
Science and history has now shown us irrefutable proof that the number of wolves "desired by wolf loving scientists" in remote Idaho and YNP cannot be supported. YNP and the Lolo prove without a doubt that previously desired wolf numbers can not be supported. Ungulate numbers will crash and wolves will be forced to invade ranching operations and seek out new herds to destroy.
You are trying to repeat the same process in Washington. That is not a "good" science, any reasonably intelligent person would look at what has happened on the ground in Idaho and YNP and conclude that the "new" science requires more conservative management of wolves.
Self Sustaining Wolf Population
This is a false argument you are using to claim that Washington needs 15 BP's. The "science" clearly shows that Washington wolves are clearly part of an already self sustaining and expanding population of wolves in Canada, Idaho, and Oregon. Science (dna taken from washington's wolves) has shown us that the documented BP's in Washington are "genetically proven" members of these large and growing wolf populations in Idaho and Canada.
The science has already proven that Washingtons wolves are part of a self sustaining wolf population that inhabits two countries and several states and provinces.
robertg, I suggest you look at the science and understand what it clearly and irrefutably indicates. :tup:
I again thank you, this time for helping to educate our membership on the true and proven science of wolves. :hello:
Post by: bobcat on June 05, 2011, 11:57:56 AM
21 Lethal take in the act of attacking domestic dogs: This provision allows private citizens to kill a wolf
22 that is “in the act” of attacking (defined as biting, wounding, or killing; not just chasing or pursuing)
23 domestic dogs on private land while wolves are state listed. Lethal take in the act of attacking
24 domestic dogs is not allowed by citizens while wolves are federally listed. It is important to
25 understand that wolves stalking, looking at, or in the vicinity of domestic dogs are not considered to
26 be in the act of attacking. In these situations, wolves can and should be deterred with non-lethal
27 methods. Other conditions are the same as those identified in the previous section on lethal take in
28 the act of attacking livestock.
29
30 This management tool will be reconsidered if used inappropriately or if more than two wolves are
31 killed under this provision in a year. WDFW will carefully monitor total statewide wolf mortality
32 from all causes. After delisting, this provision would be allowed on both private land and on public
33 lands where allowed by the administering agency.
Post by: mulehunter on June 05, 2011, 11:59:06 AM
Here is a map showing the regions in the wolf management plan:Northern cascade and southern coast region alltogether in one regions is going make it really tough because yakima and south of Ellensburg. They are going shoot whole packs when harvest quote met. And all other packs in thick forest going to live longer and wipe out all Elk herd. They need divide in to 5 not three. So packs will be serious balance each important Elk herd in wet land and dry land.
Mulehunter.
Post by: bobcat on June 05, 2011, 12:04:01 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 05, 2011, 12:10:02 PM
I see it as a positive thing. This means there could be wolves in the southern Cascades, and NONE in the Willapa Hills or the Olympic Peninsula, and this wolf region would still have its allotment of wolves.
mulehunter, I agree with Bobcat, the fewer areas the better. This way once we meet requirements for each of three regions then wolves can be delisted. It would even be better if we were like Idaho and just considered so many wolves for the whole state to delist. :twocents:
Post by: mulehunter on June 05, 2011, 12:20:11 PM
Cool.
Mulehunter
Post by: DoubleJ on June 05, 2011, 12:21:55 PM
Post by: robertg on June 05, 2011, 12:23:52 PM
robertg, how familiar are you with Washington and do you believe 15bp's is a realistic number?
My opinion is that it is not a realistic goal for WA. I don't believe WA has enough room for that many wolves and that we will never reach that number keeping wolves as a protected species here.
It's not what I think. I listen to what the science says. Wolves will continue to show up every now and then from places like Idaho and Canada and other places and some of these wolves will form new packs, so I believe that that number can be reached.
Post by: billythekidrock on June 05, 2011, 12:34:16 PM
If they want wolves in the Olympics, then I assume that means they want to transplant them. It's one thing for wolves to enter across the ID or Canadian border and allow them to live, but to transplant them is another thing altogether IMO.
Not transplant......trans-locate. Move within the state.
Post by: billythekidrock on June 05, 2011, 12:38:13 PM
Why do we need 15 breeding pairs.........just so they can get off the endangered list? Leave them on the list and keep the numbers at or below what they are now.
It is actually more than 15 breeding pairs.
It it 15 breeding pairs for 3 years. If there are 15 pairs, but one pair doesn't breed then it doesn't count.
Post by: billythekidrock on June 05, 2011, 12:57:57 PM
Dale,
Judging by the public comments I heard at the meeting. Your group should be attending every meeting until this thing is finalized.
My only suggestion is. When you guys speak to the commission. Make sure to leave out any emotion you may have pertaining to this issue. And make damned sure that all comments are fact based. If you let your emotions get out of check at these meetings. It just hurts any chance of being taken seriously. Comments to the commission should be well thought out and written out to stay on topic.
Unfortunately the wolf issue is what it is. They WILL be here to stay. The hurdle now will be. Countering the wolf lovers, to keep the numbers as low as possible. And the number of zones to thier current numbers.
I agree 100%. Wolves are coming whether we like it or not. Now we need to try to mitigate the damage.
I was surprised that there seemed to be no one from the WFW at the meeting. I would have also thought there would have been a larger presence from the WPHA.
Post by: bearpaw on June 05, 2011, 01:19:26 PM
Dale read some of the books authored by the biologist working in Yellowstone and Idaho. They all admit that while they don't want the wolves to be killed they know it is necessary to keep the population in check. The nonprofits go through and glean info and use it out of context in their lawsuits to get what they want. Science says the goal was reached long ago but with all the lawsuits our hands are tied for now.
Also I would like some info preferably on line about the different species of wolves, and info that people use to determine that these wolves are in fact invasive species. Thanks.
As far as finding and following the wolves that is up to the USFWS until we are able to delist to state endangered. This is because they fall under federal protection under the ESA. So they will most likely be diligent until it is turned over to the state.
Brandon
My son was sitting watching some wolves in central Idaho that had made an elk kill on the road and drug it into a creek bottom. Two snowmobiles with well meaning "young USFWS wolf researchers" wolf experts pulls up to my son in central Idaho and asks if he has seen any wolves, he pointed across the canyon and said yes there's wolves right there. One wolf was running up the hillside with part of a elk leg in its mouth. Then my son asked them if they saw where the wolves ran the elk down on the road and drug it down into the creek bottom, they hadn't seen any of that. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Next they questioned him where the wolves were all at, they hadn't been finding many. So my son told them about numerous wolf packs in the area.
My point is this, the USFWS is not using knowledgeable experienced outdoorsmen, they are using college kids who want to be wolf researchers. No wonder Idaho residents will tell you there are up to 5 times as many wolves as what is documented in Idaho.
More To The Story
At the same time my son is talking to these wolf researchers one of the other guides had walked in 4 miles up another canyon looking for cougar tracks. My son got through talking to the USFWS and went over to meet where the other guide was walking out. The other guide made it out and just as they are loading up dogs another two USFWS "young wolf experts" pulls in and tried to ask the two guides to quit walking their dogs up the canyon because they had trouble telling the differnce between dog and wolf tracks. They said they would tell the guides if there was any cougar tracks in there. Figuring that if the USFWS couldn't tell the difference between dog and wolf, how would they know cougar tracks, so they continued to walk the canyon that week.
There was a tom cougar working the area that had been on the road with lots of tracks and a old mule deer buck kill, wolves had ran the cougar off the kill 3 days earlier and the cougar never came back to finish the kill. There were also wolf tracks all over the road in the area, but it did not seem that the USFWS boys saw any tracks, they never mentioned during future meetings along the trail every day about seeing any of those tracks or the kill which was all visible from the road. :chuckle:
This reinforces my point that we are being expected to trust the abilities of people who don't know what they are looking for, to document how many wolves there are in Washington. Trust me my friends, we will end up just like Idaho, or even worse. :twocents:
Picture shows the mule deer buck killed by the cougar (notice heart & liver eaten) and then left after wolves ran the cougar out of the area. But the wolves never came back to eat the deer, they were only concerned with chasing the cougar out of the area, and the USFWS never mentioned seeing any of it and they never walked down to the kill to check it out. The two guides walked this trail every day and talked to the USFWS every day that week. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: stumprat on June 05, 2011, 01:29:26 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 05, 2011, 01:31:45 PM
Dale,
Judging by the public comments I heard at the meeting. Your group should be attending every meeting until this thing is finalized.
My only suggestion is. When you guys speak to the commission. Make sure to leave out any emotion you may have pertaining to this issue. And make damned sure that all comments are fact based. If you let your emotions get out of check at these meetings. It just hurts any chance of being taken seriously. Comments to the commission should be well thought out and written out to stay on topic.
Unfortunately the wolf issue is what it is. They WILL be here to stay. The hurdle now will be. Countering the wolf lovers, to keep the numbers as low as possible. And the number of zones to thier current numbers.
I agree 100%. Wolves are coming whether we like it or not. Now we need to try to mitigate the damage.
I was surprised that there seemed to be no one from the WFW at the meeting. I would have also thought there would have been a larger presence from the WPHA.
We need volunteers who will belong to our group and volunteers to go to these meetings. Please sign up and help us do this. Myself and the few others who have been trying to organize the group can not do everything. We are glad to have all sportsfolks sign on, but we also need members with passion who want to get involved and who want to go to the meetings, we would welcome your help whether it's just to bolster our numbers or if you would also attend meetings that would be great.
Post by: Bob33 on June 05, 2011, 01:37:20 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 05, 2011, 01:48:36 PM
At times I am very critical of WDFW, but I want to say, we have some great people working for WDFW. However, I honestly see no point in trying to talk to the endangered species division of WDFW, they are being led by wolf lovers and are promoting wolves any way they can. Wolves have been bought and paid for in Washington.
Folks we get one chance to convince the Wildlife Commission (citizen commissioners) to use the "new science coming out of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming" when approving this wolf plan. Look at what has happened in Idaho's Lolo zone and YNP. Two of the wests largest elk herds have been devastated by wolves. The yellowstone migration hunts (thousands of permits issued annually) have been nearly completely eliminated.
Northern yellowstone Herd has gone from nearly 20,000 elk to less than 5,000.
Idaho's Lolo zone has gone from nearly 18,000 elk to less than 2,000.
Helicopters were recently used in the heavy timber of the lolo and only 5 wolves were killed. Idaho F&G can't get rid of the wolves even now that they can and want to.
After that we have to deal with the legislature. :dunno:
Post by: rtspring on June 05, 2011, 01:56:08 PM
Thanks for posting the pictures of the wolf kills. This is a side that the wolf lovers don't want people to see.
I hope I can expand my knowledge of wolves as you have. I stand beside you brother and will help anyway I can once I retire..
We must all speak as one voice on this issue and come together to make our voices heard.
thanks again,
RTSPRING
Post by: bearpaw on June 05, 2011, 02:39:11 PM
Crying Wolf - Some quick facts about Wolves (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brk0mas6bUM#ws)
livestock losses, soon Washington will be on this list.....
Post by: Huntnphish on June 05, 2011, 02:45:50 PM
Post by: DoubleJ on June 05, 2011, 02:49:38 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 05, 2011, 02:51:02 PM
Huntnphish, the chart I posted is for livestock.
Nice story Dave....
Washington is new front in ‘Wolf war’
Evergreen State hunting activists are sounding the alarm in the wake of Saturday’s Fish & Wildlife Commission discussion in Olympia on the revised wolf management plan.
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/washington-is-new-front-wolf-war (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/washington-is-new-front-wolf-war)
Post by: DoubleJ on June 05, 2011, 02:53:52 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 05, 2011, 03:00:03 PM
Wolves impact predator damage in many ways
By Bill Brewster
http://www.tsln.com/article/20101228/TSLN01/101229957 (http://www.tsln.com/article/20101228/TSLN01/101229957)
The predator control landscape in Montana is changing in part due to increased wolf populations and limited regulations created by the Endangered Species Act. Evidence of the change can be seen in the way the USDA APHIS Wildlife Service (WS) agency controls other long-time predators, including coyotes, bears and mountain lions.
Predator damage costs in 2010 are up across the board from 2006 WS data in Montana.
In 2010, predator damages from coyotes, wolves, grizzly bears and black bears totaled $1,288,635. The 2006 figure was just $294,083.
John E. Steuber, Montana WS state director, said more personnel time and department funds are spent dealing with the ramifications of an increasing wolf population and range.
Grizzly bear range along the front range has also increased, expanding to the south and east with more than 700 bears estimated. Because grizzly bears are omnivorous, Steuber said, bears don't always kills livestock the way wolves do when present in ranch country.
Predator price tag
The highest livestock predator price tag was caused by coyotes. They killed or injured $634,008 worth of cattle, calves, sheep, lambs goats, chickens, geese and turkeys. In 2006, the total was $174, 492.
Wolves created the second highest figure in 2010. They killed or injured $512,981 worth of cattle, calves, sheep, goats, horses, llamas guard dogs and pet dogs. Four years ago, wolves damaged $73,269 worth of livestock, pets and working dogs.
Black bears caused livestock damage totaling $75,785 in 2010, compared to $23,450 in 2006. Besides killing or injuring cattle, calves, sheep, goats, pigs, llamas and chickens, black bears destroyed a large number of beehives. Steuber said beehive damage is greater during years when the berry crop is lower.
Grizzly bears caused $21,481 worth of damage in 2010 and $5,126 in 2006. Grizzlies killed cattle, calves, sheep, lambs, goats and kid goats. Steuber said the increase could be caused by several factors, including pinecone and berry crop changes. Another interesting factor, he said, has been the expansion of their range on northern rocky mountain from mountainous terrain back to the prairie where they roamed more than a century ago.
Mountain lions caused $12,975 in damage in 2006, with the price tag climbing to $31,419 in 2010, Steuber noted. The reported damage costs in 2010 included $5,665 from red fox predation plus $3,735 from ravens and $3,5570 from eagles. Red fox damages in 2006 were $2,071 and $2,000 from ravens and $700 from eagles, the report stated.
Wolf-related complications
Predator increases, Steuber said, have been caused by several factors, all of which relate to wolves.
“We have not received any additional funding since the time the population and range of wolves has expanded,” Steuber said. He explained that the “ground tools” government trappers can use to control predators are limited because of federal laws designed to protect wolves in the area.
Steuber said poison, like M44, can't be used to control coyote populations in many cases. In addition, trappers can't use snares because they might catch wolves in many regions.
Ground tools are the cheapest method for control, but are difficult to use because of regulations, Steuber said. The alternative is to use helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft, the use of which is limited because of budget restrictions.
In addition, government trappers need to set traps every day, which isn't always possible when personnel have large control areas that cover several counties.
The equation, Steuber said, is also complicated because of the time now spent investigating potential wolf kills and the ground work which is necessary to authenticate predator kills.
“It's time consuming and it takes up a lot of our time,” he said. “Besides, expenses have gone up with salaries and fuel, so it limits what we can do with our budget.”
The agency has an annual budget for predator control of about $3 million, and a manpower force of 20 personnel to handle the entire state.
Steuber said an ongoing challenge is when producers find missing calves from their herds but aren't able to determine what actually killed them.
“With our limited budget, we can't do preventative work, so we are really reacting to damage,” he added.
As expected, Steuber said the WS program in Montana focuses most of its efforts on managing the interface between livestock and wildlife. The recovery of two threatened and endangered species, the grizzly bear and the gray wolf, both predators of livestock, add a significant measure of complexity to their job. WS cooperates with the Montana Department of Livestock; the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks; and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as various livestock organizations to protect livestock from a variety of large predators, including threatened and endangered species.
Post by: DoubleJ on June 05, 2011, 03:02:25 PM
http://youtu.be/rYY3lTa9G84 (http://youtu.be/rYY3lTa9G84)
Crying Wolf - Official Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYY3lTa9G84#ws)
Post by: bearpaw on June 05, 2011, 03:19:11 PM
B.C. Senior Survives Wolf Attack (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjmfeN6EKHQ#ws)
Post by: Dave Workman on June 05, 2011, 03:57:55 PM
Trust me. I am no fan of the wolf. I don't want any wolves here!!!!!!
I am just warning those of you that were not at the meeting. 2 of the people that commented. Brought up the fact that 15 breeding pairs was a low number. My fear is that the attacks on the WDFW's scientific integrity could add more numbers. Like it or not they are very concerned about public image. And the wolf lovers are not afraid to be heard.
Essentially what I said here:
Washington is new front in ‘Wolf war’
Evergreen State hunting activists are sounding the alarm in the wake of Saturday’s Fish & Wildlife Commission discussion in Olympia on the revised wolf management plan.
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/washington-is-new-front-wolf-war (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/washington-is-new-front-wolf-war)
The pro-wolf movement is like the gun prohibitionist movement, and anybody who says different is :liar:
The target population of 15 breeding pairs hides the true fact about the number of wolves actually that will be present. We're talking packs of wolves with a breeding pair of alphas in each bunch.
No matter how many pairs we achieve and how many wolves show up (they coming by Greyhound bus or what?) it will never be enough to satisfy the wolf lovers, and they will fight every attempt at population control by filing lawsuit after lawsuit.
They don't give a rat's as about the elk population and they certainly don't care about hunting. Indeed, I predict that one day, wolf advocates will start filing federal lawsuits to prevent state agencies from setting hunting seasons because it would cut too deeply into the wolves' prey base.
It's like the gun prohibitionists...no matter what law you pass, it is not good enough. we always need another law, an other restriction.
You can trot out that argument about scientific management all you want. The wolf lovers will dispute your science, they will declare it fraudulent, they will haul you and your agency into court.
Read my column from today (click the link above) and this one from Friday:
Alarmed WA hunters doing the math on wolf program
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/alarmed-wa-hunters-doing-the-math-on-wolf-program (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/alarmed-wa-hunters-doing-the-math-on-wolf-program)
Post by: Huntnphish on June 05, 2011, 04:07:49 PM
Post by: SemperFidelis97 on June 05, 2011, 05:19:25 PM
you are what I refer to as a hippy, and supporting a invasive species is far worse than SSS :twocents:its one of the worst ideas they have ever had. the wolves have been gone for so long that to reitroduce them is going to be MORE damaging to wildlife than if they never came here. it almost calls for a need to cut the state in half. westsiders are trying to make rules and implement things on the eastside, quite frankly i think because they will never have to personally deal with anything that passes. why are they so intent on placing wolves on the eastside? they have been found on the westside. why not plant 6 breeding pairs between bellevue and north bend? that way there, people who are pushing this will have to deal with the consequences of their actions. vote wolves in, they get dropped in YOUR backyard. you want them, perfect, you deal with them. dont try to push them on everyone else in the state where you will never deal with them. i think that with the ranchers and farmers, raising the prices of their goods would come as well. they start losing cattle, sheep, horses, pigs etc, the price per animal is going to have to go up so they can maintain their profit margin. we have plenty of predators with plenty of overbearing laws on them as it is, why add another, non- native species mind you, of predator that will make the current preds seem like kittens. they will destroy and decimate everything that people have worked for the last 60 years in the wildlife world. antelope, cya. bhs, cya. moose, cya. elk, deer, you guessed it, cya. we will go on outdoor hikes to look at bronze statues of what these animals looked like becuase there wont be any if these pukes have their way
I don't know where you are getting your misinformation from, but gray wolves are a NATIVE species and always have been.
Someone is a hippy because they speak the truth? Once again, gray wolves are very much a native species. You can keep on believing they are a non native species all you want, but that doesn't change the facts. Wolves are going to be in WA whether you want them or not. Shouting "sss" is not doing the hunters side any good.
Anyone notice how Robertg completely ignores any scientific argument, and continues to respond to posts like this. I am not an expert on the wolf situation all I can speak to is my experience with the destruction of the mule deer population in the Frank Church. I learned a long time ago not to trust any government agency who tells me they are doing things for the greater good.
Post by: danderson on June 05, 2011, 05:31:04 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 05, 2011, 05:44:09 PM
Post by: danderson on June 05, 2011, 08:34:52 PM
Post by: Special T on June 05, 2011, 08:51:14 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 05, 2011, 08:55:34 PM
We need to work on a from letter with specific points that everyone can send in. Maybe something in petition form that we can pass around and have sent in by whomever we can get to send it in. :twocents:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 05, 2011, 08:55:55 PM
Post by: Special T on June 05, 2011, 09:33:23 PM
Post by: jmoyer2 on June 05, 2011, 10:47:58 PM
In nature, predators kill their competition. It happens all the time. Wolves are our competition, so let em fly.....
:mgun: :mgun: :mgun: :bfg: :bfg:
Oh and one more thing, props to Wyoming for not bending to the USFWS propaganda bullsh*t. They will be receiving funds from me to hunt in their state, ID and MT will not. :hello:
Post by: Dave Workman on June 06, 2011, 01:39:41 PM
My latest entry:
Washington’s wolf war heating up fast
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/washington-s-wolf-war-heating-up-fast (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/washington-s-wolf-war-heating-up-fast)
Post by: WA hunter14 on June 06, 2011, 03:26:18 PM
What scares me the most about this whole situation is how the government has stifled our ability to protect personal property and our way of life. I can't believe that the USFWS would have the balls to tell anyone that the only thing they can do if a wolf attacks their pet is watch. And then tell ranchers "oh yeah sorry about that, our bad, here is some money to help cover you loses. Oh and by the way there is gonna be alot more of them coming your way because people in NY and SF like the idea of wolves in their country." I'm not a rancher, but if I was I would want to sue USFWS for ruining my livelihood. I know this is horrible to say, but I really think that someone is going to have to be hurt or killed in the lower 48 before anybody realizes how bad of a mistake this was, and the most unfortunate part is that it will probably be a child. Mark my words, this will eventually happen, and when it does, I hope the family of the victim sues the living sh*t outta the USFWS and community members go on a wolf killing spree.
In nature, predators kill their competition. It happens all the time. Wolves are our competition, so let em fly.....
:mgun: :mgun: :mgun: :bfg: :bfg:
Oh and one more thing, props to Wyoming for not bending to the USFWS propaganda bullsh*t. They will be receiving funds from me to hunt in their state, ID and MT will not. :hello:
the sooner that happens the better, before to many deer/elk are lost
Post by: greenhead_killer on June 06, 2011, 04:38:25 PM
What scares me the most about this whole situation is how the government has stifled our ability to protect personal property and our way of life. I can't believe that the USFWS would have the balls to tell anyone that the only thing they can do if a wolf attacks their pet is watch. And then tell ranchers "oh yeah sorry about that, our bad, here is some money to help cover you loses. Oh and by the way there is gonna be alot more of them coming your way because people in NY and SF like the idea of wolves in their country." I'm not a rancher, but if I was I would want to sue USFWS for ruining my livelihood. I know this is horrible to say, but I really think that someone is going to have to be hurt or killed in the lower 48 before anybody realizes how bad of a mistake this was, and the most unfortunate part is that it will probably be a child. Mark my words, this will eventually happen, and when it does, I hope the family of the victim sues the living sh*t outta the USFWS and community members go on a wolf killing spree.hopefully it happens to one of the fuks that is a hard core advocate. i think that most prowolf people like the idea sitting at their couch and have no idea of what they are potentially supporting. like was stated earlier, it not 15 bp, 30 wolves, but 15 breeding packs of wolves. i think that if they are going to transplant wolves here and force it on everyone that doesnt want them or would like them to stay where they are currently at while letting nature take its course, wolves moving on their own, then we should be able to drop them where the majority of these groups are at so they can personally enjoy them on a daily basis, somewhere like discovery park, or greenlake in seattle. im sure they woiuld love to see them in their historical range. thats what they are really fighting for isnt it? also was stated earlier, why are we not trying yo bring the bison back, that would be beneficial every which way
In nature, predators kill their competition. It happens all the time. Wolves are our competition, so let em fly.....
:mgun: :mgun: :mgun: :bfg: :bfg:
Oh and one more thing, props to Wyoming for not bending to the USFWS propaganda bullsh*t. They will be receiving funds from me to hunt in their state, ID and MT will not. :hello:
Post by: bearpaw on June 06, 2011, 04:43:16 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on June 06, 2011, 06:36:30 PM
Endangered? Hell no, the SPECIES is alive and well. They are much like coyotes, and require serious measures to control populations. Ah....but that is the real question! Do they want the population controlled by humans? Are we somewhat all screwed up in thinking that we humans should morally have any say in other "lives"? The push is gotten flat out crazy! This all fits in with organic food production, no vaccinating of children, drinking bottled water, wind power, "undocumented" workers and the like. It just doesn't make any damn sense. Someone else's ideas of how we are now better people and very little "science" is used. I think we as a country are just lost. Period.
So lets take another look at this. Wolves are here and here to stay. That won't change. We have the CHOICE to manage them (and a kill all you see, 365 day season, bounty or whatever will not eradicate them). We can choose to manage all of our natural resources or to even prioritize specific species, or we can do the opposite and let nature take it's course.
This is no different than animal rights groups thoughts on a dairy cow. They get the idea that we horrible humans have genetically mutilated the poor cow and now they give much more milk than they should. Weirdo's like myself say we've done well. We now have an animal that makes enough milk for both her calf and for us.
$$$$$$$
This state has no money. It pisses me off that they will take a large part of their budget to screw with these wolves putting years of research and progress back for other species they have been working on. People want to talk about sustainability. That is what we are after as well! We crazy hunters just want to harvest the excess.
I would like WDFW to explain to us what they are going to cut to make wolf recovery fit in their budget. Ah....but the fact is they don't. They know they'll get federal $$$ but don't like us hunters pointing out that this will remove resources and reduce the opportunities we have............the same ones we pay out the nose to conserve.
Most of these problems come from someone sitting at their desk or in Portland (or any other big city) coming up with just how those of us that live out here need to be living our lives. How we should be protecting our livelihoods etc.
Frankly, I think our state and gov't is not this stupid. I think it's intentional. This outcome is too predictable. Who wants in Wa what they have in Idaho?
Who?
Post by: Jack Diamond on June 06, 2011, 08:31:05 PM
Wolf management should consist of any depredation they are shot on site, If someone believes that they should live in a "wilderness area" then fine with me, however when they stray away from "the Wilderness" then they are considered to be escaped, and need to be radically managed, just my :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on June 06, 2011, 09:39:30 PM
We are outnubered by emotion and by sheer numbers of wolfers. The wolfers claim they have the science but that is a lie and we must keep pounding it into the commission what the "new" science is that is coming out of Idaho, MT, and YNP. The new science says the herds will not support the number of wolves that the wolfers want.
Jack D, I agree completely with your remarks. I think we can show reason for requesting that wolves be managed as predators in populated areas. I don't like giving up our wilderness areas, but there is no way we can win that one, we all know that. We also can show good reason to protect ourselves, pets, and livestock whereever we are at.
The wolfers are still using the same politics here in WA that they used in the other states, but new science is on our side, we must use the info that is coming from Idaho, MT, and YNP to our advantage.
Remember, twice now the feds have delisted eastern WA wolves. This is proof the federal gov does not consider that WA wolves must be a self sustaining stand alone population. The feds and the WDFW have proven that WA wolves are members of a greater and growing population of wolves. FACT
Good discussion, lets keep it going.... :tup:
Post by: Ridgeratt on June 06, 2011, 09:44:47 PM
But I have made this statement to a few folks on here, So here goes.
The pro wolf advocates in most cases are well educated. So what better way to promote their agenda than to become a wildlife bio for the WDFG.
Just a wild idea.
Post by: Special T on June 06, 2011, 09:52:29 PM
Post by: predatorpro on June 06, 2011, 09:53:07 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on June 06, 2011, 10:07:49 PM
My question is an honest one.....one that I asked and got a poor answer. Why would WDFW spend one cent on wolves when they are here now )for free) and their population is growing on it's own?
I was told they they (WDFW) want the same thing we want. To have them delisted. So....all we have to do is get the 15 BP's or approx 300 wolves equally distributed across the state and then we can work on controlling that population. :mor:
I asked why Washington can't just decide to sustain all native populations except the wolf. That was pretty much laughed at. I wasn't joking and meant it to be one of fiscal responsibility. We have limited resources, both natural and monetary.
Bearpaw....keep the charge and the lead....I'll follow ya anyday :salute:
Post by: Huntnphish on June 06, 2011, 10:16:44 PM
I think that trying to make the plan "Reasonable" is the wrong way to sell this... Any kind of moderation or acceptance of THEIR plan weakens our position.
EXACTLY!!!!!! :yeah:
This is exactly why this country is turning to *censored*, far too many people sitting back and accepting all the crap the government is shoveling.
99.9% of the people on this site know this is wrong, know what it means and the ramifications. Why are so many content on simply limiting the damage? For crying out loud, its time to speak up! :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on June 06, 2011, 10:37:23 PM
In as much as I'm not a huge fan (wolves) of them here. Also not trying to stir the pot.
But I have made this statement to a few folks on here, So here goes.
The pro wolf advocates in most cases are well educated. So what better way to promote their agenda than to become a wildlife bio for the WDFG.
Just a wild idea.
Again a square hit, the endangered species division of nearly every state is infiltrated with enviros. That is their passion. Idaho and Montana sports groups and concerned legislators are actively working to rid their state F&G of the same.
Post by: stumprat on June 06, 2011, 10:48:53 PM
I think that trying to make the plan "Reasonable" is the wrong way to sell this... Any kind of moderation or acceptance of THEIR plan weakens our position.
EXACTLY!!!!!! :yeah:
This is exactly why this country is turning to *censored*, far too many people sitting back and accepting all the crap the government is shoveling.
99.9% of the people on this site know this is wrong, know what it means and the ramifications. Why are so many content on simply limiting the damage? For crying out loud, its time to speak up! :twocents:
Like it or not. Drawing a line in the sand. Is no way to deal with the commission, or WDFW. It is all about negotiation.
There is nothing wrong with taking a strong stance on an issue. But you have to provide them with a viable alternative. But once you get to the point of drawing a line in the sand. You will have severely handicapped your cause.
Post by: sebek556 on June 06, 2011, 10:53:26 PM
Post by: stumprat on June 06, 2011, 10:57:18 PM
I would like to compile an argument guide, because like Bearpaw said we have to have good arguments without sounding redneck. I personally love cheat sheets especially when you have hard data on them. We know we are out numbered, but we don't have to be out witted.
Very well put!!!
Fact based and unified comments to the commission. And form letters sent to the commission, and WDFW is how you counter the opposition.
Post by: Special T on June 06, 2011, 11:11:07 PM
My argument would go something like this...
"Because of the facts, ( large list here) We believe that all of the options are ill advised, However since a plan that even resembles reality we would choose the least damaging of the 3 crappy options."
Make the WDFW Own the choice and don't let them co-opt the support of sportsmen... I remember the WDFW claiming that a change in the archery season was recommended/embraced by lots ofbow-hunters. When only one group said they liked the change and the WSAA said they had to abstain from political discussions. Or something to that affect. Remember the WDFW will try and point the finger that X group wanted it and they were just trying to accommodate...
Post by: bearpaw on June 06, 2011, 11:21:02 PM
Why on earth does WDFW think we need a stand alone wolf population?
Remember this is the enviro division of WDFW that is pushing the wolf plan. They are mostly pro wolf and that is their best argument for 15 or more BP's. If we can convince the Commission that Washington's wolves are part of a greater population that spans two countries, we invalidate the argument for 15 or more BP's needed to maintain a self sustaining wolf population.
In a 6 month period one wolf radio collared in YNP traveled through 5 states:
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/a_1000_mile_journey_carries_montana_wolf_to_colorado/C41/L41/ (http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/a_1000_mile_journey_carries_montana_wolf_to_colorado/C41/L41/)
1,000-Mile Journey Carries Montana Wolf to Colorado
It's the first confirmed wolf sighting in Colorado since 2004.
By David Frey, 2-25-09
Wolf 314F lies under anesthesia after being fitted with a GPS collar on July 1, 2008. The collar has tracked the wolf on an epic journey from Montana to Colorado. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks photo.
A gray wolf from a southwestern Montana pack has traveled to the Colorado high country on an incredible journey that carried her across 1,000 miles and five states into a place where native wolves had been wiped out some eighty years before.
A global positioning satellite collar attached to the 18-month-old female’s neck pinpointed her in Eagle County, on Colorado’s Western Slope, home to the Vail ski area. Montana wildlife officials received the information last weekend, but the data comes with a two-week time lag, meaning the wolf’s whereabouts since then are unknown.
“Two weeks from now, who knows where she’s going to be?” says Carolyn Sime, wolf program coordinator for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
Post by: Special T on June 06, 2011, 11:28:03 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 06, 2011, 11:40:50 PM
I like the argument guide! That is a great way to organize the troops. :tup:
My argument would go something like this...
"Because of the facts, ( large list here) We believe that all of the options are ill advised, However since a plan that even resembles reality we would choose the least damaging of the 3 crappy options."
Make the WDFW Own the choice and don't let them co-opt the support of sportsmen... I remember the WDFW claiming that a change in the archery season was recommended/embraced by lots ofbow-hunters. When only one group said they liked the change and the WSAA said they had to abstain from political discussions. Or something to that affect. Remember the WDFW will try and point the finger that X group wanted it and they were just trying to accommodate...
I like this idea too. Let the WDFW wallow in their mistake 10 years down the road. :tup: :IBCOOL: :IBCOOL:
Perhaps a petition format:
Whereas WFW disagrees with all options......
Whereas wolves have been proven to migrate between states and provinces....
Whereas our herds cannot sustain......
Whereas Idaho lolo herd.....
Whereas YNP elk herd.....
Whereas E granulosus has been detected in 62% of tested Idaho wolves by WSU....
Whereas E granulosus has been detected in 63% of tested Montana wolves at WSU....
Whereas WFW is concerned with the spread and distibution of E. Granulosus by wolves in WA.....
Whereas WFW is concerned about the public safety in populated areas.....
Whereas WFW has determnined the only suitable wolf habitat is wilderness areas of ? miles or larger....
Whereas the Wildlife Commission and WDFW are charged with maintaining healthy populations of all animals....
Whereas endangered woodland caribou may be sacrificed....
and so forth with every fact we can dig up......
...
...
...
Whereas WFW suggests the WA Wildlife Commission consider the impacts of Wolves and consider a measured approach....
Wheras WFW suggests a minimum number of Bp's for 5 years until further science dictates Wa is suitable for additional wolves...
Be it resolved that WFW supports the least number of BP's requred to meet federal guidelines!
Post by: Huntnphish on June 06, 2011, 11:46:50 PM
Make the WDFW Own the choice and don't let them co-opt the support of sportsmen...
+1
Post by: bearpaw on June 06, 2011, 11:48:01 PM
That question BP is the question that should be hammered into the WDFW Several times at EVERY meeting they have. If i were to make a Stand on this issue with the 3 min they give me that would be it. Ad that one to the Cheat sheet! :tup: And don't accept some limp noodle answer! Matter of fact BP what Limp noodle answers have you been given when you asked that question?
This is a new argument, but it makes all the sense in the world and is supported by their own data.... :chuckle:
The agencies give lots of wolfer style answers because these recomendations are coming from wolf lovers.....
Look at the list of reviewers on the peer review list.... I will post a reply to the peer review from someone on our side....
Post by: Hockdo7 on June 07, 2011, 12:20:46 AM
Post by: sebek556 on June 07, 2011, 09:32:51 AM
Post by: jackelope on June 07, 2011, 09:54:41 AM
gonna have to give me a few days to get the cheat sheet up and running, just blew the transfer case in my truck :bash:and gotta get it working again. Bearpaw Great info will definitely add it in. When posting something to add to cheat sheet please provide links so that we can show it's hard data not just speculation, most enviro's hate it when you give them hard data cause they don't have good arguments to fight against it.
:bow:
Post by: sebek556 on June 07, 2011, 09:55:18 AM
This is from Cambrige University stufy done in 2004, Journal of Helminthology 2005.
Humans are usually not infected with Toxascaris leonina; however, this parasite has been found in humans in a few instances and is a cause of visceral larva migrans in children, though less frequently implicated than is Toxocara canis, the most common roundworm parasite found in dogs. From wikipedia.
Post by: bearpaw on June 07, 2011, 10:10:08 AM
Post by: bearpaw on June 07, 2011, 10:18:25 AM
From: Jim Beers [mailto:jimbeers7@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 2:04 PM
To: Jim Beers
Subject: WA Wolf PLAN
COMMENTS ON -
Wolf Working Group
Review Draft
Alternative 2. Revised Preferred Alternative
DRAFT WOLF CONSERVATION
AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR WASHINGTON
Yes, I read all disgusting 295 pages of this document after receiving it from a Northwestern reader. In my opinion, anyone undertaking and completing this task might conceivably lay claim to a higher niche in Heaven as this bit of suffering certainly entitles the reader to some reward somewhere.
This is nothing more than a sub-document of the USFWS wolf program. The charge is stated succinctly that “no wolves, is not a viable option”.
The state agency will “promote the public’s coexistence with the species” (i.e. wolves). There is repeated platitudinous nonsense (Note “nonsense” is not a cheap shot, consider the word –“non” “sense”) such as:
- “Minimize livestock losses” (i.e. to wolves) “while at the same time not negatively impacting wolves”.
- Establish wolves while maintaining an “ample harvest” of ungulates (i.e. big game).
Although the “PLAN” is 295 pages long, everything after p. 133 is bureaucratic “wadding” like “Goals”, Funding Priorities”, “Economic Analysis”, and “Literature”. All of these are based on the specious assertions in the first 133 pages. Goals are merely a too-long list of things to be used for future budget requests. Funding Priorities are nothing more than rehashed goals that can be rearranged when useful for obtaining state funding, federal funding, or “private” (i.e. Defenders of Wildlife, Ted Turner, etc.) funding. Literature is a 30 page ad nauseam list of everything written in the past century, but it is all fluff since they mention 2 books by Young on Wolves of North America but they don’t mention his references to human attacks where appropriate in the PLAN.
The work group that made up this report is an amalgam of the “usual suspects” from Mech and Bangs and Niemeyer and Jimenez of USFWS to Simes of Montana, Morgan of Oregon, and Wydeven of Wisconsin. Along with the expected Washington participants there was at least one USFWS Administrator whose affiliation was unidentified. The point here being that with only one exception the working group and reviewers are the very same state, federal, and radical NGO representatives responsible for and Kamikaze pilots for wolves nationwide. What can you expect?
The PLAN is laced with numbers. Numbers of wolves present, numbers of wolves in this region and in that region, numbers expected in X years, number of dogs to be killed by wolves, expected livestock losses, numbers of big game left after wolves, and even the number of big game whose health and reproductive ability (old ones left like me) will be “improved” by all those young ungulates killed by wolves. It is all c-r-a-p. Counting wolves is not a science, it is a very expensive art that isn’t worth spit but when babbled by a bureaucrat in court carries the weight of Einstein commenting on the space/time continuum. Ask anyone that hunts big game in Montana or Idaho what the state and federal “biologists” forecast and then what has happened. One of the tables in the PLAN shows the nonsense dressed up in tables and charts. A forecast about what different dog killing would occur in a given “habitat” with different wolf densities went like this:
Wolf densities: 50 100 200 300
Dogs killed/yr.: 1-2 2 2-3 1-4
“Go to sleep now boys and girls and I will read another fairy tale tomorrow night.”
Elk decimated by wolves in the Northern Yellowstone herd were merely a crash due to a herd held “artificially high”. Elk that disappeared in the Gallatin herd simply “dispersed” (where to and why didn’t the wolves follow them?) Elk calf survival is “not affected” by wolves.
There is all manner of nonsense about how wolves “reduce” elk and moose herds (only certain elk evidently since they don’t reduce whole herds like the N Yellowstone or the Gallatin) to the great benefit of certain plants (ooohhh!, even though this is farce). Then somehow miraculously beaver increase due to wolves and suddenly bird habitat for neotropical birds explodes and voila, the din of rare birdcalls becomes a cacophony! (Right.)
There are many charts about “reported” kills of livestock and big game versus the “confirmed” losses to wolves. Fortunately the herd of “group workers”, “commenters”, “reviewers”, and “contributors” that wrote this PLAN is packed with the very government workers and radical animal rights workers that made the judgments on which few kills were caused by wolves and how all the rest (many times more than those confirmed) were due to “unknown” causes or somebodies Rottweiler.
“Human Safety” and “Disease” are not mentioned until pages 120 to 126. Humans have nothing to worry about unless they misbehave and don’t “puff up” or they “look away” or “turn and run”: other than that, no to worry. Although they cite several books in the Literature that clearly belie this very dangerous lie, here is what is reported from just one about this area (Northwest US) where the wolves are all tame and one would expect that “all the children are above average”. Young and Goldman report in Wolves of North America five wolf attacks in what was then the Oregon Territory:
1812 Ross Cox encounters a wolf near Walla Walla that blocks his way and howls while feinting an attack but then leaves.
1813 An Indian widow narrowly saves her two babies nearly taken by wolves.
1835 John K Townsend is attacked by wolves near Fort Vancouver.
1840 Elizabeth White is treed by wolves then saved by relatives in the Willamette Valley.
1920 Webster reports the treeing by wolves of Charles Morgenweth near Port Angeles Washington.
Worldwide wolf attack history in the PLAN is a cleansed account of a falsely benign nature of wolves as European and Asian history is carefully distorted. Human attacks by wolves that kill hundreds in recent history are glossed over and the documented carnage periodically due to diseases like rabies or bad winters or the need for meat for pups is not mentioned.
Diseases such as rabies, hydatid disease, and distemper are only mentioned as not limiting the health of wolves. There is no attention given to the human health hazards or threats to pets and livestock from rabid wolves or wolves carrying brucellosis, 13 flea and tick diseases, Neospora caninum, hydatid disease, foot-and-mouth, Mad Cow, anthrax, distemper, or Chronic Wasting Disease. Humans, as is apparent in more and more such government documents these days are simply other “equal organisms” that government agencies will convince (one way or the other) to “coexist” with wolves whether they, i.e. the rural public to be thus saddled, like it or not.
There are pages of “science” propaganda about “trophic cascades” and “apex predators” meant to baffle judges and make rural bumpkins feel inferior. There is continual stress about how wolves everywhere else and now in Washington inhabit “federal” and “state” lands and are therefore somehow immune to objections from disappearing rural inhabitant of “private property” most of which is under easement or will be soon. Tribal lands are mentioned as well to further show the futility of any objections from the dwindling “private sector’ European settler offspring. There is even a fascinating bit about how all this fits into some Progressive state program of “Connected Landscapes” that must be Washington state’s bid to pander to the UN Agenda 21 or US “Wildlands”, “Treasured Landscapes”, et al funding source.
Furthering this “you better sit down and shut up” theme is the frequent mention of how 75% of Washingtonians want wolves and ONLY 17% are opposed. Interestingly, 54% of Washingtonians report they “would travel” to hear wolves while only 2% felt “they wouldn’t need to. Further skewing this BLUE v. RED confrontation 45% of Washingtonians want wolf damage compensation to be paid from “hunting license revenue” and 40 % want it paid from “tax revenue”. This suggested use of hunting license revenue is simply one more nail in the coffin of hunting being driven in by these state and federal bureaucrats on behalf of their radical supporters from Defenders of Wildlife and HSUS to CBD and NRDC but no one wants it even mentioned. Again, what we have here is a state microcosm of what the federal government has spawned. By encouraging unaffected majorities - like Chicago in Illinois, Boston in Massachusetts, Portland and Eugene in Oregon, LA & San Francisco in California, NYC in New York and nationally all of these BLUE urban enclaves; to believe it is American or Constitutional to endanger human lives and destroy rural economies and traditions TO HEAR a wolf howl maybe, someday: this should be totally abhorrent to all Americans. Wolves do not belong in nor should they ever be considered for introduction into any COUNTY that does not want them. States were conceived to protect this right and the federal government was conceived to protect the existence of the states to nourish the local rights of all Americans. What we are witnessing here with federal wolf programs, federal power, and supine state pandering is the exact OPPOSITE of the principles on which this country’s founding was based.
Washington is bound to follow what is happening in the Upper Rockies’ and the Great Lakes’ states. Big game hunting will dwindle, cattle will die, ranching costs will make ranching prohibitively costly and dogs (hunting, watch, working, pets, etc.) will die. People will be bitten and some will die. Diseases will increase but vets, biologists and pathologists will both deny and ignore the role played by wolves. Children and the aged will be prime targets of wolves and things like going to far off mailboxes and taking out garbage at night will cause stress and fear. Children will no longer play alone or camp or fish by themselves. We will remember old tales pooh-poohed by wolf experts, as we hear winter wolves howl near our homes or trot down the road our kids walk to and from the school bus stop. Bird hunting with dogs like bear hunting or cougar hunting with dogs will disappear as will the dogs themselves and the men that knew how to train and use them when other people are killed. Rural peace, domestic tranquility, and economic growth along with land values will decline.
There is constant and repeated mention in the PLAN about how funding is “vital” and “if funding is available”. No kidding. Then there is the reference to “partnerships” with “state, federal, and private partners” that should send chills down everyone’s spines. The radicals run the federal agencies today and the federal agencies run the state F&W agencies. Consider money. Is Washington or any state financially able to assume and maintain wolf compensation payments, wolf “censuses”, wolf enforcement, wolf research, wolf “coexistence” training of bumpkins, wolf management, wolf education, wolf control, etc., etc. in today’s fiscal climate? With no revenue from wolves? With mounting and escalating wolf damages and complaints? When the first girl or old lady is killed? When the tax loss from crumbling rural tax bases is no longer deniable? What are these people, and all of us for that matter, smoking? Just as nationally as all this comes home to roost and we see how it is really destroying culture traditions and tax revenue – it will be too late. Arguments about how the wolves “belong” or how “they were here first” or how trapping is “cruel” and denning is “inhumane” (interesting how this word “in’ “humane” is used with animals isn’t it?) will delay things even longer as we go for each other’s throats over what these wolves are doing.
Finally, the PLAN mentions how wolves were “extirpated”. There are no truthful modifiers like “purposely” or “with justification” or “with good reason”: no just “extirpated”. Don’t fool yourself that men and women 100 to 200 years ago went through all that work and spent all that time while they were on the verge of death to kill off the wolves. Don’t look down on Europeans and Russians that think we are nuts for putting wolves purposely where they had been exterminated: because they are right. Mark my words that sometime in the not too distant future wise men and women will read this PLAN and remark, “what were they thinking?” Reading this PLAN was like wondering WHY Hitler invaded the Soviet Union and why Stalin invaded Poland and why they were fighting; and being handed a War Plan by a “group” of generals that says “Invade, that is an order” and the Generals sharing their Invasion “PLAN”. While interesting, it tells you nothing except that bad orders given to those that seek to profit from them, always result in bad ends.
Jim Beers
6 June 2011
If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.
Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist,
Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.
Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting at jimbeers7@comcast.net
(I have spoken to beers in the past and at the time he told me that he would come to Washington if we wanted him. He spoke to the Oregon legislature just weeks ago.)
Post by: bearpaw on June 07, 2011, 10:23:06 AM
Post by: jackelope on June 07, 2011, 10:26:54 AM
Quote
Echinococcus Fact Sheethttp://www.frontiernet.net/~gnreil/weather/LWC/Wolf%20Tapeworm%20Fact-Sheet.pdf (http://www.frontiernet.net/~gnreil/weather/LWC/Wolf%20Tapeworm%20Fact-Sheet.pdf)
What is Echinococcus?
Echinococcus is a genus of tapeworm. Two species of Echinococcus (Echinococcus
granulosus, and Echinococcus multilocularis) are known to exist in Montana wildlife. E.
multilocularis has been documented in coyotes (SeeSee et al., 1983 and SeeSee et al.,
1993) and in foxes (SeeSee et al., 1993) in Montana for several years. Although E.
granulosus can be found almost worldwide, adult E. granulosus has only been
documented in Montana during the past few years. An article recently published in the
Journal of Wildlife Diseases describes the prevalence of E. granulosus in wolves
(definitive host) and ungulates (intermediate host) in Idaho and Montana (Foreyt et al.,
2009).
E. multilocularis and E. granulosus differ in morphology, and also in the “typical” hosts
that they infect.
Explain the life cycle of Echinococcus.
Echinococcus species require two hosts to complete their life cycle. The adult tapeworms
live in the intestine of the definitive host, which is typically a canine. Adult tapeworms
lay eggs that are excreted with the feces of the definitive host. In many cases, the
definitive host does not suffer adverse effects, even with a relatively heavy parasite
burden.
The intermediate host becomes infected by ingesting eggs that were passed with the
canine feces. The intermediate host is typically a rodent (in the case of E. multilocularis),
domestic or wild ungulate (in the case of E. granulosus), or occasionally a human. Once
ingested, the eggs hatch in the digestive tract of the intermediate host, then enter the
blood stream and are carried to organs, primarily the lung, liver, or brain, where they
develop into a cyst that contains immature form of the parasite. The number of cysts that
develop in an intermediate host ranges from 1 to many. Intermediate hosts with few cysts
may not experience significant adverse effects whereas extremely heavy burdens may be
fatal.
The parasite life cycle is completed when the intermediate host dies and another
carnivore consumes the organs containing parasite cysts. Adult tapeworms again develop
in the intestine of the canine definitive host, and begin laying more eggs.
January 21, 2010
2
E. granulosus typically infects domestic dogs or wolves as a definitive host, and wild or
domestic ungulates as the intermediate host. E. multilocularis primarily infects foxes,
coyotes, or wolves as a definitive host, and rodents as an intermediate host. Each of these
parasites can sometimes infect other animals, and humans.
Can humans become infected with Echinococcus?
Yes. There is some risk of humans becoming infected with Echinococcus. Echinococcus
infection in humans can lead to development of cysts in organs such as the lungs, liver or
brain, just as it does with other intermediate hosts. Cysts may develop over prolonged
periods of time (10-15 years) before any clinical signs are evident. Treatment may
involve surgical removal of cysts and treatment with anthelmintic medications.
How could a human become infected?
To become infected, a human must ingest parasite eggs, which are passed with the feces
of an infected canine. Eggs could be ingested while consuming vegetation or drinking
water that has been contaminated with feces. Humans could also become infected by not
washing their hands before eating if they’ve handled canine scats or contaminated canine
fur.
What is the result of human infection with Echinococcus?
There are two biotypes of E. granulosus in North America. The northern biotype, which
has a canine definitive host and a cervid intermediate host, is thought to be the biotype
found in Montana wolves. This biotype has been reported in moose, elk, caribou, whitetailed
deer, wolves, coyote, and dogs in North America and Eurasia. In the Upper
Peninsula of Michigan, a deer/coyote and a moose/wolf cycle has been observed. Human
infection with this particular biotype is considered by some experts to be relatively
benign (Rausch, 2003). Infection with this biotype primarily results in development of
cysts in the lungs, which often rupture and resolve with expulsion (Meltzer et al., 1956;
Wilson et al., 1968). Therefore, fatal human infection resulting from the wolf-ungulate
cycle in Montana is very low (Foreyt et al., 2009).
The second biotype (domestic biotype) is typically found in domestic dogs and domestic
ungulates, especially sheep. Human cases are uncommon, but do occur, especially in
high-risk groups having close contact with sheepherding dogs in the southwestern United
States (Arizona, California, New Mexico, Utah) (Foreyt et al., 2009). Utah has had the
highest number of surgical human cases in the United States. From 1944-1994, they had
45 reported surgical cases of human Echinococcosis. Human infections with the domestic
biotype of E. granulosus are considered to be more dangerous. Cysts that develop in
organs such as the lung, liver, or brain, sometimes over several years, may require
surgical removal and anthelmintic medications. Treatment is not always successful.
How do I minimize my risk of infection with Echinococcus?
There are several basic precautions that can minimize the risk of human infection with
Echinococcus. Dog owners should not allow their dog to consume carcasses of wild or
domestic ungulates. If your dog does have access to carcasses, talk to your veterinarian
about appropriate deworming strategy. Always wash your hands after handling a dog
January 21, 2010
3
that has access to ungulate carcasses. When enjoying outdoor recreation, do not touch or
disturb wolf, coyote, or fox scat. Hunters should wear gloves when field dressing a wolf,
coyote, or fox carcass, and wash your hands, forearms etc., since they may have come
into contact with feces or contaminated fur.
Where did the Echinococcus granulosus in Montana come from?
It is not known where the E. granulosus recently documented in Montana originated.
Perhaps the parasite was maintained at a low level in canids such as coyotes and dogs in
the absence of wolves prior to wolf reintroductions in 1995 and 1996, and the presence of
wolves has amplified the parasite on the landscape. The possibility that E. granulosus
was brought into Montana with transplantation of wolves from Canada into Yellowstone
National Park cannot be ruled out. Transplanted wolves were treated with an
anthelmintic drug effective against E. granulosus prior to release, however, it cannot be
verified that treatment was 100% effective in all wolves.
Can Echinococcus infect domestic livestock?
Yes. As mentioned above, the domestic biotype of E. granulosus typically infects
domestic sheep as it’s intermediate host. However, E. granulosus can occasionally
infect domestic cattle and horses. A horse/dog cycle has been reported in Belgium,
Ireland, Italy, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States
(Maryland). A cattle/dog cycle has been reported in Belgium, Germany, South Africa,
and Switzerland. A Swine/dog cycle has been reported in Poland. Only a few cases have
been reported in horses within the United States. In most cases, Echinococcus was an
incidental finding during necropsy after death from another cause. Most of the infected
horses had been imported from Europe, however the first documented case of
Echinococcus in a horse that originated in the United States occurred in Maryland in
1993. Again, the horse died of unrelated causes, and the Echinococcus cyst was an
incidental finding at necropsy. In mild infections, the intermediate host may show no
signs of disease; however, severe infections could be fatal.
Can I be infected with Echinococcus by handling tissues of an elk with Echinococcus
cysts in the lungs or liver?
No. Humans must ingest Echinococcus eggs to become infected. Only the larval stage
of the parasite is found within cysts in ungulates. The adult tapeworms, which lay eggs
that can infect humans, are found in the intestinal tract of canines.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on June 07, 2011, 10:32:59 AM
Post by: denali on June 07, 2011, 10:33:38 AM
Post by: sebek556 on June 07, 2011, 10:44:54 AM
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/news/fg_news/10/aug.pdf (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/news/fg_news/10/aug.pdf)
Post by: bearpaw on June 07, 2011, 10:54:54 AM
Who is paying for this reintroduction? The State, or federal level? Let me guess each State from the General funds contributed to from hunting and fishings licenses and permits. Then when they kill livestock reimbersement comes from the General fund once again.
It's my understanding the states have all been baited in by federal funds. But I understand that wolves in the long run have drained dollars from the states like Idaho....
Post by: rebal69972 on June 07, 2011, 11:03:12 AM
Post by: BIGINNER on June 07, 2011, 12:35:23 PM
http://www.wolvesinrussia.com/ (http://www.wolvesinrussia.com/)
Post by: Kain on June 07, 2011, 02:41:48 PM
Caution adult language.
Save Duhhh Wolves (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf4ntW5gcD8#ws)
Post by: HighCountryHunter88 on June 07, 2011, 02:49:13 PM
Post by: Klyne3 on June 07, 2011, 02:52:24 PM
Post by: rebal69972 on June 07, 2011, 02:57:42 PM
Post by: WA hunter14 on June 07, 2011, 03:01:11 PM
Post by: BIGINNER on June 07, 2011, 03:04:44 PM
Post by: Kain on June 07, 2011, 03:10:57 PM
thanks for a good laugh cain. i was really getting bored at work. lol :chuckle:
No problem. I am sorry I got this great thread off topic. Back to it guys. :tup:
Post by: Machias on June 07, 2011, 03:13:15 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on June 07, 2011, 04:09:51 PM
Look at the list of reviewers on the peer review list.... I will post a reply to the peer review from someone on our side....
To me, the Peer Review should not count. Why would they have grad students and proffessors on a peer review and not other Wildlife Program Managers from states with wolves?
Post by: bucklucky on June 07, 2011, 04:58:17 PM
If you guys want some real time info on wolves just visit out friends at "Wolf Haven" near Offut Lake. You will get nothing but the truth about wolves from them. You may learn something ......
Post by: jackelope on June 07, 2011, 04:59:55 PM
I love wolves, they are so soft and fuzzy.
If you guys want some real time info on wolves just visit out friends at "Wolf Haven" near Offut Lake. You will get nothing but the truth about wolves from them. You may learn something ......
You should take and show them what a good job you did on that full body mount you did. I'd bet they'd give you big hugs for that.
Post by: bobcat on June 07, 2011, 07:12:19 PM
Who is paying for this reintroduction? The State, or federal level? Let me guess each State from the General funds contributed to from hunting and fishings licenses and permits. Then when they kill livestock reimbersement comes from the General fund once again.
The wolves are surely costing our state money, but to call it a "reintroduction" is wrong. The wolves came into the state on their own. The state is not reintroducing wolves, they are simply managing them. Just wanted to clarify that.
Post by: Jack Diamond on June 07, 2011, 07:29:28 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 07, 2011, 07:32:07 PM
Post by: CementFinisher on June 07, 2011, 07:34:08 PM
Why are we loosing this fight again? :chuckle:
Caution adult language.
Save Duhhh Wolves (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf4ntW5gcD8#ws)
LoL its like people watching down on 5th ave in olympia
Post by: Jack Diamond on June 07, 2011, 07:41:11 PM
Post by: Jack Diamond on June 07, 2011, 08:00:41 PM
They always state that hunting and fishing are outdoor recreation activities , and should not be considered to be for human subsistence.
I believe that if I purchase a tag and license and put in the hard work I should expect a reasonable return on my investment. If I wanted an outdoor recreational opportunity then I'd just go to my regular job. Maybe I am not a sportsman, but I hunt for meat, and I fish for meat, am I always successful, hell no, but I go with the expectation that I could be successful. I do not believe I should have to compete with aliens 2 or 4 legged. To use the language Reintroduction the WDFW offends my intelect.
Post by: sebek556 on June 07, 2011, 08:30:28 PM
Post by: rebal69972 on June 07, 2011, 10:44:39 PM
I believe after having discussions with a variety of WDFW personnel over the years that the WDFW does not care about outfitters ,Guides, Hunters or fishermen, or private landowners.
They always state that hunting and fishing are outdoor recreation activities , and should not be considered to be for human subsistence.
I believe that if I purchase a tag and license and put in the hard work I should expect a reasonable return on my investment. If I wanted an outdoor recreational opportunity then I'd just go to my regular job. Maybe I am not a sportsman, but I hunt for meat, and I fish for meat, am I always successful, hell no, but I go with the expectation that I could be successful. I do not believe I should have to compete with aliens 2 or 4 legged. To use the language Reintroduction the WDFW offends my intelect.
i agree with this completely. but i feel that the government as a whole does not care. as hunters, outdoors men and women and gun owners i think our thoughts, concerns and voices have fallen upon deaf ears if we have nothing to hunt there will be no reason for us to own any weapons. they do not care about us but they want our money, for in the end we are paying for them to put the wolves into this state. i had this post all thought out and just went blank so i will finish it latter
Post by: bobcat on June 07, 2011, 10:57:12 PM
Quote from: rebal69972 link=topic=77285.msg951554#msg951554 date=1307511879as
they do not care about us but they want our money, for in the end we are paying for them to put the wolves into this state.
Again, the state is not putting wolves into this state. The wolves got here on their own. I don't want wolves here either. But we all need to keep our facts straight.
Post by: bucklucky on June 07, 2011, 10:57:42 PM
Post by: BIGINNER on June 07, 2011, 11:26:29 PM
Quote from: rebal69972 link=topic=77285.msg951554#msg951554 date=1307511879asthey do not care about us but they want our money, for in the end we are paying for them to put the wolves into this state.
Again, the state is
not putting wolves into this state. The wolves
got here on their own. I don't want wolves here either. But we all need to keep our facts straight.
technically they did. The idaho wolves that are coming into washington didn't get to idaho on their own
Post by: rebal69972 on June 07, 2011, 11:35:32 PM
Quote from: rebal69972 link=topic=77285.msg951554#msg951554 date=1307511879asthey do not care about us but they want our money, for in the end we are paying for them to put the wolves into this state.
Again, the state is
not putting wolves into this state. The wolves
got here on their own. I don't want wolves here either. But we all need to keep our facts straight.
technically they did. The Idaho wolves that are coming into washington didn't get to Idaho on their own
i was miss informed and kinda confused when i posted that. if we start bickering and fighting among our self's, then we have already lost and that is just what they want if we are busy fighting each other then we will be to busy to stand up to everyone alse and fight for what we believe in
Post by: Hockdo7 on June 07, 2011, 11:38:58 PM
Wolf Killed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGDvRRywRcg#ws)
http://mobile.oregonlive.com/advorg/db_258378/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=h2qd5jlN (http://mobile.oregonlive.com/advorg/db_258378/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=h2qd5jlN)
Post by: Hockdo7 on June 07, 2011, 11:41:14 PM
Yellowstone is Dead Theatrical Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhnZvan_uT8#ws)
Post by: Hockdo7 on June 07, 2011, 11:42:15 PM
http://yellowstone-is-dead.myshopify.com/products/yellowstone-is-dead (http://yellowstone-is-dead.myshopify.com/products/yellowstone-is-dead)
Post by: Hockdo7 on June 07, 2011, 11:43:47 PM
http://www.savewesternwildlife.org/ (http://www.savewesternwildlife.org/)
Post by: Hockdo7 on June 07, 2011, 11:44:50 PM
http://www.facebook.com/#!/home.php?sk=group_129344620416761 (http://www.facebook.com/#!/home.php?sk=group_129344620416761)
Post by: Hockdo7 on June 07, 2011, 11:47:55 PM
HB-343 Passes In IDAHO (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2lBDvu5mM8#ws)
Post by: Hockdo7 on June 07, 2011, 11:49:48 PM
I hate hunters... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIihY_YvFUY#)
Post by: rasbo on June 08, 2011, 04:58:47 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on June 08, 2011, 05:49:45 AM
Post by: bobcat on June 08, 2011, 06:19:18 AM
I am sure that WFW wouldn't officially condone SSS but they would definitely be against the reintroduction.
Gee, how many times do I have to say this- there is NOT and won't be a "reintroduction" of wolves in this state. They have come here on their own.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on June 08, 2011, 06:24:39 AM
Post by: bearpaw on June 08, 2011, 07:57:47 AM
Who is paying for this reintroduction? The State, or federal level? Let me guess each State from the General funds contributed to from hunting and fishings licenses and permits. Then when they kill livestock reimbersement comes from the General fund once again.
The wolves are surely costing our state money, but to call it a "reintroduction" is wrong. The wolves came into the state on their own. The state is not reintroducing wolves, they are simply managing them. Just wanted to clarify that.
Bobcat is correct in that the wolves are reportedly migrating in, no evidence suggests otherwise.
I disagree that Idaho wolves were re-introduced. The canadian wolves from northern canada were more of an "introduction" since they are larger than native wolves. However, scientists have reclassified wolves into fewer subspecies, which makes the introduction a reintroduction. :twocents:
Considering that wolves from Alaska to Colorado are all classified by scientists as one subspecie and those same wolves have been documented to travel as much as 1000 miles in a 6 month period, I again submit that Washington wolves are part of a greater self sustaining and growing population of wolves which inhabits numerous states and provinces in two countries. This is proof that Washington does not need to have a self-sustaining wolf population for the genetic viability of wolves. 15 breeding pairs are not needed in Washington, this is only a number that has been pulled out of thin air and promoted as necessary.
Post by: Dave Workman on June 08, 2011, 08:19:56 AM
A retired wildlife biologist who spent 30 years with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and whose career was ended when he blew the whistle on misallocation of federal wildlife funds by the Clinton administration, has called Washington State’s draft wolf management plan “disgusting.”
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/controversial-wildlife-biologist-calls-wa-wolf-draft-plan-disgusting (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/controversial-wildlife-biologist-calls-wa-wolf-draft-plan-disgusting)
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 08, 2011, 08:30:45 AM
Post by: bucklucky on June 08, 2011, 08:39:19 AM
Scott Rockholm, find him on facebook he has spearheaded the fight in Idaho.
http://www.savewesternwildlife.org/ (http://www.savewesternwildlife.org/)
I could not find him on facebook ?? I wanted to freind him but no dice.
Post by: bearpaw on June 08, 2011, 08:43:27 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 08, 2011, 08:45:46 AM
Scott Rockholm, find him on facebook he has spearheaded the fight in Idaho.
http://www.savewesternwildlife.org/ (http://www.savewesternwildlife.org/)
I could not find him on facebook ?? I wanted to freind him but no dice.
Go to his homepage and click on the Facebook link. You'll have to sign in to see it.
Post by: bucklucky on June 08, 2011, 08:54:22 AM
Scott Rockholm, find him on facebook he has spearheaded the fight in Idaho.
http://www.savewesternwildlife.org/ (http://www.savewesternwildlife.org/)
I could not find him on facebook ?? I wanted to freind him but no dice.
Go to his homepage and click on the Facebook link. You'll have to sign in to see it.
I got it now, I shared the link on my facebook page. I cant beleive there isnt more people supporting Save western Wildlife.
Post by: Kain on June 08, 2011, 08:59:10 AM
I am sure that WFW wouldn't officially condone SSS but they would definitely be against the reintroduction. The same as any passionate hunter is against sitting back and watching the game animals unnecessarily wiped out. When you say Hunt-wa you are meaning the website owners and not the over all membership which without them is nothing. To say I am going to SSS is one thing and doing it is another. If the State were to see how much of a loss in revenue would be caused if the wolf population were to be allowed to be uncontrolled as what happened in MT they might too change their tune.
They are sitting back right now on the cougar issue. Cougars are killing 73,000-91,250 ungulates every year in this state and there is very little anger from hunters over reduced seasons and weapon restrictions. I know the wolf issue is a hot topic and people want to minimize their impact on an already predator rich environment but I find it curious how attitudes seem to differ on the two animals.
I think it is obvious that the WDFW does not care about hunter revenues. Almost every decision they make is for reduced hunting not more. They are pushing this new watchable wildlife policy as their new money maker and hunters will just continue to pay more for whatever is left.
Post by: bucklucky on June 08, 2011, 09:05:27 AM
Post by: sebek556 on June 08, 2011, 09:11:11 AM
Post by: Huntnphish on June 08, 2011, 09:11:50 AM
Gee, how many times do I have to say this- there won't be a "reintroduction" of wolves in this state.
Unless Christine Gregoire is your mother Bobcat, you can not say that for certain, I seriously doubt you could even say it then. ;)
Post by: Kain on June 08, 2011, 09:31:33 AM
Watchable Wildlife Policy ??? First time I have heard of that.
Maybe "policy" was the wrong word but they are definitely moving that direction.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/viewing/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/viewing/)
https://fishhunt.dfw.wa.gov/wdfw/ww_decal.html (https://fishhunt.dfw.wa.gov/wdfw/ww_decal.html)
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01145/wdfw_01145.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01145/wdfw_01145.pdf)
http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/backyard/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/backyard/)
Just look at the links on these pages. A lot of groups that are not so hunter friendly.
Post by: bucklucky on June 08, 2011, 09:36:57 AM
Post by: Kain on June 08, 2011, 09:41:49 AM
Post by: sebek556 on June 08, 2011, 10:39:54 AM
Post by: BIGINNER on June 08, 2011, 10:57:07 AM
should be done with anti wolve cheat sheet ver 1.0 this evening since fishing trip canceled and waiting on truck parts. Wanted to see really fsat if everyone would prefer idaho as the basis of the majority of facts since the elk pop is hunted and wolfs are there or should we use yellow stone where no hunting and lots of wolves?
I WOULD SAY IDAHO, AND YELLOWSTONE, IDAHO SHOWS CLOSER TO WHAT WASHINGTON WILL BE LIKE, SINCE IDAHO IS HUNTED, AND YELLOWSTONE IS A GREAT EAPLE OF THE FACT THAT HUNTING IS A MUCH BETTER MANAGEMENT TOOL THAN WOLVES, WOLVES DO NOT MANAGE THE ELK AND DEER. THEY DESTROY THEM, HUNTERS MANAGE THEM
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 11:33:13 AM
should be done with anti wolve cheat sheet ver 1.0 this evening since fishing trip canceled and waiting on truck parts. Wanted to see really fsat if everyone would prefer idaho as the basis of the majority of facts since the elk pop is hunted and wolfs are there or should we use yellow stone where no hunting and lots of wolves?
I WOULD SAY IDAHO, AND YELLOWSTONE, IDAHO SHOWS CLOSER TO WHAT WASHINGTON WILL BE LIKE, SINCE IDAHO IS HUNTED, AND YELLOWSTONE IS A GREAT EAPLE OF THE FACT THAT HUNTING IS A MUCH BETTER MANAGEMENT TOOL THAN WOLVES, WOLVES DO NOT MANAGE THE ELK AND DEER. THEY DESTROY THEM, HUNTERS MANAGE THEM
Wolves do manage the elk and deer and have been doing so for thousands upon thousands of years. Yellowstone is a national park and there is no hunting allowed. National parks are for people to view wildlife. there are under 100 wolves now in Yellowstone. I wouldn't consider under 100 wolves a lot of wolves given the size of yellowstone. There are also under 5000 elk. There used to be 19,000 elk which was way too many and many people complained that there were too many elk in yellowstone.
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 11:37:22 AM
Brodie Farquhar
Yellowstone elk populations have dramatically risen and fallen in recent decades, but researchers are arguing over the relative impact of wolf predation on elk populations.
For example, Yellowstone's famed northern range elk increased from about 4,000 head in 1968 to some 20,000 by 1988, due to a combination of factors: elk colonized new winter range in and north of the park, wet summers resulted in better plant production, winters were mild, and the fires of 1988 opened forests allowing more ground cover to grow. With the reintroduction of wolves into the ecosystem in 1995, elk populations held their own from 1995 to 2000 (17,000), before they dramatically dropped by 50 percent to 8,335 in winter 2004.
At the same time, researchers note both high human harvest levels and seven years of drought at the same time wolf numbers were growing throughout the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.
In a broader context, more than 30,000 elk from 7-8 different herds summer in Yellowstone and approximately 15,000 to 22,000 winter in the park, according to National Park Service biologists.
Are wolves to blame?
Doug Smith and Daniel Stahler (NPS wolf biologists) and John Vucetich (Michigan Tech biologist) joined forces to investigate the influence of harvest, climate and wolf predation on Yellowstone elk. The three built computer models based on elk-related data prior to wolf restoration (1961-1995). The goal was to use the best of these models to predict how elk populations might have fared, had the wolves never been reintroduced.
Their models suggested that human harvest (hunting) might be "super-additive," that for every one percent increase in the harvest rate, elk population growth rate would decline by more than one percent.
"According to the best-performing model, which accounts for harvest rate and climate, the elk population would have been expected to decline by 7.9 percent per year, on average, between 1995 and 2004," they wrote in a study published by the peer-reviewed journal of ecology, Oikos. "Within the limits of uncertainty, which are not trivial, climate and harvest rate are justified explanations for most of the observed elk decline. To the extent that this is true, we suggest that between 1995 and 2004 wolf predation was primarily compensatory (of no significance)."
The researchers acknowledge that some wildlife managers and segments of the general public believe the decline of the northern range elk herd is attributable to wolf predation. "Our analysis indicates that there is greater justification for believing that the harvest rate and severe climate, together, account for at least much of the decline," they wrote.
Competing view
Yet ungulate biologist P.J. White (NPS) and ecologist Dr. Bob Garrott (Montana State), in a paper for Biological Conservation (2005) contend that the rapid growth of the wolf population has in fact contributed to rapid demographic decline for elk.
White and Garrott have also speculated that as wolf recovery continues, there will be greater numbers of bison and antelope, because of wolf pressure on elk and coyote populations, respectively.
Yet wolves are beginning to take bison in the park's interior. The Pelican Valley wolf pack hunts bison in late winter when they are more vulnerable and migratory elk are not available. White and Garrott suggest that a change of prey preference from elk to bison, by wolves, could lead to stable populations for elk and bison.
"Counts of northern Yellowstone elk have decreased more than predicted," wrote White and Garrott, "and counts will likely continue to decrease in the near future given the strong preference of wolves for elk and the high kill rates."
In a telephone interview, White said he believes that wolves have overshot their favored prey base of elk.
"I don't think (the elk population) decline is entirely due to wolves," said White. A moderate to liberal harvest policy has played a role, he said, as well as predation by a growing population of grizzly bears.
But simple answers are both elusive and often wrong, say scientists, citing the sheer complexity of the northern range ecosystem.
White said ruefully that 10 years after the reintroduction of wolves, "the range of predictions is as large as it was before." Past predictions have been spot-on, but others have been wildly off the mark. Today, there's disagreement on whether wolf predation is negligible or significant, where the elk and wolf populations will eventually settle, and at what level the elk hunting harvest can be sustainable.
What everyone would agree to, is that ongoing research is needed to better understand the complexity of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.
Elk Facts
Elk are the second largest antlered animals in the world, only moose are larger. Bull elk are 4.5 to 5 feet tall at the shoulder and weigh 550 to 800 pounds. Cow elk weigh from 450 to 600 pounds. The National Elk Refuge near Jackson, Wyoming, has an elk herd with consists approximately 20 percent bulls, 65 percent cows, and 15 percent calves.
While most members of the deer family are primarily browsers (feeding on twigs and leaves of shrubs and trees), elk are both browsers and grazers, feeding extensively on grasses and forbs, as well as shrubs.
Grizzly bears, black bears, mountain lions, wolves, and coyotes prey on elk. By weeding out the weak, predators help maintain healthy, vigorous elk herds.
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post by: BIGINNER on June 08, 2011, 11:40:43 AM
should be done with anti wolve cheat sheet ver 1.0 this evening since fishing trip canceled and waiting on truck parts. Wanted to see really fsat if everyone would prefer idaho as the basis of the majority of facts since the elk pop is hunted and wolfs are there or should we use yellow stone where no hunting and lots of wolves?
I WOULD SAY IDAHO, AND YELLOWSTONE, IDAHO SHOWS CLOSER TO WHAT WASHINGTON WILL BE LIKE, SINCE IDAHO IS HUNTED, AND YELLOWSTONE IS A GREAT EAPLE OF THE FACT THAT HUNTING IS A MUCH BETTER MANAGEMENT TOOL THAN WOLVES, WOLVES DO NOT MANAGE THE ELK AND DEER. THEY DESTROY THEM, HUNTERS MANAGE THEM
Wolves do manage the elk and deer and have been doing so for thousands upon thousands of years. Yellowstone is a national park and there is no hunting allowed. National parks are for people to view wildlife. there are under 100 wolves now in Yellowstone. I wouldn't consider under 100 wolves a lot of wolves given the size of yellowstone. There are also under 5000 elk. There used to be 19,000 elk which was way too many and many people complained that there were too many elk in yellowstone.
THAT WOULD BE TRUE ONLY IF HUMANS WERE TOTALLY REMOVED FROM THE PLAYING FIELD, I DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING, I WOULD RATHER SEE THE WOLVES TOTALLY REMOVED,. THE POINT IS, IT 2011 AND PEOPL ARE HERE AND THEY'RE HERE TO STAY, I'M FINE WITH WOLVES BEING HERE, BUT NOT BY THE WOLF GROUPS TURMS,.. WOLVES NEED TO BE STRICTLY MANAGED, BUT WITH THE COUGAR AND BLACK BEAR PROBLEMS HERE IN WASHINGTON, I HONESTLY DON'T SEE WOLVES FITTING IN,
Post by: BIGINNER on June 08, 2011, 11:48:52 AM
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/opinions/article_33ed3e7b-2e8f-5440-8fee-16f36fb6abb0.html (http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/opinions/article_33ed3e7b-2e8f-5440-8fee-16f36fb6abb0.html)
Home Opinion .Wolf hunt needed
StoryCommentsShareShare Print Create a hardcopy of this page Font Size: Default font size Larger font size Share
.Posted: Sunday, February 26, 2006 11:00 pm | Updated: 11:07 am, Tue Feb 9, 2010.
Wolf hunt needed 0 comments
"We strongly support hunting wolves. Look at the success we've had with hunting lions and maintaining strong lion populations. There is no reason wolf management cannot be just as successful" (Ed Bangs).
Hunting wolves is a very controversial issue with sentiments running high. After careful consideration on this issue, I have come to one major conclusion. Without hunting, managing wolves is a very difficult task.
Bob Garrott, a wildlife biologist at Montana State University did a study on three different wolf packs. I am going to focus on the Gallatin region pack also known as the Chief Joseph pack. This pack was extremely restless. The alpha female was killed by a car and her mate was killed by a bull elk. This caused the pack to split up. Some of this pack ended up 160 miles away on a ranch north of Helena. The owner of the ranch shot and killed one of the pack members after it had killed 19 of his sheep. Six or seven of the wolf pack remained in the area and researchers confirmed that the pack killed 24 elk in a three-month study period. At this rate, a herd of 120 elk would be eliminated in a period of 18 months.
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has not taken a stand on hunting wolves but has presented facts about wolf behavior. According to their study, wolves are elusive and have unpredictable movement. They cannot be kept in the same place, therefore they affect different elk herds and livestock that were not thought about in the effort to bring the wolf back in the area. If hunting wolves were legal, numbers would be kept down but a high enough number could be maintained. Even Ed Bangs, a U.S. Fish and Widlife Service wolf recovery coordinator agrees that wolves should be hunted. I agree with Bob Garrott, when he states, "Wolves are not deities, no matter what some people think. We have to be able to accommodate the ranchers, because these big open spaces support everything we want - the elk, the wolves, the wildlife."
Drew Huempfner
Bozeman
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 11:51:23 AM
should be done with anti wolve cheat sheet ver 1.0 this evening since fishing trip canceled and waiting on truck parts. Wanted to see really fsat if everyone would prefer idaho as the basis of the majority of facts since the elk pop is hunted and wolfs are there or should we use yellow stone where no hunting and lots of wolves?
I WOULD SAY IDAHO, AND YELLOWSTONE, IDAHO SHOWS CLOSER TO WHAT WASHINGTON WILL BE LIKE, SINCE IDAHO IS HUNTED, AND YELLOWSTONE IS A GREAT EAPLE OF THE FACT THAT HUNTING IS A MUCH BETTER MANAGEMENT TOOL THAN WOLVES, WOLVES DO NOT MANAGE THE ELK AND DEER. THEY DESTROY THEM, HUNTERS MANAGE THEM
Wolves do manage the elk and deer and have been doing so for thousands upon thousands of years. Yellowstone is a national park and there is no hunting allowed. National parks are for people to view wildlife. there are under 100 wolves now in Yellowstone. I wouldn't consider under 100 wolves a lot of wolves given the size of yellowstone. There are also under 5000 elk. There used to be 19,000 elk which was way too many and many people complained that there were too many elk in yellowstone.
THAT WOULD BE TRUE ONLY IF HUMANS WERE TOTALLY REMOVED FROM THE PLAYING FIELD, I DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING, I WOULD RATHER SEE THE WOLVES TOTALLY REMOVED,. THE POINT IS, IT 2011 AND PEOPL ARE HERE AND THEY'RE HERE TO STAY, I'M FINE WITH WOLVES BEING HERE, BUT NOT BY THE WOLF GROUPS TURMS,.. WOLVES NEED TO BE STRICTLY MANAGED, BUT WITH THE COUGAR AND BLACK BEAR PROBLEMS HERE IN WASHINGTON, I HONESTLY DON'T SEE WOLVES FITTING IN,
As far as national parks like yellowstone go, wolves are being managed. Wolves die from other things like disease, starvation, getting hit by cars, etc. I do find it a bit odd that Washington has a lot of cougars and as of now, they are killing many more deer and elk than wolves and all people seem to focus on is wolves. There seems to be a lot of hate for wolves and not that much hate for cougars even though there are by far many more cougars in WA and they are killing many more deer and elk than wolves as of now.
Post by: BIGINNER on June 08, 2011, 11:57:27 AM
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 12:02:22 PM
should be done with anti wolve cheat sheet ver 1.0 this evening since fishing trip canceled and waiting on truck parts. Wanted to see really fsat if everyone would prefer idaho as the basis of the majority of facts since the elk pop is hunted and wolfs are there or should we use yellow stone where no hunting and lots of wolves?
I WOULD SAY IDAHO, AND YELLOWSTONE, IDAHO SHOWS CLOSER TO WHAT WASHINGTON WILL BE LIKE, SINCE IDAHO IS HUNTED, AND YELLOWSTONE IS A GREAT EAPLE OF THE FACT THAT HUNTING IS A MUCH BETTER MANAGEMENT TOOL THAN WOLVES, WOLVES DO NOT MANAGE THE ELK AND DEER. THEY DESTROY THEM, HUNTERS MANAGE THEM
Wolves do manage the elk and deer and have been doing so for thousands upon thousands of years. Yellowstone is a national park and there is no hunting allowed. National parks are for people to view wildlife. there are under 100 wolves now in Yellowstone. I wouldn't consider under 100 wolves a lot of wolves given the size of yellowstone. There are also under 5000 elk. There used to be 19,000 elk which was way too many and many people complained that there were too many elk in yellowstone.
THAT WOULD BE TRUE ONLY IF HUMANS WERE TOTALLY REMOVED FROM THE PLAYING FIELD, I DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING, I WOULD RATHER SEE THE WOLVES TOTALLY REMOVED,. THE POINT IS, IT 2011 AND PEOPL ARE HERE AND THEY'RE HERE TO STAY, I'M FINE WITH WOLVES BEING HERE, BUT NOT BY THE WOLF GROUPS TURMS,.. WOLVES NEED TO BE STRICTLY MANAGED, BUT WITH THE COUGAR AND BLACK BEAR PROBLEMS HERE IN WASHINGTON, I HONESTLY DON'T SEE WOLVES FITTING IN,
I know some hunters are mad that elk #s are down in yellowstone, but there is no management objective for yellowstone. It is a national park with no hunting allowed in it. I know some don't want to here this, but many people believed that elk were very overpopulated in ynp. 19,000 elk is A LOT of elk for a national park in my opinion. Since there is no hunting allowed in it, it was the wolf's job to keep the elk in check. There is still thousands of elk left. The elk were destroying all the vegetation and something needed to be done.
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 12:07:48 PM
I THINK MOSTLY WE'RE AGAIANST WOLVES BEING SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS. (I'M NOT TALKING RE-INTRODUCING OR INTRODUCING ECT) I'M TALKING ABOUT THE B.S. WOLF PLAN WITH B.S. NUMBERS THAT THEY HAVE NO INTENSION TO STICKING TO (AS WE'VE SEEN). THIS STATE CAN'T MANAGE THE PREDITORS THAT WE HAVE HERE AS IS,... SO LETS TRY TO GET A CRAPLOAD OF MORE PREDITORS(MORE DISTRUCTIVE ONES) SO WE CAN MISMANAGE THEM TOO, :dunno: ITS MORE ABOUT MANAGEMENT THAN BEING AGAINST WOLVES. AS OF RIGHT NOW, WE NEED A BIG CHANGE TO THE PREDITOR MANAGEMENT THAT WE HAVE NOW, AND WE NEED TO START MANAGEING THE WOLVES RIGHT AWAY, BY REGIONS, NOT BY THE WHOLE STATE.
Wolves were not shoved down your throat. The wolves in WA now came over naturally from other states. Natural migration is not the same thing as WA going to other states to get wolves and bringing them back to WA.
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 12:09:33 PM
Post by: BIGINNER on June 08, 2011, 12:12:22 PM
I THINK MOSTLY WE'RE AGAIANST WOLVES BEING SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS. (I'M NOT TALKING RE-INTRODUCING OR INTRODUCING ECT) I'M TALKING ABOUT THE B.S. WOLF PLAN WITH B.S. NUMBERS THAT THEY HAVE NO INTENSION TO STICKING TO (AS WE'VE SEEN). THIS STATE CAN'T MANAGE THE PREDITORS THAT WE HAVE HERE AS IS,... SO LETS TRY TO GET A CRAPLOAD OF MORE PREDITORS(MORE DISTRUCTIVE ONES) SO WE CAN MISMANAGE THEM TOO, :dunno: ITS MORE ABOUT MANAGEMENT THAN BEING AGAINST WOLVES. AS OF RIGHT NOW, WE NEED A BIG CHANGE TO THE PREDITOR MANAGEMENT THAT WE HAVE NOW, AND WE NEED TO START MANAGEING THE WOLVES RIGHT AWAY, BY REGIONS, NOT BY THE WHOLE STATE.
Wolves were not shoved down your throat. The wolves in WA now came over naturally from other states. Natural migration is not the same thing as WA going to other states to get wolves and bringing them back to WA.
THERE THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE MORE VISABLE. :IBCOOL: :chuckle:
ITS THE WOLF PLAN THAT IS BASICALLY SHOVING THE B.S. NUMBER DOWN OUR THROATS. AND WE ALREADY KNOW THAT 15 BREEDING PAIRS WON'T BE ENOUGH FOR THE GREENIES. THEY'LL WANT MORE AND MORE AND MORE WITHOUT LOOKING AT OTHER PROBLEMS. (PREDITOR POPULATION AS A WHOLE)
Post by: BIGINNER on June 08, 2011, 12:15:42 PM
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 12:19:05 PM
I THINK MOSTLY WE'RE AGAIANST WOLVES BEING SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS. (I'M NOT TALKING RE-INTRODUCING OR INTRODUCING ECT) I'M TALKING ABOUT THE B.S. WOLF PLAN WITH B.S. NUMBERS THAT THEY HAVE NO INTENSION TO STICKING TO (AS WE'VE SEEN). THIS STATE CAN'T MANAGE THE PREDITORS THAT WE HAVE HERE AS IS,... SO LETS TRY TO GET A CRAPLOAD OF MORE PREDITORS(MORE DISTRUCTIVE ONES) SO WE CAN MISMANAGE THEM TOO, :dunno: ITS MORE ABOUT MANAGEMENT THAN BEING AGAINST WOLVES. AS OF RIGHT NOW, WE NEED A BIG CHANGE TO THE PREDITOR MANAGEMENT THAT WE HAVE NOW, AND WE NEED TO START MANAGEING THE WOLVES RIGHT AWAY, BY REGIONS, NOT BY THE WHOLE STATE.
Wolves were not shoved down your throat. The wolves in WA now came over naturally from other states. Natural migration is not the same thing as WA going to other states to get wolves and bringing them back to WA.
THERE THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE MORE VISABLE. :IBCOOL: :chuckle:
ITS THE WOLF PLAN THAT IS BASICALLY SHOVING THE B.S. NUMBER DOWN OUR THROATS. AND WE ALREADY KNOW THAT 15 BREEDING PAIRS WON'T BE ENOUGH FOR THE GREENIES. THEY'LL WANT MORE AND MORE AND MORE WITHOUT LOOKING AT OTHER PROBLEMS. (PREDITOR POPULATION AS A WHOLE)
I know you are worried that wolves are going to eat a lot of deer and elk, but we need to set our personal feelings aside and let the scientists determine how many wolves is needed for a sustainable population. This has nothing to do with loving wolves or being a wolf lover or hating them. This is all about science.
Wolf population targets laid out in a draft management plan by Washington Department of Fish and Game officials are too low to sustain a viable population, according to some independent scientists who reviewed the proposal.
Wolves were classified as an endangered species across the state of Washington by the federal government in 1973 and by the state government in 1980. In 2009 the predators were delisted under federal law for the eastern third of Washington, though they remain listed as endangered in the western two-thirds of the state. Well aware that wolves likely will begin to spread across their state, Washington officials are drawing up a management plan that will allow wolves to be delisted as an endangered species statewide...but prevent them from growing too robustly in number.
The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, under a draft environmental impact statement examining the management plan, is proposing a goal of 15 breeding pairs to justify removal of the species from protection under that state's Endangered Species Act. But officials with the National Parks Conservation Association have questioned those population targets, and their concerns are now being supported by an independent review.
“The majority of the scientific reviewers agree with NPCA that a higher number of breeding pairs is needed to produce a sustainable wolf population in Washington,” said David G. Graves, the NPCA's Northwest field representative.
According to NPCA officials, some scientists who conducted an independent peer review of the state's DEIS found that its population recommendations are not biologically defensible and will not ensure the ‘reestablishment of a self-sustaining population of gray wolves in Washington.’
As one reviewer puts it, the current population goal of 15 breeding pairs “does not flow from the result of scientific evaluation.” A second reviewer states, “…we might anticipate that the state should support somewhere between 320 and 668 wolves.” Finally, a third reviewer says, “Wolf populations currently living in Wisconsin and Michigan are at levels of 626+ and 580+ wolves (winter 2009) respectively, in states that have human population densities similar to Washington…”
The reviewers also said that an adjustment of the population goals and other minor changes (such as addressing how interaction with other wolf populations would be maintained or restored) can result in a scientifically defensible plan, the parks advocacy group said.
“The blind scientific peer review is vitally important and should be closely considered in crafting the final version of the wolf plan for the state of Washington,” said Mr. Graves.
The review panel's comments are attached below.
Research indicates that healthy wolf populations can benefit local communities. The University of Montana recently estimated that Yellowstone National Park wolves generate $35 million in economic benefits every year for local communities. This money comes from tourist spending directly related to wolves, including wolf tours and related services, such as lodging and meals.
Scientists also believe the return of the gray wolf to the Olympic peninsula would lead to cleaner water and healthier ungulate populations, NPCA said. In Olympic National Park, stream and river habitat has been damaged from elk overgrazing. This damage is limited in other parks, such as Yellowstone, where wolves are present to control and manage the elk population, the group said.
In January, members of the Washington State Legislature and local Washington community leaders sent a letter to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) urging it to restore a healthy and vibrant wolf population to Washington State. The letter included five members of the state Senate, 15 members of the state House of Representatives and 13 community leaders, including Paula L. Houston, Executive Director of the Mathews East Madison YMCA, Bob Kelly, Policy Director for the Nooksack Indian Tribe, and Peter Jackson of the Henry M. Jackson Foundation.
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 12:26:36 PM
SO,.. ROBERT: WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD BE THE RIGHT WAY TO HANDLE THE WHOLE WOLF/PREDITOR PROBLEM HERE IN WASHINGTON? HOW DO YOU THINK WASHINGTON WILL BENEFIT FROM WOLVES? (WITH THE CURRENT WOLF PLAN) WILL WASHINGTON BENEFIT FROM THIS ECONOMICALLY? HOW DO YOU THINK THIS SHOULD ALL BE PAID FOR? KEEP IN MIND THAT MOST HUNTER DON'T WANT THIS.
Wolves, bears, and bison are the biggest attractions at ynp and many people go to yellowstone specifically to see these animals. When there are 15 breeding pairs which is what the science says will be a sustainable wolf population, hunting will be allowed for wolves. Yeah, I know hunters don't want this, but there are others in wa who do.
Post by: BIGINNER on June 08, 2011, 12:30:21 PM
SO,.. ROBERT: WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD BE THE RIGHT WAY TO HANDLE THE WHOLE WOLF/PREDITOR PROBLEM HERE IN WASHINGTON? HOW DO YOU THINK WASHINGTON WILL BENEFIT FROM WOLVES? (WITH THE CURRENT WOLF PLAN) WILL WASHINGTON BENEFIT FROM THIS ECONOMICALLY? HOW DO YOU THINK THIS SHOULD ALL BE PAID FOR? KEEP IN MIND THAT MOST HUNTER DON'T WANT THIS.
Wolves, bears, and bison are the biggest attractions at ynp and many people go to yellowstone specifically to see these animals. When there are 15 breeding pairs which is what the science says will be a sustainable wolf population, hunting will be allowed for wolves. Yeah, I know hunters don't want this, but there are others in wa who do.
:dunno: YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION.... :dunno:
Post by: Dave Workman on June 08, 2011, 12:38:01 PM
As far as national parks like yellowstone go, wolves are being managed. Wolves die from other things like disease, starvation, getting hit by cars, etc. I do find it a bit odd that Washington has a lot of cougars and as of now, they are killing many more deer and elk than wolves and all people seem to focus on is wolves. There seems to be a lot of hate for wolves and not that much hate for cougars even though there are by far many more cougars in WA and they are killing many more deer and elk than wolves as of now.
It may have something to do with the fact that people are allowed to hunt cougars and kill them. Hopefully one day, we will see full restoration of hound hunting for mountain lions as it was when I was a kid.
People know you cannot hunt wolves here and will NEVER be able to hunt wolves here because the wolf advocates have already demonstrated they will not settle for the level of wolves suggested in the draft plan, and they have no intention of dealing in good faith with wildlife managers here. They have a well-established track record that continually interferes with management, no matter how "scientific" it might be, because they will come up with their own science and scientists, to contest your science and scientists.
Predator populations allowed to grow unchecked will prey unchecked. YNP is a text book example, and while there may be other contributing factors to the dramatic drop in elk populations in the park, for anyone to suggest that wolves were not a major factor is delusional or a deliberate lie. It is already established that wolves do "thrill kills" and that there has been a rare occasion of wolves killing humans.
This state has far too many cougars and we saw from the black bear incident in Lynnwood the other day that we have too many bears, too. They are bolder and they are more abundant, because of the disastrously stupid hound hunting ban. But people with the right tags can kill mountain lions and bears. Not so with wolves.
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 12:38:25 PM
SO,.. ROBERT: WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD BE THE RIGHT WAY TO HANDLE THE WHOLE WOLF/PREDITOR PROBLEM HERE IN WASHINGTON? HOW DO YOU THINK WASHINGTON WILL BENEFIT FROM WOLVES? (WITH THE CURRENT WOLF PLAN) WILL WASHINGTON BENEFIT FROM THIS ECONOMICALLY? HOW DO YOU THINK THIS SHOULD ALL BE PAID FOR? KEEP IN MIND THAT MOST HUNTER DON'T WANT THIS.
Wolves, bears, and bison are the biggest attractions at ynp and many people go to yellowstone specifically to see these animals. When there are 15 breeding pairs which is what the science says will be a sustainable wolf population, hunting will be allowed for wolves. Yeah, I know hunters don't want this, but there are others in wa who do.
:dunno: YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION.... :dunno:
I'm sure there are people in WA who don't necessarily hunt who would enjoy seeing wolves in the wild. I know most hunters don't want wolves in WA.
Post by: sebek556 on June 08, 2011, 12:38:52 PM
Post by: Dave Workman on June 08, 2011, 12:39:56 PM
When there are 15 breeding pairs which is what the science says will be a sustainable wolf population, hunting will be allowed for wolves.
What flavor of Kool Aid is that you're drinking?
Post by: sebek556 on June 08, 2011, 12:45:07 PM
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/news/fg_news/10/aug.pdf (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/news/fg_news/10/aug.pdf)
offical review of wolves impact on elk for you.
Post by: BIGINNER on June 08, 2011, 12:51:04 PM
SO,.. ROBERT: WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD BE THE RIGHT WAY TO HANDLE THE WHOLE WOLF/PREDITOR PROBLEM HERE IN WASHINGTON? HOW DO YOU THINK WASHINGTON WILL BENEFIT FROM WOLVES? (WITH THE CURRENT WOLF PLAN) WILL WASHINGTON BENEFIT FROM THIS ECONOMICALLY? HOW DO YOU THINK THIS SHOULD ALL BE PAID FOR? KEEP IN MIND THAT MOST HUNTER DON'T WANT THIS.
Wolves, bears, and bison are the biggest attractions at ynp and many people go to yellowstone specifically to see these animals. When there are 15 breeding pairs which is what the science says will be a sustainable wolf population, hunting will be allowed for wolves. Yeah, I know hunters don't want this, but there are others in wa who do.
:dunno: YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION.... :dunno:
I'm sure there are people in WA who don't necessarily hunt who would enjoy seeing wolves in the wild. I know most hunters don't want wolves in WA.
WELL SAID :chuckle: :chuckle: IN OTHER WORDS,.. WOLVES WILL NOT BENEFIT THE STATE AT ALL.
Post by: Kain on June 08, 2011, 12:58:51 PM
WELL SAID :chuckle: :chuckle: IN OTHER WORDS,.. WOLVES WILL NOT BENEFIT THE STATE AT ALL.
Any small economic gain will never offset the losses of lost hunting opportunity, livestock depredation, pets deaths, study after study, tracking, investigating and so on. And that is not even counting the countless lawsuits the state will have to fight just to remove them from the list and the years of management the state will go through before they even admit the correct number of wolves.
And after all that is said and done, you will have the same incompetents managing wolves that now manage our other predators.
Post by: BIGINNER on June 08, 2011, 01:05:28 PM
WELL SAID :chuckle: :chuckle: IN OTHER WORDS,.. WOLVES WILL NOT BENEFIT THE STATE AT ALL.
Any small economic gain will never offset the losses of lost hunting opportunity, livestock depredation, pets deaths, study after study, tracking, investigating and so on. And that is not even counting the countless lawsuits the state will have to fight just to remove them from the list and the years of management the state will go through before they even admit the correct number of wolves.
And after all that is said and done, you will have the same incompetents managing wolves that now manage our other predators.
YEP... SAD DEAL
Post by: sebek556 on June 08, 2011, 01:06:23 PM
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 01:13:00 PM
SO,.. ROBERT: WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD BE THE RIGHT WAY TO HANDLE THE WHOLE WOLF/PREDITOR PROBLEM HERE IN WASHINGTON? HOW DO YOU THINK WASHINGTON WILL BENEFIT FROM WOLVES? (WITH THE CURRENT WOLF PLAN) WILL WASHINGTON BENEFIT FROM THIS ECONOMICALLY? HOW DO YOU THINK THIS SHOULD ALL BE PAID FOR? KEEP IN MIND THAT MOST HUNTER DON'T WANT THIS.
Wolves, bears, and bison are the biggest attractions at ynp and many people go to yellowstone specifically to see these animals. When there are 15 breeding pairs which is what the science says will be a sustainable wolf population, hunting will be allowed for wolves. Yeah, I know hunters don't want this, but there are others in wa who do.
:dunno: YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION.... :dunno:
I'm sure there are people in WA who don't necessarily hunt who would enjoy seeing wolves in the wild. I know most hunters don't want wolves in WA.
WELL SAID :chuckle: :chuckle: IN OTHER WORDS,.. WOLVES WILL NOT BENEFIT THE STATE AT ALL.
Wolves will bring benefits. The people who want to see them in the wild can. Just because wolves may not bring benefits to hunters, doesn't mean they won't bring benefits to people who love seeing wildlife.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 08, 2011, 01:14:00 PM
WELL SAID :chuckle: :chuckle: IN OTHER WORDS,.. WOLVES WILL NOT BENEFIT THE STATE AT ALL.
Any small economic gain will never offset the losses of lost hunting opportunity, livestock depredation, pets deaths, study after study, tracking, investigating and so on. And that is not even counting the countless lawsuits the state will have to fight just to remove them from the list and the years of management the state will go through before they even admit the correct number of wolves.
And after all that is said and done, you will have the same incompetents managing wolves that now manage our other predators.
What the pro wolf organizations (& their mouthpieces) are saying is, "You know we are lying, You know we will not abide by any agreements we make, You know the outcome of our agenda will lower the number of human hunters, and we are determined to keep on course." The "science" is junk, it does not include all factors. Like every Eco-agenda the "science" plays out like a Jehovah Witness Watchtower. Their words are the truth from the rose colored glasses & the brainwashed point of view.
Post by: BIGINNER on June 08, 2011, 01:15:54 PM
Quote
Wolves will bring benefits. The people who want to see them in the wild can. Just because wolves may not bring benefits to hunters, doesn't mean they won't bring benefits to people who love seeing wildlife.
I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT HUNTERS BENEFITING. I SAID STATE
THE STATE WILL NOT BENEFIT IN ANY WAY FROM WOLVES. JUST READ KAINS POST. WE'VE SEEN IT HAPPEN IN IDAHO. AND IT'LL BE THE SAME THING IN WASHINGTON, ONLY WORSE.
Post by: sebek556 on June 08, 2011, 01:20:18 PM
deer bear elk and cougar tag $79.20
Which is more money for the state?
Plus if someone would like to view wolves wouldnt they already be viewing wildlife and have a discovery pass?
Where are after the wolves wipe out the elk population and move onto others they will not sell tags for them.
https://fishhunt.dfw.wa.gov/ so you can check the prices yourself
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 08, 2011, 01:26:22 PM
"
I'm sure there are people in WA who don't necessarily hunt who would enjoy seeing wolves in the wild. I know most hunters don't want wolves in WA."
Neither would those others if they were in THEIR backyards
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 01:27:39 PM
QuoteWolves will bring benefits. The people who want to see them in the wild can. Just because wolves may not bring benefits to hunters, doesn't mean they won't bring benefits to people who love seeing wildlife.
I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT HUNTERS BENEFITING. I SAID STATE
THE STATE WILL NOT BENEFIT IN ANY WAY FROM WOLVES. JUST READ KAINS POST. WE'VE SEEN IT HAPPEN IN IDAHO. AND IT'LL BE THE SAME THING IN WASHINGTON, ONLY WORSE.
People who want to see wild wolves in the wild will have the chance to do so. I know you may only be concerned with what you want, but there are other people in Wa that want something different.
Post by: sebek556 on June 08, 2011, 01:29:54 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 08, 2011, 01:41:30 PM
QuoteWolves will bring benefits. The people who want to see them in the wild can. Just because wolves may not bring benefits to hunters, doesn't mean they won't bring benefits to people who love seeing wildlife.
I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT HUNTERS BENEFITING. I SAID STATE
THE STATE WILL NOT BENEFIT IN ANY WAY FROM WOLVES. JUST READ KAINS POST. WE'VE SEEN IT HAPPEN IN IDAHO. AND IT'LL BE THE SAME THING IN WASHINGTON, ONLY WORSE.
People who want to see wild wolves in the wild will have the chance to do so.
"I know you may only be concerned with what you want, but there are other people in Wa that want something different."
DITTO!
Post by: Machias on June 08, 2011, 01:42:49 PM
WELL SAID :chuckle: :chuckle: IN OTHER WORDS,.. WOLVES WILL NOT BENEFIT THE STATE AT ALL.
Any small economic gain will never offset the losses of lost hunting opportunity, livestock depredation, pets deaths, study after study, tracking, investigating and so on. And that is not even counting the countless lawsuits the state will have to fight just to remove them from the list and the years of management the state will go through before they even admit the correct number of wolves.
And after all that is said and done, you will have the same incompetents managing wolves that now manage our other predators.
What the pro wolf organizations (& their mouthpieces) are saying is, "You know we are lying, You know we will not abide by any agreements we make, You know the outcome of our agenda will lower the number of human hunters, and we are determined to keep on course." The "science" is junk, it does not include all factors. Like every Eco-agenda the "science" plays out like a Jehovah Witness Watchtower. Their words are the truth from the rose colored glasses & the brainwashed point of view.
AMEN!!!!!!!
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 08, 2011, 01:44:11 PM
to go view wolves in the wild would require a discovery pass which is $30
deer bear elk and cougar tag $79.20
Which is more money for the state?
Plus if someone would like to view wolves wouldnt they already be viewing wildlife and have a discovery pass?
Where are after the wolves wipe out the elk population and move onto others they will not sell tags for them.
https://fishhunt.dfw.wa.gov/ so you can check the prices yourself
Last numbers I saw indicate that only 3.7% of the state's population (and decreasing) hunt. If they can sell a discovery pass to 9.77% of the state (roughly 10% of non-hunters) they make the same amount.
Post by: BIGINNER on June 08, 2011, 01:44:32 PM
QuoteWolves will bring benefits. The people who want to see them in the wild can. Just because wolves may not bring benefits to hunters, doesn't mean they won't bring benefits to people who love seeing wildlife.
I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT HUNTERS BENEFITING. I SAID STATE
THE STATE WILL NOT BENEFIT IN ANY WAY FROM WOLVES. JUST READ KAINS POST. WE'VE SEEN IT HAPPEN IN IDAHO. AND IT'LL BE THE SAME THING IN WASHINGTON, ONLY WORSE.
People who want to see wild wolves in the wild will have the chance to do so. I know you may only be concerned with what you want, but there are other people in Wa that want something different.
YOU ARE WRONG THERE, I WANT WHAT IS BETTER FOR THE STATE, WICH IS NOT TO WAIST ALL THE WILDLIFE FUNDS ON TRYING TO CONPENSATE FOR WOLF DAMAGE, I WANT THE WILDLIFE TO PROSPER. (WITCH REQUIRES MANAGEMENT, AND HOW DOES THE MANAGEMENT GET PAID FOR? MOSTLY BY HUNTERS. SO MISTER OR MISS ROBERT,.. YOU WANT TO SEE WILDLIFE,... WELL GUESS WHAT, HUNTERS ARE PAYING AND CONTRIBUTING FOR EVERYONE TO ENJOY WILDLIFE, SO,.. I DON'T CARE ABOUT MYSLEF ONLY, I CARE FOR YOU TOO.....
NOT TOO MUCH TOUGH...
OK.. NOT AT ALL...
I JUST DON'T WANT TO SEE OUR HARD WORK AND FUNDS GO DOWN THE DRAIN AND THE WILDLIFE TO GET RUINED :)
:bfg:
Post by: Hockdo7 on June 08, 2011, 01:47:07 PM
I'm gonna hope that WFW is not condoning any SSS comments,and I hope the hunt-wa does not either..like it or not its against the law and does not help any cause.And if that kind of action is happening , I'm thinking the amount of breeding pairs might just get raised.
Go ahead believe in the system that has decimated Idaho, Oregon and Washington are next. Having worked with Both sides, (politically correct and the in your face crowd) I can tell you what system I stand behind. Policy is garbage, anyone on here believing that things will be changed by policy might as well sell all your hunting rifles. I've been behind the scenes on the political agenda and they are more about rubbing c*cks together then actually doing something. Tell where is RMEF????SCI????? Conducting polls and putting out bullsh*t 30 second youtube videos that don't represent the true voice of sportsmen. You shell out millions upon millions of dollars to these companies and what do they do to protect their own viability?? Not a dam thing! WISE up the Grey wolf is and always will be foreign and needs to be exterminated, just the like the common house RAT.
Hock
Post by: BIGINNER on June 08, 2011, 01:49:20 PM
to go view wolves in the wild would require a discovery pass which is $30
deer bear elk and cougar tag $79.20
Which is more money for the state?
Plus if someone would like to view wolves wouldnt they already be viewing wildlife and have a discovery pass?
Where are after the wolves wipe out the elk population and move onto others they will not sell tags for them.
https://fishhunt.dfw.wa.gov/ so you can check the prices yourself
Last numbers I saw indicate that only 3.7% of the state's population (and decreasing) hunt. If they can sell a discovery pass to 9.77% of the state (roughly 10% of non-hunters) they make the same amount.
BUT THEN KEEP IN MIND ALL THE MONEY THAT WILL BE TROWN AWAY ON LAWSUITS, DAMAGE COMPESATION, LIVESTOCK/PET DAMAGE/ NO HUNTING= SMALL TOWNS THAT GET AN ECONOMICAL BOOST EVERY HUNTING SEASON WILL SUFFER,..
Post by: sebek556 on June 08, 2011, 01:51:46 PM
personal thought without further research -Where if WA would keep wolves out our elk numbers should be higher then idaho's ( at their current rate of decent) in 5 years bringing in out of state hunters at almost 1000 a tag.
Post by: Hockdo7 on June 08, 2011, 01:54:48 PM
BUT THEN KEEP IN MIND ALL THE MONEY THAT WILL BE TROWN AWAY ON LAWSUITS, DAMAGE COMPESATION, LIVESTOCK/PET DAMAGE/ NO HUNTING= SMALL TOWNS THAT GET AN ECONOMICAL BOOST EVERY HUNTING SEASON WILL SUFFER,..
[/quote]
Small towns are already suffering due to lack of predator control in Oregon, I have family from a small town (800) people, they derive their yearly income during a 1 month period. These towns have already but decimated by the mill closure due to the spotted owl, cut it down any more and you can rename them "GHOST TOWNS"
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 08, 2011, 01:56:50 PM
Post by: sebek556 on June 08, 2011, 02:00:31 PM
You guys who're posting that you're going to poach wolves are nuts. It's one thing to have a discussion. It's another altogether to put in writing your intention to break a federal law. In the case of an actual poaching, this site's records can be seized and you can be investigated. This is no small matter. We're talking serious federal money and time. Felony charges with loss of gun rights permanently, hunting privileges, etc. Do what you think you have to do, but broadcasting it to the world is really dumb.:yeah: :bdid:
plus all it would take is one hugger to bring it in and you would be investagated, state loves people paying fines.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 08, 2011, 02:01:25 PM
Post by: Hockdo7 on June 08, 2011, 02:01:31 PM
Post by: Hockdo7 on June 08, 2011, 02:02:30 PM
You guys who're posting that you're going to poach wolves are nuts. It's one thing to have a discussion. It's another altogether to put in writing your intention to break a federal law. In the case of an actual poaching, this site's records can be seized and you can be investigated. This is no small matter. We're talking serious federal money and time. Felony charges with loss of gun rights permanently, hunting privileges, etc. Do what you think you have to do, but broadcasting it to the world is really dumb.
Who said anything about poaching??
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 08, 2011, 02:07:07 PM
Post by: Machias on June 08, 2011, 02:09:43 PM
You guys who're posting that you're going to poach wolves are nuts. It's one thing to have a discussion. It's another altogether to put in writing your intention to break a federal law. In the case of an actual poaching, this site's records can be seized and you can be investigated. This is no small matter. We're talking serious federal money and time. Felony charges with loss of gun rights permanently, hunting privileges, etc. Do what you think you have to do, but broadcasting it to the world is really dumb.
It's no longer a Federal offense, it's a state offense, wolves in Eastern WA are Federally Delisted. Just for clarification. :)
Post by: Machias on June 08, 2011, 02:10:22 PM
I'm gonna hope that WFW is not condoning any SSS comments,and I hope the hunt-wa does not either..like it or not its against the law and does not help any cause.And if that kind of action is happening , I'm thinking the amount of breeding pairs might just get raised.
Go ahead believe in the system that has decimated Idaho, Oregon and Washington are next. Having worked with Both sides, (politically correct and the in your face crowd) I can tell you what system I stand behind. Policy is garbage, anyone on here believing that things will be changed by policy might as well sell all your hunting rifles. I've been behind the scenes on the political agenda and they are more about rubbing c*cks together then actually doing something. Tell where is RMEF????SCI? ??? ? Conducting polls and putting out bullsh*t 30 second youtube videos that don't represent the true voice of sportsmen. You shell out millions upon millions of dollars to these companies and what do they do to protect their own viability?? Not a dam thing! WISE up the Grey wolf is and always will be foreign and needs to be exterminated, just the like the common house RAT.
Hock
Double AMEN.
Post by: sebek556 on June 08, 2011, 02:10:52 PM
Post by: Hockdo7 on June 08, 2011, 02:11:12 PM
Post by: Machias on June 08, 2011, 02:12:23 PM
craziest idea ever.. if we could get everyone next spring to rallie together and not buy their licesnce until the state openly meets with the hunters about this wolf issue. I would bet that the state would come and would compromise on this but i would deffently be drooling at the site of any game and probly punching myself in the privates repeatedly until i could hunt again.
NEVER happen, not in this state and probably not in any state. :(
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 02:12:48 PM
Are you kidding? Look back through the posts. Lots of people are talking about taking this into their own hands.
yesterday, a guy by the name of machias said "we need to kill every wolf we see and don't stop until they are all dead". I didn't see his comment on here, so I assume the mods took it off. Extremist attitudes like this won't do the hunter's cause any good. Advocating breaking the law doesn't help anyone's cause.
Post by: Machias on June 08, 2011, 02:14:32 PM
Post by: alecvg on June 08, 2011, 02:15:43 PM
craziest idea ever.. if we could get everyone next spring to rallie together and not buy their licesnce until the state openly meets with the hunters about this wolf issue. I would bet that the state would come and would compromise on this but i would deffently be drooling at the site of any game and probly punching myself in the privates repeatedly until i could hunt again.
I think this could be succesfull, but there is no way we can get enough people to do it imo.
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 02:16:08 PM
I'm gonna hope that WFW is not condoning any SSS comments,and I hope the hunt-wa does not either..like it or not its against the law and does not help any cause.And if that kind of action is happening , I'm thinking the amount of breeding pairs might just get raised.
Go ahead believe in the system that has decimated Idaho, Oregon and Washington are next. Having worked with Both sides, (politically correct and the in your face crowd) I can tell you what system I stand behind. Policy is garbage, anyone on here believing that things will be changed by policy might as well sell all your hunting rifles. I've been behind the scenes on the political agenda and they are more about rubbing c*cks together then actually doing something. Tell where is RMEF????SCI????? Conducting polls and putting out bullsh*t 30 second youtube videos that don't represent the true voice of sportsmen. You shell out millions upon millions of dollars to these companies and what do they do to protect their own viability?? Not a dam thing! WISE up the Grey wolf is and always will be foreign and needs to be exterminated, just the like the common house RAT.
Hock
Your attitude won't do your cause any good. Hunters are supposed to be conservationists and respect ALL wildlife. Gray wolves are not foreign. They have been in north America for 750,000 years.
Post by: Machias on June 08, 2011, 02:16:40 PM
Are you kidding? Look back through the posts. Lots of people are talking about taking this into their own hands.
yesterday, a guy by the name of machias said "we need to kill every wolf we see and don't stop until they are all dead". I didn't see his comment on here, so I assume the mods took it off. Extremist attitudes like this won't do the hunter's cause any good. Advocating breaking the law doesn't help anyone's cause.
So robertg following the law, how's that working for Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Minn, Wis??
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 02:18:23 PM
Yep, I'm an extremist for sure.
I don't think that kind of attitude is going to help your cause. As I said, telling others to break the law is not a smart thing to say.
Post by: sebek556 on June 08, 2011, 02:19:22 PM
Yep, I'm an extremist for sure.your exterme man EXTERME lol :chuckle: to funny couldn't help it
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 02:20:23 PM
Are you kidding? Look back through the posts. Lots of people are talking about taking this into their own hands.
yesterday, a guy by the name of machias said "we need to kill every wolf we see and don't stop until they are all dead". I didn't see his comment on here, so I assume the mods took it off. Extremist attitudes like this won't do the hunter's cause any good. Advocating breaking the law doesn't help anyone's cause.
So robertg following the law, how's that working for Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Minn, Wis??
It's working good. Come fall, there will be a hunting season on wolves in Idaho and Montana.
Post by: Hockdo7 on June 08, 2011, 02:22:08 PM
Support Local Management of Wolves (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaET5wNEmy4#ws)
Post by: sebek556 on June 08, 2011, 02:22:39 PM
Post by: BIGINNER on June 08, 2011, 02:23:11 PM
Are you kidding? Look back through the posts. Lots of people are talking about taking this into their own hands.
yesterday, a guy by the name of machias said "we need to kill every wolf we see and don't stop until they are all dead". I didn't see his comment on here, so I assume the mods took it off. Extremist attitudes like this won't do the hunter's cause any good. Advocating breaking the law doesn't help anyone's cause.
So robertg following the law, how's that working for Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Minn, Wis??
It's working good. Come fall, there will be a hunting season on wolves in Idaho and Montana.
TOO LITTLE TOO LATE IMO. LETS SEE IF THIS YEARS SEASON ON WOLVES WILL LAST,... :bash:
THEY NEED TO TRAP/POISON/SHOOT YEAR ROUND.
Post by: Machias on June 08, 2011, 02:23:38 PM
Post by: Hockdo7 on June 08, 2011, 02:25:37 PM
It's working good. Come fall, there will be a hunting season on wolves in Idaho and Montana.
[/quote]
I was at the resource hearing in Boise that passed HB-343...not one person from RMEF, SCI was there....the season has not opened yet and you can bank that Molloy and DOF are filing lawsuits to stop this and they most likely will win, Robert get educated on the topic and quit drinking the liberal Kool-aid....just saying
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 02:26:36 PM
Are you kidding? Look back through the posts. Lots of people are talking about taking this into their own hands.
yesterday, a guy by the name of machias said "we need to kill every wolf we see and don't stop until they are all dead". I didn't see his comment on here, so I assume the mods took it off. Extremist attitudes like this won't do the hunter's cause any good. Advocating breaking the law doesn't help anyone's cause.
So robertg following the law, how's that working for Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Minn, Wis??
It's working good. Come fall, there will be a hunting season on wolves in Idaho and Montana.
TOO LITTLE TOO LATE IMO. LETS SEE IF THIS YEARS SEASON ON WOLVES WILL LAST,... :bash:
THEY NEED TO TRAP/POISON/SHOOT YEAR ROUND.
I believe the season will happen. Idaho now has a sustainable wolf population. As for shooting year round and poisoning, I don't ever see this happening. I also know that certain groups are trying to get the wolves relisted, but I believe as I said a season will happen this fall. I don't think that season will be all that effective though.
Post by: mulehunter on June 08, 2011, 02:28:19 PM
Mulehunter.
Post by: Hockdo7 on June 08, 2011, 02:30:09 PM
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 02:31:38 PM
It's working good. Come fall, there will be a hunting season on wolves in Idaho and Montana.
I was at the resource hearing in Boise that passed HB-343...not one person from RMEF, SCI was there....the season has not opened yet and you can bank that Molloy and DOF are filing lawsuits to stop this and they most likely will win, Robert get educated on the topic and quit drinking the liberal Kool-aid....just saying
[/quote]
Hockdo, Butch Otter has no intention of using hb-343 to declare an emergency in the immediate future. He will most likely this this if wolves were to get relisted again which I personally don't think will happen, but who knows.
Post by: Machias on June 08, 2011, 02:34:31 PM
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 02:35:16 PM
Robertg, I ain't care who shot wolf. I support all people who shot wolves. Trust me u never experience what all wolves been thur. If I am wrong if wolves ran to kill ur dog in ur yard. I am sure u perfer watch wolves tear ur dog every inch in front of ur children. Trust me I think u have wrong pic of view and I agree with machias to shoot every wolf u see. Great Depression is coming and I remember all stories from 1925-1930 they kill hundreds wolves because Feds have no Funds. . I am ready and with plently ammo to go out hunting all wolves after Great Depression start. :IBCOOL:
Mulehunter.
then you are supporting breaking the law.
Post by: sebek556 on June 08, 2011, 02:38:46 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 08, 2011, 02:39:21 PM
Robertg, I ain't care who shot wolf. I support all people who shot wolves. Trust me u never experience what all wolves been thur. If I am wrong if wolves ran to kill ur dog in ur yard. I am sure u perfer watch wolves tear ur dog every inch in front of ur children. Trust me I think u have wrong pic of view and I agree with machias to shoot every wolf u see. Great Depression is coming and I remember all stories from 1925-1930 they kill hundreds wolves because Feds have no Funds. . I am ready and with plently ammo to go out hunting all wolves after Great Depression start. :IBCOOL:
Mulehunter.
then you are supporting breaking the law.
This is nuts and making it public can do nothing but hurt us in the eyes of non-hunters. You guys should stop this.
Post by: Machias on June 08, 2011, 02:39:40 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 08, 2011, 02:40:14 PM
i've figured it out robertg must be part of the wdfw cause you give him facts, data and resources yet all he does is spit out the same broken record type things with out even looking at any of the information you have given. :bash:
And now turning on each other? How's this going to help hunters in WA?
Post by: sebek556 on June 08, 2011, 02:42:09 PM
Post by: Machias on June 08, 2011, 02:43:53 PM
Post by: Hockdo7 on June 08, 2011, 02:44:01 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 08, 2011, 02:44:36 PM
I agree Robert.I'm gonna hope that WFW is not condoning any SSS comments,and I hope the hunt-wa does not either..like it or not its against the law and does not help any cause.And if that kind of action is happening , I'm thinking the amount of breeding pairs might just get raised.
Go ahead believe in the system that has decimated Idaho, Oregon and Washington are next. Having worked with Both sides, (politically correct and the in your face crowd) I can tell you what system I stand behind. Policy is garbage, anyone on here believing that things will be changed by policy might as well sell all your hunting rifles. I've been behind the scenes on the political agenda and they are more about rubbing c*cks together then actually doing something. Tell where is RMEF????SCI? ??? ? Conducting polls and putting out bullsh*t 30 second youtube videos that don't represent the true voice of sportsmen. You shell out millions upon millions of dollars to these companies and what do they do to protect their own viability?? Not a dam thing! WISE up the Grey wolf is and always will be foreign and needs to be exterminated, just the like the common house RAT.
Hock
Your attitude won't do your cause any good. Hunters are supposed to be conservationists and respect ALL wildlife. Gray wolves are not foreign. They have been in north America for 750,000 years.
Most of you on here know my position on wolves- I am pro wildlife and don't mind sharing with a managed population of wolves. I think the extremist approach is only going to lead to disappointment. We need to be realistic and understand that no matter what, wolves are moving into washington and are going to be a part of this landscape. We need to get a reasonable managment plan in place and make sure that we can find/document wolves to meet the requirements set in that plan.
I keep seeing the invasive species argument from Hockdo...it makes no sense to me. If you want to save a deer or elk from an invasive species, go spray some knapweed and make a difference in the habitat. We could have wolves and game if we managed habitat quality. IMO the non native animal argument is not going to gain any ground.
Post by: BIGINNER on June 08, 2011, 02:46:06 PM
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 02:46:58 PM
I agree Robert.I'm gonna hope that WFW is not condoning any SSS comments,and I hope the hunt-wa does not either..like it or not its against the law and does not help any cause.And if that kind of action is happening , I'm thinking the amount of breeding pairs might just get raised.
Go ahead believe in the system that has decimated Idaho, Oregon and Washington are next. Having worked with Both sides, (politically correct and the in your face crowd) I can tell you what system I stand behind. Policy is garbage, anyone on here believing that things will be changed by policy might as well sell all your hunting rifles. I've been behind the scenes on the political agenda and they are more about rubbing c*cks together then actually doing something. Tell where is RMEF????SCI? ??? ? Conducting polls and putting out bullsh*t 30 second youtube videos that don't represent the true voice of sportsmen. You shell out millions upon millions of dollars to these companies and what do they do to protect their own viability?? Not a dam thing! WISE up the Grey wolf is and always will be foreign and needs to be exterminated, just the like the common house RAT.
Hock
Your attitude won't do your cause any good. Hunters are supposed to be conservationists and respect ALL wildlife. Gray wolves are not foreign. They have been in north America for 750,000 years.
Most of you on here know my position on wolves- I am pro wildlife and don't mind sharing with a managed population of wolves. I think the extremist approach is only going to lead to disappointment. We need to be realistic and understand that no matter what, wolves are moving into washington and are going to be a part of this landscape. We need to get a reasonable managment plan in place and make sure that we can find/document wolves to meet the requirements set in that plan.
I keep seeing the invasive species argument from Hockdo...it makes no sense to me. If you want to save a deer or elk from an invasive species, go spray some knapweed and make a difference in the habitat. We could have wolves and game if we managed habitat quality. IMO the non native animal argument is not going to gain any ground.
Well said.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 08, 2011, 02:49:38 PM
Post by: Hockdo7 on June 08, 2011, 02:50:55 PM
I agree Robert.I'm gonna hope that WFW is not condoning any SSS comments,and I hope the hunt-wa does not either..like it or not its against the law and does not help any cause.And if that kind of action is happening , I'm thinking the amount of breeding pairs might just get raised.
Go ahead believe in the system that has decimated Idaho, Oregon and Washington are next. Having worked with Both sides, (politically correct and the in your face crowd) I can tell you what system I stand behind. Policy is garbage, anyone on here believing that things will be changed by policy might as well sell all your hunting rifles. I've been behind the scenes on the political agenda and they are more about rubbing c*cks together then actually doing something. Tell where is RMEF????SCI? ??? ? Conducting polls and putting out bullsh*t 30 second youtube videos that don't represent the true voice of sportsmen. You shell out millions upon millions of dollars to these companies and what do they do to protect their own viability?? Not a dam thing! WISE up the Grey wolf is and always will be foreign and needs to be exterminated, just the like the common house RAT.
Hock
Your attitude won't do your cause any good. Hunters are supposed to be conservationists and respect ALL wildlife. Gray wolves are not foreign. They have been in north America for 750,000 years.
Most of you on here know my position on wolves- I am pro wildlife and don't mind sharing with a managed population of wolves. I think the extremist approach is only going to lead to disappointment. We need to be realistic and understand that no matter what, wolves are moving into washington and are going to be a part of this landscape. We need to get a reasonable managment plan in place and make sure that we can find/document wolves to meet the requirements set in that plan.
I keep seeing the invasive species argument from Hockdo...it makes no sense to me. If you want to save a deer or elk from an invasive species, go spray some knapweed and make a difference in the habitat. We could have wolves and game if we managed habitat quality. IMO the non native animal argument is not going to gain any ground.
Would it make a difference if it was a bengal tiger then? The canadian grey wolf is non native and much bigger, trained to hunt and kill much bigger game, in much harsher conditions, so just introduce random predators to ecosystems....?
Post by: BIGINNER on June 08, 2011, 02:53:59 PM
LOL
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 02:58:45 PM
I agree Robert.I'm gonna hope that WFW is not condoning any SSS comments,and I hope the hunt-wa does not either..like it or not its against the law and does not help any cause.And if that kind of action is happening , I'm thinking the amount of breeding pairs might just get raised.
Go ahead believe in the system that has decimated Idaho, Oregon and Washington are next. Having worked with Both sides, (politically correct and the in your face crowd) I can tell you what system I stand behind. Policy is garbage, anyone on here believing that things will be changed by policy might as well sell all your hunting rifles. I've been behind the scenes on the political agenda and they are more about rubbing c*cks together then actually doing something. Tell where is RMEF????SCI? ??? ? Conducting polls and putting out bullsh*t 30 second youtube videos that don't represent the true voice of sportsmen. You shell out millions upon millions of dollars to these companies and what do they do to protect their own viability?? Not a dam thing! WISE up the Grey wolf is and always will be foreign and needs to be exterminated, just the like the common house RAT.
Hock
Your attitude won't do your cause any good. Hunters are supposed to be conservationists and respect ALL wildlife. Gray wolves are not foreign. They have been in north America for 750,000 years.
Most of you on here know my position on wolves- I am pro wildlife and don't mind sharing with a managed population of wolves. I think the extremist approach is only going to lead to disappointment. We need to be realistic and understand that no matter what, wolves are moving into washington and are going to be a part of this landscape. We need to get a reasonable managment plan in place and make sure that we can find/document wolves to meet the requirements set in that plan.
I keep seeing the invasive species argument from Hockdo...it makes no sense to me. If you want to save a deer or elk from an invasive species, go spray some knapweed and make a difference in the habitat. We could have wolves and game if we managed habitat quality. IMO the non native animal argument is not going to gain any ground.
Would it make a difference if it was a bengal tiger then? The canadian grey wolf is non native and much bigger, trained to hunt and kill much bigger game, in much harsher conditions, so just introduce random predators to ecosystems....?
As far as I know, bengal tigers are not native to North America. "canadian" gray wolves are gray wolves. These are the same gray wolves that have been crossing the border into Idaho, Montana, etc from Canada for years and years. Here is a good article for you to read. This non native canadian wolf thing is nothing more than a myth.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/feb/17/actual-wolf-weights-often-skimpier-than-hunters/ (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/feb/17/actual-wolf-weights-often-skimpier-than-hunters/)
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 08, 2011, 02:59:50 PM
Having said that, posting your plans for illegal poaching of a protected species is only going to hurt our cause in the public eye. Do what you're going to do. Broadcasting it will only make us look like Neanderthals in the long run. This will help the wolfies.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 08, 2011, 03:00:31 PM
BEHGAL TIGERS WOULD BE AWESOME!!! :tup: :yike: :sry:
LOL
Yeah, I'd put in for that tag! :yeah:
Post by: Machias on June 08, 2011, 03:01:15 PM
robertg, WFW & H-W does not condone illegal activity period. Is that clear or shall I type it again? Some people feel wolves should have not been released in the lower 48 States. Others feel betrayed because the organizations that you support did not abide by the agreed upon numbers of wolves. Delisting should have happened in 2003. If your side had allowed that instead of fundraising you could have had a lot of Hunting orientated organizations on your side. Wolves even with modern hunting would have continued to grow in numbers. If your side would allow for real science and not the rose colored versions you would admit there are 70,000 wolves in North America. You would admit that wolves will migrate 1000 miles. You would admit that if a wolf has sex Sandpoint Idaho and then migrates to the Spokane area with a pack in the Idaho/Washington area and should be counted for that area.Boarders are imaginary lines. But your side will not do this. You have pitted a usually quiet and slow to anger part of America against you. We will fight your false science. We will document how all of this came to be. I hope as time goes on we gather enough evidence to sue the Federal Government. As Washington Politics will be sympathetic to you and apathetic to us you will have time on your side for awhile. That is why keeping funding for nuisance animals inside the WDFW should be kept to a minimum. Seattle and it's burbs need to pay for it's own issues, they and their population created this. We need to force them to keep their own predators. It's not just wolves. It is the total mismanagement of wildlife that angers me. I'd venture most here. The anti predator hunting initiatives could be overturned. That would help some. In other states like Idaho the hands of the GAME Department have not been tied like here. That is the anger and the lack of trust. Clear?
I will now SHUT UP and let Wenatcheejay speak for me since he is able to convey exactly what I feel and am thinking!
I also feel exactly like WACoyotehunter, the problem is the other side has NO regard for honesty, they have no illusions of ever properly managing wolves. This is the frustrating part. You guys keep saying it does our side no good, only harm. Guys how much more harm can come when there is nothing left to hunt? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?
Post by: Machias on June 08, 2011, 03:06:21 PM
Post by: Hockdo7 on June 08, 2011, 03:14:02 PM
What does that prove? That 39 inch steelhead are always overstimated, a 300 class bull is usually in the 270 range, a 30 inch buck in usually no more then 25 inches wide??? The only native species of wolf is the timber wolf, a much smaller version.
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 03:21:42 PM
What does that prove? That 39 inch steelhead is always overstimated, a 300 class bull is usually in the 270 range, a 30 inch buck in usually no more then 25 inches wide??? The only native species of wolf is the timber wolf, a much smaller version.
The timberwolf is just another name for the gray wolf. There are 2 species of wolf in North America, the red wolf and the gray wolf. The gray wolf is sometimes called the timberwolf, but it is a gray wolf. The "native" wolf was not much smaller. The "native" wolf was 5-20 pounds smaller on average than the reintroduced gray wolves. Size is determined by diet.
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 03:22:49 PM
@ Robert
What does that prove? That 39 inch steelhead are always overstimated, a 300 class bull is usually in the 270 range, a 30 inch buck in usually no more then 25 inches wide??? The only native species of wolf is the timber wolf, a much smaller version.
"“I’m curious that they throw out those numbers – that the Canadian wolves are 50 to 100 pounds bigger than the native Idaho wolves,” Husseman said. “I don’t know where those numbers come from.”
Hayden said the most authoritative research on wolf subspecies comes from a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service zoologist, Ronald Nowak, who studied 580 historic skulls of full-grown male wolves. Nowak concluded that North America had five subspecies of gray wolves. Two subspecies had historic ranges in Idaho – the Rocky Mountain wolf and the Great Plains wolf.
The Rocky Mountain subspecies outweighed the Great Plains wolf by about 20 pounds, Hayden said. But their ranges overlapped in the Idaho Panhandle, according to Nowak’s research."
Post by: Huntnphish on June 08, 2011, 03:32:53 PM
I do find it a bit odd that Washington has a lot of cougars and as of now, they are killing many more deer and elk than wolves and all people seem to focus on is wolves. There seems to be a lot of hate for wolves and not that much hate for cougars even though there are by far many more cougars in WA and they are killing many more deer and elk than wolves as of now.
We are all well aware of this obvious fact Robert, this just shows an additional reason why there is no room for wolves, thanks for reiterating this fact though. :tup:
We have to fight one battle at a time, you can rest assured the cougar issue will be next on the list of wrongs to right.
Post by: Machias on June 08, 2011, 03:39:21 PM
Post by: sebek556 on June 08, 2011, 03:40:41 PM
Post by: mulehunter on June 08, 2011, 03:43:48 PM
If you look back I have been following this thread since the beginning and have not posted. My frustration level continues to rise and rise. We all want the same thing, MANAGED WOLVES, however following the rules, playing nice will NOT GET US THERE!!! :bash: :bash: :bash: All we have to do is look east and those three states have a population MUCH more hunter friendly then we do. This state will never ever see the pressure that was brought from the residents of ID and MT. If we don't do SOMETHING it will all be lost in our lifetime. We will not have a heritage to pass along to our children.
:yeah: I missed out all best oppourity hunting. People from 1930-1996 they said awsome awsome they are so thankful to have all good time. Here we go 1996 to 2011 with all bulls!t.
No WONDER.
Mulehunter. :bash:
Post by: BIGINNER on June 08, 2011, 03:44:07 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plains_Wolf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plains_Wolf)
Quote
The Great Plains wolf (Canis lupus nubilus), also known as the Buffalo wolf, is the most common subspecies of the gray wolf in the continental United States. It currently inhabits the western Great Lakes region of the United States and Canada. A typical Great Plains wolf is between 4½ and 6½ feet long, from snout to tail, weighs from 60 to 110 pounds, and may have a coat of gray, black or buff with red-ish coloring. Like all wolves, the Great Plains wolf is a very social animal that communicates using body language, scent marking and vocalization with an average pack size of five to six wolves. The territory size for the Great Plains wolf depends on the type and density of prey. Typical prey for the Great Plains wolf consists of white-tailed deer, moose, beaver, snowshoe hare, and smaller birds and mammals.
The historic range of the Great Plains wolf was throughout the United States and the southern regions of Canada. By the 1930s, Great Plains wolves were extirpated almost eliminated completely, in much of the western United States.
In Wisconsin and Michigan, the Great Plains wolf was eradicated by the mid- 1960s. Only a small group of wolves survived in northeastern Minnesota along the Ontario border. In 1974, the Great Plains wolf in the Great Lakes region became fully protected as an endangered species. By 1978, Minnesota's wolf population had increased enough that the wolf was reclassified as threatened in Minnesota. The Great Plains wolf is found in the Eastern distinct population segment (DPS) categorized under the Endangered Species Act which is now awaiting new legislation to completely remove it from the endangered species list.
The estimated population for Great Plains wolves for 2004 in the United States was over 3,700 wolves. The population was distributed as follows: Michigan 360 Isle Royale 30 Wisconsin 425 Minnesota 3,020 North and South Dakota officials have noted lone wolves but evidence indicates that the wolves were dispersers from populations outside the Dakotas, and that a breeding population probably does not exist there.
THESE WERE RELEASED IN YELLOWSTONE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackenzie_Valley_Wolf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackenzie_Valley_Wolf)
Quote
The Mackenzie Valley Wolf (Canis lupus occidentalis) also known as the Canadian Timber Wolf is perhaps the largest subspecies of Gray Wolf in North America. Its range includes parts of the western United States, much of western Canada, and Alaska, including Unimak Island in the Aleutians, and was introduced into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho.[2] The subspecies has since spread into other states, such as Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and Northern California.[3] There have also been several sightings of the subspecies in the Sierra Nevada[4] & the Warner Mountains
Contents [hide]
1 Anatomy
2 Social behaviour
3 Diet
4 Hunting
5 Current status and history
6 References
7 External links
8 Gallery
[edit] Anatomy
A Mackenzie Valley Wolf in Yellowstone.Mackenzie Valley Wolves typically stand about 32–36 inches (81–95 cm) at the shoulder and males weigh between 100 and 145 pounds (45–65 kg).[5] The weight record is held by a wild specimen caught in Alaska in 1939 which weighed 175 pounds.[6]
The Mackenzie Valley Wolf has a specialized body that has made it one of the world's most efficient hunters. Its thick, long limbs are proportionally built for traversing through rough terrain such as deep snow or the cliffy edges of the Rocky Mountains. Its deep chest hosts large lungs, letting the wolf breathe more efficiently at higher altitudes, and allowing it to exert huge amounts of stamina traveling up to 115 km (~70 miles) in one day. Its powerful neck is a very important adaptation: it has to be strong to support the wolf's large head and is crucial for bringing down prey. The Mackenzie Valley Wolf maximizes heat retention through such methods as using its bushy tail to cover its exposed nose during the winter. It sheds its undercoat during the summer months due to the hotter conditions.
The skull is 31 cm (12 inches) long and is armed with an impressive array of large canines and carnassial teeth which, when coupled with huge jaw muscles that are evident from the large sagittal crest and wide zygomatic arches, give it an incredible biteforce that is strong enough to break the bones of prey and even crack the femur of moose.
[edit] Social behaviourIn Alaska, pack sizes are generally 6–12 wolves, with some packs as large as 20–30. Territory size averages 600 square miles (1,600 km2). Wolf packs in Yellowstone average 9.2 wolves with an average territory of 348-square-mile (900 km2), while wolf packs in Idaho average 11.1 and 364-square-mile (940 km2) territories.[2]
[edit] DietThe majority of the Mackenzie Valley Wolf's prey includes wild boar , wood bison, muskox, moose, caribou, deer, and elk. Mackenzie valley wolves introduced into Yellowstone have taken down adult Plains Bison, proving their success and adaptability in a whole new environment.
[edit] HuntingSuccess with killing moose has been recorded as low as 10%, this is due to the majority of wolf performed to test out the prey. When preying on large to medium sized animals such as caribou and elk, pack members will in turn chase an ill or disadvantage prey item and wait till they tire. They will then slowly start to tear away at the prey, attacking the flanks, the muzzle, neck and hindquarters. Prey usually die from disembowelment, shock and exhaustion caused by lack of air through suffocation and blood loss. For small prey, wolves will bite down and sever the jugular veins and windpipe, sometimes even shaking to break the animals vertebrae. [1]
[edit] Current status and historySee also: Yellowstone gray wolf reintroduction
Reintroduced gray wolf in Yellowstone National ParkThe Mackenzie Valley Wolf was the subspecies used in the Yellowstone introduction effort, where it has become a successful apex predator much like it is in its vast northern range. In Yellowstone, it has been crucial in restoring environmental balance in that it has clamped down on the less fit members of the herds on which it feeds, thereby keeping large ungulate numbers in check and allowing certain floral and faunal species to recover, promoting biodiversity. Wolves were also introduced in central Idaho and entered northwest Montana from Canada. The wolf population in the Northern Rockies has since grown to an estimated 1300 animals.[7] The wolf population in Alaska is estimated at 7,500–11,000 wolves.
Captive Mackenzie Valley Wolf in the Czech RepublicThe protection given to the Mackenzie Valley wolf has allowed its population to rise dramatically, causing several young animals to leave the boundraries of Yellowstone and establish territories in areas where they may enter conflict with humans. In Wyoming and Idaho, 90 wolves have been killed to date because of livestock run-ins. In Montana, 32 wolves were killed in 2007 by federal agents. The Montana figure does not include an unknown number of wolves killed by ranchers defending their livestock. The death toll hit a record figure of 142 wolves in 2006. Federal officials plan to remove gray wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains from the endangered species list in February 2008, although court challenges are considered inevitable and could delay a final delisting. In the Rocky mountains, non-lethal responses to livestock kills, such as hazing wolves away from a ranch, are used when they can be pushed into an area without livestock.[7]
Since its reintroduction to Yellowstone, the Mackenzie Valley wolf's possible involvement in the decline of elk populations has been a subject of controversy. On one hand, Yellowstone officials have stated that computer analysis indicates that there is greater justification for believing that the human hunting rate and severe climate, account for at least much of the decline, with wolf predation amounting to very little. Others state that the decline is an inevitable result of an exploded wolf population.[8]
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 08, 2011, 03:53:59 PM
What does that prove? That 39 inch steelhead is always overstimated, a 300 class bull is usually in the 270 range, a 30 inch buck in usually no more then 25 inches wide??? The only native species of wolf is the timber wolf, a much smaller version.
The timberwolf is just another name for the gray wolf. There are 2 species of wolf in North America, the red wolf and the gray wolf. The gray wolf is sometimes called the timberwolf, but it is a gray wolf. The "native" wolf was not much smaller. The "native" wolf was 5-20 pounds smaller on average than the reintroduced gray wolves. Size is determined by diet.
Yeah, BIGINNER kind of went where I was about to go. For one of my examples, I was going to use the white-tailed deer. Ranges from Northern Canada to South America. Basically one species, but it has maybe 40 sub-species. They range from the Key deer in Florida weighing around 50 lbs to Northern whitetails in Minnesota that can get over 300 lbs, with one estimated at 500lbs. The same thing happens among many species, wolves being one.
Post by: sebek556 on June 08, 2011, 04:02:56 PM
1) non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem under consideration and
2) whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. (Executive Order 13112).
http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/whatis.shtml (http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/whatis.shtml)
From class at U SC DR Gilman " any species removed from a environment for a extended period of time is a invasive species, the environment has changes and evolves over time so species that once were in a environment may not fit into the ecosystem anymore" taken from a lecture on raising alligator populations in South Carolina.
Post by: Gringo31 on June 08, 2011, 04:16:57 PM
Post by: Huntnphish on June 08, 2011, 04:32:23 PM
He has been asked repeatedly for facts and documentation yet only replies to posts where he can continue to stir the pot without contributing anything positive yet fly under the radar of the mods.
I say send him packing with a link to that pinhead Cascades site, so the two of them can hold hands and sing kumbaya with the rest of the brown nose, tree hugging left wingers over there. :twocents:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 08, 2011, 04:32:39 PM
http://idahoptv.org/outdoors/shows/wolvesinidaho/unsworth.cfm (http://idahoptv.org/outdoors/shows/wolvesinidaho/unsworth.cfm)
Post by: billythekidrock on June 08, 2011, 04:39:32 PM
to go view wolves in the wild would require a discovery pass which is $30
deer bear elk and cougar tag $79.20
Which is more money for the state?
Plus if someone would like to view wolves wouldnt they already be viewing wildlife and have a discovery pass?
Where are after the wolves wipe out the elk population and move onto others they will not sell tags for them.
https://fishhunt.dfw.wa.gov/ (https://fishhunt.dfw.wa.gov/) so you can check the prices yourself
Not a good arguement.
Hunting dollars are so small compared to other outdoor activies. Just look at how much money is brought in by birdwatchers.
Post by: billythekidrock on June 08, 2011, 04:43:15 PM
I'm a firm believer in allowing everyone to voice their opinion but I just checked this clowns posts since joining and its clear he is only on here to cause hate, discontent and stir the pot. I'm quite surprised the admin team has allowed him to spew his left wing, tree hugging rhetoric for this long.
He has been asked repeatedly for facts and documentation yet only replies to posts where he can continue to stir the pot without contributing anything positive yet fly under the radar of the mods.
I say send him packing with a link to that pinhead Cascades site, so the two of them can hold hands and sing kumbaya with the rest of the brown nose, tree hugging left wingers over there. :twocents:
From what I have read, he has posted no more (or less) facts or proof than any of the members.
Post by: Huntnphish on June 08, 2011, 04:47:30 PM
From what I have read, he has posted no more (or less) facts or proof than any of the members.
You are correct, he has just not posted proof or facts 40 times is all ;).
Post by: billythekidrock on June 08, 2011, 04:49:04 PM
From what I have read, he has posted no more (or less) facts or proof than any of the members.
You are correct, he has just not posted proof or facts 40 times in this thread.
And neither has most of the membership.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 08, 2011, 04:55:33 PM
+1 having a different opinion is fine. He has made intelligent arguments that make sense. Posting Wikipedia cuts or newspaper articles doesn't mean much. I think it's good that he's here and willing to voice his opinion.From what I have read, he has posted no more (or less) facts or proof than any of the members.
You are correct, he has just not posted proof or facts 40 times in this thread.
And neither has most of the membership.
Post by: whitney on June 08, 2011, 05:06:09 PM
This particular tax applies to most hunters as we buy guns ammo and bows and arrows. My line of questioning would be along the line of what exactly are these grants being spent on; and how does it "benefit" the folks paying the tax?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qVCWd9YOZU5G8MCOLU0Sl2nps7NbU2_8_VQNU9KcHUE/edit?hl=en_US (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qVCWd9YOZU5G8MCOLU0Sl2nps7NbU2_8_VQNU9KcHUE/edit?hl=en_US)
~Whitney
Post by: Bob33 on June 08, 2011, 05:09:10 PM
I'm a firm believer in allowing everyone to voice their opinion but I just checked this clowns posts since joining and its clear he is only on here to cause hate, discontent and stir the pot. I'm quite surprised the admin team has allowed him to spew his left wing, tree hugging rhetoric for this long.The moderators in general agree with your first statement about voicing opinions, and give wide latitude to a variety of opinions. They also have little tolerance for name calling or personal attacks.
He has been asked repeatedly for facts and documentation yet only replies to posts where he can continue to stir the pot without contributing anything positive yet fly under the radar of the mods.
I say send him packing with a link to that pinhead Cascades site, so the two of them can hold hands and sing kumbaya with the rest of the brown nose, tree hugging left wingers over there. :twocents:
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 05:15:19 PM
The timberwolf is just another name for the gray wolf. There are 2 species of wolf in North America, the red wolf and the gray wolf. The gray wolf is sometimes called the timberwolf, but it is a gray wolf. The "native" wolf was not much smaller. The "native" wolf was 5-20 pounds smaller on average than the reintroduced gray wolves. Size is determined by diet.
BULL SH&T what about the Loafer Wolf, or the Red Wolf. Your lack of knowledge and lies are seeping through.
seth, please reread my comment. I said there are 2 types of wolf found in north america and that is the gray wolf and the red wolf. The loafer wolf is a gray wolf.
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 05:16:49 PM
+1 having a different opinion is fine. He has made intelligent arguments that make sense. Posting Wikipedia cuts or newspaper articles doesn't mean much. I think it's good that he's here and willing to voice his opinion.From what I have read, he has posted no more (or less) facts or proof than any of the members.
You are correct, he has just not posted proof or facts 40 times in this thread.
And neither has most of the membership.
I try to be as respectful and civil as I can to other posters on here despite having different views.
Post by: dscubame on June 08, 2011, 05:18:34 PM
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 05:25:59 PM
The loafer wolf is the brown wolf. A loaner, not a pack member. Saw plenty of them when I lived in Wyoming( 1988-1990)
"X canis lupus nubilus the Great Plains or "buffalo" wolf; extinct by 1926; usually light in color.
The "Buffalo Wolf", or the "Loafer" was originally the wolf subspecies known as Canis Lupus Nubilus which inhabited the Great Plains area of North America. Currently suggested revisions to wolf taxonomy, by Ron Nowak, are based less on geographical area and more on the determination of genetically distinct races or subspecies. The proposed revisions include most of the previously defined subspecies of gray wolves in North America as Canis Lupus Nubilus including the subspecies beothucus, crassodon, fuscus, udsonicus, irremotus, labradorius, lycaon (west of Michigan), ligoni, manningi, mogollonensis, monstrabilis, and youngi. Still, opinions on these classifications are not unanimous."
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 05:27:53 PM
why are you double posting? Same post on two different threads. Perhaps your a trouble maker and should move on. referring to robertg.
What do you mean double posting? I was responding to a comment seth made to me.
Post by: hogsniper on June 08, 2011, 05:42:18 PM
Post by: grundy53 on June 08, 2011, 05:53:47 PM
robertg, WFW & H-W does not condone illegal activity period. Is that clear or shall I type it again? Some people feel wolves should have not been released in the lower 48 States. Others feel betrayed because the organizations that you support did not abide by the agreed upon numbers of wolves. Delisting should have happened in 2003. If your side had allowed that instead of fundraising you could have had a lot of Hunting orientated organizations on your side. Wolves even with modern hunting would have continued to grow in numbers. If your side would allow for real science and not the rose colored versions you would admit there are 70,000 wolves in North America. You would admit that wolves will migrate 1000 miles. You would admit that if a wolf has sex Sandpoint Idaho and then migrates to the Spokane area with a pack in the Idaho/Washington area and should be counted for that area.Boarders are imaginary lines. But your side will not do this. You have pitted a usually quiet and slow to anger part of America against you. We will fight your false science. We will document how all of this came to be. I hope as time goes on we gather enough evidence to sue the Federal Government. As Washington Politics will be sympathetic to you and apathetic to us you will have time on your side for awhile. That is why keeping funding for nuisance animals inside the WDFW should be kept to a minimum. Seattle and it's burbs need to pay for it's own issues, they and their population created this. We need to force them to keep their own predators. It's not just wolves. It is the total mismanagement of wildlife that angers me. I'd venture most here. The anti predator hunting initiatives could be overturned. That would help some. In other states like Idaho the hands of the GAME Department have not been tied like here. That is the anger and the lack of trust. Clear?
This is exactly how I feel.
Post by: Machias on June 08, 2011, 05:54:47 PM
We do not stand a chance. If you fellas cannot look at the past 15 years in WY, ID and MT and not see what is sure to happen on an even larger scale here, we're toast, we really are. I look at alot of the post and we have NO chance. How many moose tags are they giving out this year? How many do you think they will be handing out in 10 years?
Post by: grundy53 on June 08, 2011, 05:58:02 PM
Who is paying for this reintroduction? The State, or federal level? Let me guess each State from the General funds contributed to from hunting and fishings licenses and permits. Then when they kill livestock reimbersement comes from the General fund once again.
The wolves are surely costing our state money, but to call it a "reintroduction" is wrong. The wolves came into the state on their own. The state is not reintroducing wolves, they are simply managing them. Just wanted to clarify that.
Actually it is a reintroduction. They were reintroduced into Idaho. Then came here. Ergo they were reintroduced.
Post by: Jack Diamond on June 08, 2011, 06:08:13 PM
Pelts,bounty's,fear,ignorance?
not only in this state but adjoining states , and even the southwest?
I do not know your beliefs, but it has been assumed on this thread and elsewhere that most pro-wolf folks want to take hunting of wildlife out of existence, so I do not understand the end result, rather than hunting by humans,it is more Natures way to have animals kill lessor species until the dominant species is what is left. with no regard to seasons,limits or abundance, that natures way of controlling wildlife is the best? so an overabundance of smaller predators also will be addressed by a more aggressive specie, to what end when the most aggressive species is the only one left.
The reason that the wolves are such a big topic, is that very few folks alive today ever had to deal with them, our ancestors did and for some strange reason not only they but our government also determined that they were a problem to be rid of,and so they were eradicated, the same could be argued for Polio.
Post by: grundy53 on June 08, 2011, 06:22:26 PM
So robertg, just a ignorant question, but why do you think the wolves were "exterminated" in the state of washington in the first place.
Pelts,bounty's,fear,ignorance?
not only in this state but adjoining states , and even the southwest?
I do not know your beliefs, but it has been assumed on this thread and elsewhere that most pro-wolf folks want to take hunting of wildlife out of existence, so I do not understand the end result, rather than hunting by humans,it is more Natures way to have animals kill lessor species until the dominant species is what is left. with no regard to seasons,limits or abundance, that natures way of controlling wildlife is the best? so an overabundance of smaller predators also will be addressed by a more aggressive specie, to what end when the most aggressive species is the only one left.
The reason that the wolves are such a big topic, is that very few folks alive today ever had to deal with them, our ancestors did and for some strange reason not only they but our government also determined that they were a problem to be rid of,and so they were eradicated, the same could be argued for Polio.
well said! Wolves are like Polio...... something we shouldn't have to worry about in this day and age. But for some reason these greeines want to bring back a problem we already solved once....
Post by: grundy53 on June 08, 2011, 06:34:28 PM
SO,.. ROBERT: WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD BE THE RIGHT WAY TO HANDLE THE WHOLE WOLF/PREDITOR PROBLEM HERE IN WASHINGTON? HOW DO YOU THINK WASHINGTON WILL BENEFIT FROM WOLVES? (WITH THE CURRENT WOLF PLAN) WILL WASHINGTON BENEFIT FROM THIS ECONOMICALLY? HOW DO YOU THINK THIS SHOULD ALL BE PAID FOR? KEEP IN MIND THAT MOST HUNTER DON'T WANT THIS.
Wolves, bears, and bison are the biggest attractions at ynp and many people go to yellowstone specifically to see these animals. When there are 15 breeding pairs which is what the science says will be a sustainable wolf population, hunting will be allowed for wolves. Yeah, I know hunters don't want this, but there are others in wa who do.
:dunno: YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION.... :dunno:
I'm sure there are people in WA who don't necessarily hunt who would enjoy seeing wolves in the wild. I know most hunters don't want wolves in WA.
WELL SAID :chuckle: :chuckle: IN OTHER WORDS,.. WOLVES WILL NOT BENEFIT THE STATE AT ALL.
Wolves will bring benefits. The people who want to see them in the wild can. Just because wolves may not bring benefits to hunters, doesn't mean they won't bring benefits to people who love seeing wildlife.
Great.... so we need to protect wolves so that you or some other bunny hugger can go see a wild wolf once or twice a year? What about the other 360 odd days? when some rancher has to deal with these vermin killing his livestock? or the rural resident who no longer feels safe taking a walk in the back 40? Or the avid hunter who no longer has a reason to trek half way across the state to persue his passion because the game species have been depleted? You imply we are narrow minded and self centered? Try looking in the mirror....
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 06:39:21 PM
So robertg, just a ignorant question, but why do you think the wolves were "exterminated" in the state of washington in the first place.
Pelts,bounty's,fear,ignorance?
not only in this state but adjoining states , and even the southwest?
I do not know your beliefs, but it has been assumed on this thread and elsewhere that most pro-wolf folks want to take hunting of wildlife out of existence, so I do not understand the end result, rather than hunting by humans,it is more Natures way to have animals kill lessor species until the dominant species is what is left. with no regard to seasons,limits or abundance, that natures way of controlling wildlife is the best? so an overabundance of smaller predators also will be addressed by a more aggressive specie, to what end when the most aggressive species is the only one left.
The reason that the wolves are such a big topic, is that very few folks alive today ever had to deal with them, our ancestors did and for some strange reason not only they but our government also determined that they were a problem to be rid of,and so they were eradicated, the same could be argued for Polio.
well said! Wolves are like Polio...... something we shouldn't have to worry about in this day and age. But for some reason these greeines want to bring back a problem we already solved once....
Are you saying that wolves don't have a right to exist? They are native wildlife. Homosapiens have no right to wipe out any wildlife species. Grizzlies, elk, bison, etc were also wiped out in some places. Wolves were brought back because people wanted to turn a wrong into a right. We should have no right to exterminate a species. Wolves are native wildlife as I said. What is with the name calling grundy? You don't see me calling you any names.
Post by: bobcat on June 08, 2011, 06:40:04 PM
Post by: grundy53 on June 08, 2011, 06:50:43 PM
So robertg, just a ignorant question, but why do you think the wolves were "exterminated" in the state of washington in the first place.
Pelts,bounty's,fear,ignorance?
not only in this state but adjoining states , and even the southwest?
I do not know your beliefs, but it has been assumed on this thread and elsewhere that most pro-wolf folks want to take hunting of wildlife out of existence, so I do not understand the end result, rather than hunting by humans,it is more Natures way to have animals kill lessor species until the dominant species is what is left. with no regard to seasons,limits or abundance, that natures way of controlling wildlife is the best? so an overabundance of smaller predators also will be addressed by a more aggressive specie, to what end when the most aggressive species is the only one left.
The reason that the wolves are such a big topic, is that very few folks alive today ever had to deal with them, our ancestors did and for some strange reason not only they but our government also determined that they were a problem to be rid of,and so they were eradicated, the same could be argued for Polio.
well said! Wolves are like Polio...... something we shouldn't have to worry about in this day and age. But for some reason these greeines want to bring back a problem we already solved once....
Are you saying that wolves don't have a right to exist? They are native wildlife. Homosapiens have no right to wipe out any wildlife species. Grizzlies, elk, bison, etc were also wiped out in some places. Wolves were brought back because people wanted to turn a wrong into a right. We should have no right to exterminate a species. Wolves are native wildlife as I said. What is with the name calling grundy? You don't see me calling you any names.
Well going by what you just said we should also bring back Polio and Small Pox. They are both living organisms just like wolves. Why do you get to cherry pick what lives and what dies? what makes you better then us?
Post by: grundy53 on June 08, 2011, 06:53:37 PM
SO,.. ROBERT: WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD BE THE RIGHT WAY TO HANDLE THE WHOLE WOLF/PREDITOR PROBLEM HERE IN WASHINGTON? HOW DO YOU THINK WASHINGTON WILL BENEFIT FROM WOLVES? (WITH THE CURRENT WOLF PLAN) WILL WASHINGTON BENEFIT FROM THIS ECONOMICALLY? HOW DO YOU THINK THIS SHOULD ALL BE PAID FOR? KEEP IN MIND THAT MOST HUNTER DON'T WANT THIS.
Wolves, bears, and bison are the biggest attractions at ynp and many people go to yellowstone specifically to see these animals. When there are 15 breeding pairs which is what the science says will be a sustainable wolf population, hunting will be allowed for wolves. Yeah, I know hunters don't want this, but there are others in wa who do.
:dunno: YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION.... :dunno:
I'm sure there are people in WA who don't necessarily hunt who would enjoy seeing wolves in the wild. I know most hunters don't want wolves in WA.
WELL SAID :chuckle: :chuckle: IN OTHER WORDS,.. WOLVES WILL NOT BENEFIT THE STATE AT ALL.
Wolves will bring benefits. The people who want to see them in the wild can. Just because wolves may not bring benefits to hunters, doesn't mean they won't bring benefits to people who love seeing wildlife.
Great.... so we need to protect wolves so that you or some other bunny hugger can go see a wild wolf once or twice a year? What about the other 360 odd days? when some rancher has to deal with these vermin killing his livestock? or the rural resident who no longer feels safe taking a walk in the back 40? Or the avid hunter who no longer has a reason to trek half way across the state to persue his passion because the game species have been depleted? You imply we are narrow minded and self centered? Try looking in the mirror....
Why don't you respond to this post robertg? Just like you cherry pick your species you also cherry pick your posts that you respond to? Whats the matter? you don't like tough questions?
Post by: grundy53 on June 08, 2011, 06:54:25 PM
Then let's bring back the bison!
:yeah: and then the Yellowstone Elk herd.....
Post by: sebek556 on June 08, 2011, 06:57:45 PM
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 06:59:31 PM
So robertg, just a ignorant question, but why do you think the wolves were "exterminated" in the state of washington in the first place.
Pelts,bounty's,fear,ignorance?
not only in this state but adjoining states , and even the southwest?
I do not know your beliefs, but it has been assumed on this thread and elsewhere that most pro-wolf folks want to take hunting of wildlife out of existence, so I do not understand the end result, rather than hunting by humans,it is more Natures way to have animals kill lessor species until the dominant species is what is left. with no regard to seasons,limits or abundance, that natures way of controlling wildlife is the best? so an overabundance of smaller predators also will be addressed by a more aggressive specie, to what end when the most aggressive species is the only one left.
The reason that the wolves are such a big topic, is that very few folks alive today ever had to deal with them, our ancestors did and for some strange reason not only they but our government also determined that they were a problem to be rid of,and so they were eradicated, the same could be argued for Polio.
well said! Wolves are like Polio...... something we shouldn't have to worry about in this day and age. But for some reason these greeines want to bring back a problem we already solved once....
Are you saying that wolves don't have a right to exist? They are native wildlife. Homosapiens have no right to wipe out any wildlife species. Grizzlies, elk, bison, etc were also wiped out in some places. Wolves were brought back because people wanted to turn a wrong into a right. We should have no right to exterminate a species. Wolves are native wildlife as I said. What is with the name calling grundy? You don't see me calling you any names.
Well going by what you just said we should also bring back Polio and Small Pox. They are both living organisms just like wolves. Why do you get to cherry pick what lives and what dies? what makes you better then us?
Polio is a disease. Wolves are native wildlife. I think it's ridiculous to compare a deadly disease to native wildlife.
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 07:01:28 PM
Then let's bring back the bison!
:yeah: and then the Yellowstone Elk herd.....
The yellowstone herd is still there, just down in #s. Elk were overpopulated in yellowstone and they needed to be thinned down.
Post by: grundy53 on June 08, 2011, 07:11:06 PM
So robertg, just a ignorant question, but why do you think the wolves were "exterminated" in the state of washington in the first place.
Pelts,bounty's,fear,ignorance?
not only in this state but adjoining states , and even the southwest?
I do not know your beliefs, but it has been assumed on this thread and elsewhere that most pro-wolf folks want to take hunting of wildlife out of existence, so I do not understand the end result, rather than hunting by humans,it is more Natures way to have animals kill lessor species until the dominant species is what is left. with no regard to seasons,limits or abundance, that natures way of controlling wildlife is the best? so an overabundance of smaller predators also will be addressed by a more aggressive specie, to what end when the most aggressive species is the only one left.
The reason that the wolves are such a big topic, is that very few folks alive today ever had to deal with them, our ancestors did and for some strange reason not only they but our government also determined that they were a problem to be rid of,and so they were eradicated, the same could be argued for Polio.
well said! Wolves are like Polio...... something we shouldn't have to worry about in this day and age. But for some reason these greenies want to bring back a problem we already solved once....
Are you saying that wolves don't have a right to exist? They are native wildlife. Homosapiens have no right to wipe out any wildlife species. Grizzlies, elk, bison, etc were also wiped out in some places. Wolves were brought back because people wanted to turn a wrong into a right. We should have no right to exterminate a species. Wolves are native wildlife as I said. What is with the name calling grundy? You don't see me calling you any names.
Well going by what you just said we should also bring back Polio and Small Pox. They are both living organisms just like wolves. Why do you get to cherry pick what lives and what dies? what makes you better then us?
Polio is a disease. Wolves are native wildlife. I think it's ridiculous to compare a deadly disease to native wildlife.
How is it ridiculous? They are both living organisms and they both wipe out large populations wherever they are found in abundance. What makes your life more valuable then an elks? The way you talk is that wild animals have more rights then us, so why does an elk have less rights then a wolf? whats your hierarchy?
Post by: 3nails on June 08, 2011, 07:15:35 PM
You say "homosapiens" like we are just another animal. Says volumes about you. If, though, we are just another animal why not wipe them out forever. If a wolf can they will wipe out every single coyote they could in order to eliminate competition over a food source. We are competing over deer, elk, moose, etc. so lets eliminate them, if we are just another animal. Survival of the fittest, right? Natural selection, right?So robertg, just a ignorant question, but why do you think the wolves were "exterminated" in the state of washington in the first place.
Pelts,bounty's,fear,ignorance?
not only in this state but adjoining states , and even the southwest?
I do not know your beliefs, but it has been assumed on this thread and elsewhere that most pro-wolf folks want to take hunting of wildlife out of existence, so I do not understand the end result, rather than hunting by humans,it is more Natures way to have animals kill lessor species until the dominant species is what is left. with no regard to seasons,limits or abundance, that natures way of controlling wildlife is the best? so an overabundance of smaller predators also will be addressed by a more aggressive specie, to what end when the most aggressive species is the only one left.
The reason that the wolves are such a big topic, is that very few folks alive today ever had to deal with them, our ancestors did and for some strange reason not only they but our government also determined that they were a problem to be rid of,and so they were eradicated, the same could be argued for Polio.
well said! Wolves are like Polio...... something we shouldn't have to worry about in this day and age. But for some reason these greeines want to bring back a problem we already solved once....
Are you saying that wolves don't have a right to exist? They are native wildlife. Homosapiens have no right to wipe out any wildlife species. Grizzlies, elk, bison, etc were also wiped out in some places. Wolves were brought back because people wanted to turn a wrong into a right. We should have no right to exterminate a species. Wolves are native wildlife as I said. What is with the name calling grundy? You don't see me calling you any names.
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 07:20:33 PM
So robertg, just a ignorant question, but why do you think the wolves were "exterminated" in the state of washington in the first place.
Pelts,bounty's,fear,ignorance?
not only in this state but adjoining states , and even the southwest?
I do not know your beliefs, but it has been assumed on this thread and elsewhere that most pro-wolf folks want to take hunting of wildlife out of existence, so I do not understand the end result, rather than hunting by humans,it is more Natures way to have animals kill lessor species until the dominant species is what is left. with no regard to seasons,limits or abundance, that natures way of controlling wildlife is the best? so an overabundance of smaller predators also will be addressed by a more aggressive specie, to what end when the most aggressive species is the only one left.
The reason that the wolves are such a big topic, is that very few folks alive today ever had to deal with them, our ancestors did and for some strange reason not only they but our government also determined that they were a problem to be rid of,and so they were eradicated, the same could be argued for Polio.
well said! Wolves are like Polio...... something we shouldn't have to worry about in this day and age. But for some reason these greenies want to bring back a problem we already solved once....
Are you saying that wolves don't have a right to exist? They are native wildlife. Homosapiens have no right to wipe out any wildlife species. Grizzlies, elk, bison, etc were also wiped out in some places. Wolves were brought back because people wanted to turn a wrong into a right. We should have no right to exterminate a species. Wolves are native wildlife as I said. What is with the name calling grundy? You don't see me calling you any names.
Well going by what you just said we should also bring back Polio and Small Pox. They are both living organisms just like wolves. Why do you get to cherry pick what lives and what dies? what makes you better then us?
Polio is a disease. Wolves are native wildlife. I think it's ridiculous to compare a deadly disease to native wildlife.
How is it ridiculous? They are both living organisms and they both wipe out large populations wherever they are found in abundance. What makes your life more valuable then an elks? The way you talk is that wild animals have more rights then us, so why does an elk have less rights then a wolf? whats your hierarchy?
When did I say my life was more important than an elk? When did I say elk have less rights than wolves? Where exactly are you getting this nonsense from? You cannot compare a deadly disease like polio to native wildlife.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 08, 2011, 07:22:27 PM
So robertg, just a ignorant question, but why do you think the wolves were "exterminated" in the state of washington in the first place.
Pelts,bounty's,fear,ignorance?
not only in this state but adjoining states , and even the southwest?
I do not know your beliefs, but it has been assumed on this thread and elsewhere that most pro-wolf folks want to take hunting of wildlife out of existence, so I do not understand the end result, rather than hunting by humans,it is more Natures way to have animals kill lessor species until the dominant species is what is left. with no regard to seasons,limits or abundance, that natures way of controlling wildlife is the best? so an overabundance of smaller predators also will be addressed by a more aggressive specie, to what end when the most aggressive species is the only one left.
The reason that the wolves are such a big topic, is that very few folks alive today ever had to deal with them, our ancestors did and for some strange reason not only they but our government also determined that they were a problem to be rid of,and so they were eradicated, the same could be argued for Polio.
well said! Wolves are like Polio...... something we shouldn't have to worry about in this day and age. But for some reason these greeines want to bring back a problem we already solved once....
Are you saying that wolves don't have a right to exist? They are native wildlife. Homosapiens have no right to wipe out any wildlife species. Grizzlies, elk, bison, etc were also wiped out in some places. Wolves were brought back because people wanted to turn a wrong into a right. We should have no right to exterminate a species. Wolves are native wildlife as I said. What is with the name calling grundy? You don't see me calling you any names.
No, that is not what they are saying. Grizzlies, elk, bison are all also not extinct. Never have been Wolves are not threatened or extinct. Politics state that they are, but they are not, and they never have been. Politically motivated science says wolf numbers are low it is also the same assumption that is painting the poaching of alllll the wolves in Washington. That is also a lie. There are two confermed cases I know of. That is hardly an epidemic but is sure seems to sell PI papers. And no, that is not condoning illegal activity. I would no more endorse that than I would the illegal release of wolves. I would condemn both. (Just for the record.)
Like I have said before. There is not a better advocate for the Wilds that the American Hunter. I was reading the theme statements for "Howl Colorado." They are very honest when they claim that the only animal in their opinion that is over populated is the Human Hunter and it is that species they want to see sharply reduced. That is not a byproduct of this movement is it at the heart of it. We all know that don't we. Can't we just be forthright?
Post by: sebek556 on June 08, 2011, 07:24:11 PM
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 07:25:01 PM
So robertg, just a ignorant question, but why do you think the wolves were "exterminated" in the state of washington in the first place.
Pelts,bounty's,fear,ignorance?
not only in this state but adjoining states , and even the southwest?
I do not know your beliefs, but it has been assumed on this thread and elsewhere that most pro-wolf folks want to take hunting of wildlife out of existence, so I do not understand the end result, rather than hunting by humans,it is more Natures way to have animals kill lessor species until the dominant species is what is left. with no regard to seasons,limits or abundance, that natures way of controlling wildlife is the best? so an overabundance of smaller predators also will be addressed by a more aggressive specie, to what end when the most aggressive species is the only one left.
The reason that the wolves are such a big topic, is that very few folks alive today ever had to deal with them, our ancestors did and for some strange reason not only they but our government also determined that they were a problem to be rid of,and so they were eradicated, the same could be argued for Polio.
well said! Wolves are like Polio...... something we shouldn't have to worry about in this day and age. But for some reason these greenies want to bring back a problem we already solved once....
Are you saying that wolves don't have a right to exist? They are native wildlife. Homosapiens have no right to wipe out any wildlife species. Grizzlies, elk, bison, etc were also wiped out in some places. Wolves were brought back because people wanted to turn a wrong into a right. We should have no right to exterminate a species. Wolves are native wildlife as I said. What is with the name calling grundy? You don't see me calling you any names.
Well going by what you just said we should also bring back Polio and Small Pox. They are both living organisms just like wolves. Why do you get to cherry pick what lives and what dies? what makes you better then us?
Polio is a disease. Wolves are native wildlife. I think it's ridiculous to compare a deadly disease to native wildlife.
How is it ridiculous? They are both living organisms and they both wipe out large populations wherever they are found in abundance. What makes your life more valuable then an elks? The way you talk is that wild animals have more rights then us, so why does an elk have less rights then a wolf? whats your hierarchy?
Do you feel wolves are vermin and should be exterminated?
Post by: Klyne3 on June 08, 2011, 07:25:10 PM
Then let's bring back the bison!
:yeah: and then the Yellowstone Elk herd.....
The yellowstone herd is still there, just down in #s. Elk were overpopulated in yellowstone and they needed to be thinned down.
So I am assuming by you saying the herd needed to be thinned down that you agree that Herd sizes needs to be managed? So would that then not apply to predator species also? So who/what then does the thinning out?
I'm all for proper wildlife management. Has anyone thought past how the cute furry wolves are to what happens when they start to encroach on populated area's (example all the recent bear encounters). Imo no one species should be allowed to dominate and potentially wipe out another. As you stated in one of your post when the elk are not available the wolves have turned to bison. So what do you do then when the elk/deer population are no more and wolves decide that the nearest dog park is easy pickin's? or they start hitting the ranches and your nearest Safeway no longer has beef/pork/ chicken available for you? Conservation includes proper management of all wildlife including ALL predator species.
Post by: grundy53 on June 08, 2011, 07:32:27 PM
So robertg, just a ignorant question, but why do you think the wolves were "exterminated" in the state of washington in the first place.
Pelts,bounty's,fear,ignorance?
not only in this state but adjoining states , and even the southwest?
I do not know your beliefs, but it has been assumed on this thread and elsewhere that most pro-wolf folks want to take hunting of wildlife out of existence, so I do not understand the end result, rather than hunting by humans,it is more Natures way to have animals kill lessor species until the dominant species is what is left. with no regard to seasons,limits or abundance, that natures way of controlling wildlife is the best? so an overabundance of smaller predators also will be addressed by a more aggressive specie, to what end when the most aggressive species is the only one left.
The reason that the wolves are such a big topic, is that very few folks alive today ever had to deal with them, our ancestors did and for some strange reason not only they but our government also determined that they were a problem to be rid of,and so they were eradicated, the same could be argued for Polio.
well said! Wolves are like Polio...... something we shouldn't have to worry about in this day and age. But for some reason these greenies want to bring back a problem we already solved once....
Are you saying that wolves don't have a right to exist? They are native wildlife. Homosapiens have no right to wipe out any wildlife species. Grizzlies, elk, bison, etc were also wiped out in some places. Wolves were brought back because people wanted to turn a wrong into a right. We should have no right to exterminate a species. Wolves are native wildlife as I said. What is with the name calling grundy? You don't see me calling you any names.
Well going by what you just said we should also bring back Polio and Small Pox. They are both living organisms just like wolves. Why do you get to cherry pick what lives and what dies? what makes you better then us?
Polio is a disease. Wolves are native wildlife. I think it's ridiculous to compare a deadly disease to native wildlife.
How is it ridiculous? They are both living organisms and they both wipe out large populations wherever they are found in abundance. What makes your life more valuable then an elks? The way you talk is that wild animals have more rights then us, so why does an elk have less rights then a wolf? whats your hierarchy?
When did I say my life was more important than an elk? When did I say elk have less rights than wolves? Where exactly are you getting this nonsense from? You cannot compare a deadly disease like polio to native wildlife.
Polio and small pox are deadly organisms that wipe out populations of humans. Wolves are deadly organisms that wipe out Elk. You say we should wipe out polio and small pox but not wolves. Therefore you are saying that your life is more important then an Elk's. Polio and Small Pox are natural they were not made by humans so that is "just mother nature at work". No different then wolves. Wolves are a plague on wildlife....
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 07:32:43 PM
Then let's bring back the bison!
:yeah: and then the Yellowstone Elk herd.....
The yellowstone herd is still there, just down in #s. Elk were overpopulated in yellowstone and they needed to be thinned down.
So I am assuming by you saying the herd needed to be thinned down that you agree that Herd sizes needs to be managed? So would that then not apply to predator species also? So who/what then does the thinning out?
I'm all for proper wildlife management. Has anyone thought past how the cute furry wolves are to what happens when they start to encroach on populated area's (example all the recent bear encounters). Imo no one species should be allowed to dominate and potentially wipe out another. As you stated in one of your post when the elk are not available the wolves have turned to bison. So what do you do then when the elk/deer population are no more and wolves decide that the nearest dog park is easy pickin's? or they start hitting the ranches and your nearest Safeway no longer has beef/pork/ chicken available for you? Conservation includes proper management of all wildlife including ALL predator species.
As far as ynp goes, the wolves, grizzlies, etc do the thinning out. That is a national park and there is no hunting allowed. Just about most if not all national parks don't allow hunting.Wolves self-regulate. Disease has been hitting the ynp wolves hard.
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 07:34:53 PM
So robertg, just a ignorant question, but why do you think the wolves were "exterminated" in the state of washington in the first place.
Pelts,bounty's,fear,ignorance?
not only in this state but adjoining states , and even the southwest?
I do not know your beliefs, but it has been assumed on this thread and elsewhere that most pro-wolf folks want to take hunting of wildlife out of existence, so I do not understand the end result, rather than hunting by humans,it is more Natures way to have animals kill lessor species until the dominant species is what is left. with no regard to seasons,limits or abundance, that natures way of controlling wildlife is the best? so an overabundance of smaller predators also will be addressed by a more aggressive specie, to what end when the most aggressive species is the only one left.
The reason that the wolves are such a big topic, is that very few folks alive today ever had to deal with them, our ancestors did and for some strange reason not only they but our government also determined that they were a problem to be rid of,and so they were eradicated, the same could be argued for Polio.
well said! Wolves are like Polio...... something we shouldn't have to worry about in this day and age. But for some reason these greenies want to bring back a problem we already solved once....
Are you saying that wolves don't have a right to exist? They are native wildlife. Homosapiens have no right to wipe out any wildlife species. Grizzlies, elk, bison, etc were also wiped out in some places. Wolves were brought back because people wanted to turn a wrong into a right. We should have no right to exterminate a species. Wolves are native wildlife as I said. What is with the name calling grundy? You don't see me calling you any names.
Well going by what you just said we should also bring back Polio and Small Pox. They are both living organisms just like wolves. Why do you get to cherry pick what lives and what dies? what makes you better then us?
Polio is a disease. Wolves are native wildlife. I think it's ridiculous to compare a deadly disease to native wildlife.
How is it ridiculous? They are both living organisms and they both wipe out large populations wherever they are found in abundance. What makes your life more valuable then an elks? The way you talk is that wild animals have more rights then us, so why does an elk have less rights then a wolf? whats your hierarchy?
When did I say my life was more important than an elk? When did I say elk have less rights than wolves? Where exactly are you getting this nonsense from? You cannot compare a deadly disease like polio to native wildlife.
Polio and small pox are deadly organisms that wipe out populations of humans. Wolves are deadly organisms that wipe out Elk. You say we should wipe out polio and small pox but not wolves. Therefore you are saying that your life is more important then an Elk's. Polio and Small Pox are natural they were not made by humans so that is "just mother nature at work". No different then wolves. Wolves are a plague on wildlife....
Do you think wolves are vermin and should be exterminated?
Post by: grundy53 on June 08, 2011, 07:37:01 PM
So robertg, just a ignorant question, but why do you think the wolves were "exterminated" in the state of washington in the first place.
Pelts,bounty's,fear,ignorance?
not only in this state but adjoining states , and even the southwest?
I do not know your beliefs, but it has been assumed on this thread and elsewhere that most pro-wolf folks want to take hunting of wildlife out of existence, so I do not understand the end result, rather than hunting by humans,it is more Natures way to have animals kill lessor species until the dominant species is what is left. with no regard to seasons,limits or abundance, that natures way of controlling wildlife is the best? so an overabundance of smaller predators also will be addressed by a more aggressive specie, to what end when the most aggressive species is the only one left.
The reason that the wolves are such a big topic, is that very few folks alive today ever had to deal with them, our ancestors did and for some strange reason not only they but our government also determined that they were a problem to be rid of,and so they were eradicated, the same could be argued for Polio.
well said! Wolves are like Polio...... something we shouldn't have to worry about in this day and age. But for some reason these greenies want to bring back a problem we already solved once....
Are you saying that wolves don't have a right to exist? They are native wildlife. Homosapiens have no right to wipe out any wildlife species. Grizzlies, elk, bison, etc were also wiped out in some places. Wolves were brought back because people wanted to turn a wrong into a right. We should have no right to exterminate a species. Wolves are native wildlife as I said. What is with the name calling grundy? You don't see me calling you any names.
Well going by what you just said we should also bring back Polio and Small Pox. They are both living organisms just like wolves. Why do you get to cherry pick what lives and what dies? what makes you better then us?
Polio is a disease. Wolves are native wildlife. I think it's ridiculous to compare a deadly disease to native wildlife.
How is it ridiculous? They are both living organisms and they both wipe out large populations wherever they are found in abundance. What makes your life more valuable then an elks? The way you talk is that wild animals have more rights then us, so why does an elk have less rights then a wolf? whats your hierarchy?
When did I say my life was more important than an elk? When did I say elk have less rights than wolves? Where exactly are you getting this nonsense from? You cannot compare a deadly disease like polio to native wildlife.
Polio and small pox are deadly organisms that wipe out populations of humans. Wolves are deadly organisms that wipe out Elk. You say we should wipe out polio and small pox but not wolves. Therefore you are saying that your life is more important then an Elk's. Polio and Small Pox are natural they were not made by humans so that is "just mother nature at work". No different then wolves. Wolves are a plague on wildlife....
Do you think wolves are vermin and should be exterminated?
Short answer, Yes. I know that will never happen again so I would settle for heavily managed.
Post by: sebek556 on June 08, 2011, 07:37:11 PM
2 what is your personal feelings on gun ownership?
Post by: Klyne3 on June 08, 2011, 07:39:58 PM
Then let's bring back the bison!
:yeah: and then the Yellowstone Elk herd.....
The yellowstone herd is still there, just down in #s. Elk were overpopulated in yellowstone and they needed to be thinned down.
So I am assuming by you saying the herd needed to be thinned down that you agree that Herd sizes needs to be managed? So would that then not apply to predator species also? So who/what then does the thinning out?
I'm all for proper wildlife management. Has anyone thought past how the cute furry wolves are to what happens when they start to encroach on populated area's (example all the recent bear encounters). Imo no one species should be allowed to dominate and potentially wipe out another. As you stated in one of your post when the elk are not available the wolves have turned to bison. So what do you do then when the elk/deer population are no more and wolves decide that the nearest dog park is easy pickin's? or they start hitting the ranches and your nearest Safeway no longer has beef/pork/ chicken available for you? Conservation includes proper management of all wildlife including ALL predator species.
As far as ynp goes, the wolves, grizzlies, etc do the thinning out. That is a national park and there is no hunting allowed. Just about most if not all national parks don't allow hunting.Wolves self-regulate. Disease has been hitting the ynp wolves hard.
So why keep refering to Yellowstone .... National Park = No Hunting we don't live in Yellowstone.. Yellowstone doesn't have apartment building with bears roaming around. Can we start getting data from at ID or Mt from you? Not a National Park. If we are going to talk about this lets make it a comparable. its equivelent to debating if tampons or pads are better
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 07:41:05 PM
robert g two questions 1 what do you think is the correct number of breeding pairs for wa?
2 what is your personal feelings on gun ownership?
Honest answer, I have no idea, but I will go with what WDFW says, 15 breeding pairs. I have no problem with people owning guns to protect themselves.
Post by: grundy53 on June 08, 2011, 07:42:36 PM
Then let's bring back the bison!
:yeah: and then the Yellowstone Elk herd.....
The yellowstone herd is still there, just down in #s. Elk were overpopulated in yellowstone and they needed to be thinned down.
So I am assuming by you saying the herd needed to be thinned down that you agree that Herd sizes needs to be managed? So would that then not apply to predator species also? So who/what then does the thinning out?
I'm all for proper wildlife management. Has anyone thought past how the cute furry wolves are to what happens when they start to encroach on populated area's (example all the recent bear encounters). Imo no one species should be allowed to dominate and potentially wipe out another. As you stated in one of your post when the elk are not available the wolves have turned to bison. So what do you do then when the elk/deer population are no more and wolves decide that the nearest dog park is easy pickin's? or they start hitting the ranches and your nearest Safeway no longer has beef/pork/ chicken available for you? Conservation includes proper management of all wildlife including ALL predator species.
As far as ynp goes, the wolves, grizzlies, etc do the thinning out. That is a national park and there is no hunting allowed. Just about most if not all national parks don't allow hunting.Wolves self-regulate. Disease has been hitting the ynp wolves hard.
So why keep refering to Yellowstone .... National Park = No Hunting we don't live in Yellowstone.. Yellowstone doesn't have apartment building with bears roaming around. Can we start getting data from at ID or Mt from you? Not a National Park. If we are going to talk about this lets make it a comparable. its equivelent to debating if tampons or pads are better
:yeah: If I can't compare Wolves to Polio then you can't compare our wolf situation to the one in Yellowstone. Deal?
Post by: sebek556 on June 08, 2011, 07:42:53 PM
robert g two questions 1 what do you think is the correct number of breeding pairs for wa?
2 what is your personal feelings on gun ownership?
Honest answer, I have no idea, but I will go with what WDFW says, 15 breeding pairs. I have no problem with people owning guns to protect themselves.
ok, to protect themelves what about for recational use? I.E sport shooting, hunting, etc.
Post by: bearmanric on June 08, 2011, 07:43:57 PM
Post by: grundy53 on June 08, 2011, 07:44:06 PM
robert g two questions 1 what do you think is the correct number of breeding pairs for wa?
2 what is your personal feelings on gun ownership?
Honest answer, I have no idea, but I will go with what WDFW says, 15 breeding pairs. I have no problem with people owning guns to protect themselves.
Those are the key words right there. This guy is obviously an anti hunter in general. So of course he doesn't want us to hunt wolves.
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 07:44:24 PM
robert g two questions 1 what do you think is the correct number of breeding pairs for wa?
2 what is your personal feelings on gun ownership?
Honest answer, I have no idea, but I will go with what WDFW says, 15 breeding pairs. I have no problem with people owning guns to protect themselves.
and let me remind you some want more than 15 breeding pairs and some want much less. I'm in the middle and I will go by what wdfw says.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 08, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
robert g two questions 1 what do you think is the correct number of breeding pairs for wa?
2 what is your personal feelings on gun ownership?
This thread is getting rediculous. Sadly, this is what we're going to face as we move forward with wolf recovery in WA. If hunters don't put their heads together and come up with a coherent plan that addresses wolf numbers and management in a way that can satisfy the stakeholders, then we're screwed.
I really think this thread is so far off topic that it's usefulness has been lost. Wolves are here to stay. If hunters aren't going to be involved in a reasonable attempt to manage them, then we're not going to see anything happen that might benefit this percieved crisis.
Basically, what I'm saying is that we need to get our $hit together and start thinking of some constructive ideas...more constructive than whining about the nativity, politics, gun rights, ... whatever other nonsense is here that has nothing to do with wolf recovery and our (hunters) having some part in the planning of a wolf plan. :twocents:
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 07:46:14 PM
robert g two questions 1 what do you think is the correct number of breeding pairs for wa?
2 what is your personal feelings on gun ownership?
Honest answer, I have no idea, but I will go with what WDFW says, 15 breeding pairs. I have no problem with people owning guns to protect themselves.
ok, to protect themelves what about for recational use? I.E sport shooting, hunting, etc.
Don't have any problem with others hunting for food.
Post by: alecvg on June 08, 2011, 07:46:26 PM
robert g two questions 1 what do you think is the correct number of breeding pairs for wa?
2 what is your personal feelings on gun ownership?
This thread is getting rediculous. Sadly, this is what we're going to face as we move forward with wolf recovery in WA. If hunters don't put their heads together and come up with a coherent plan that addresses wolf numbers and management in a way that can satisfy the stakeholders, then we're screwed.
I really think this thread is so far off topic that it's usefulness has been lost. Wolves are here to stay. If hunters aren't going to be involved in a reasonable attempt to manage them, then we're not going to see anything happen that might benefit this percieved crisis.
Basically, what I'm saying is that we need to get our $hit together and start thinking of some constructive ideas...more constructive than whining about the nativity, politics, gun rights, ... whatever other nonsense is here that has nothing to do with wolf recovery and our (hunters) having some part in the planning of a wolf plan. :twocents:
:yeah: I think robertg is getting us off-track. We need to get our *censored* together and figure out how we are gonna fight this.[
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 08, 2011, 07:47:37 PM
Lolo Elk Herd, Idaho had 20,000 elk before wolves and now has 1700 total.
Gallitan Valley Elk Herd had 1500 before wolves and how has 200 total.
Yellowstone Elk Herd had 20,000 elk before wolves and now has 6,500 total.
Jackson, WY Shiras Moose had 1200 Moose before wolves and now has 120 total.
Well, what are we acting all paranoid for? The Pro's are saying this is totally typical and that we are hysterical, radical, uneducated, I admit I am not a ace at math but this seems clear. Unmanaged wolves are unacceptable. We invested in the Wildlife and that is being wasted. It is unnecessary.
Now, 10 wolves in Washington. 2 confermed dead and 8 missing has created a Statewide manhunt for imaginary mass poachers. Keystone Cops at their best. (Ridiculous, I wish I had been there at the meeting.)
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 07:48:00 PM
robert g two questions 1 what do you think is the correct number of breeding pairs for wa?
2 what is your personal feelings on gun ownership?
This thread is getting rediculous. Sadly, this is what we're going to face as we move forward with wolf recovery in WA. If hunters don't put their heads together and come up with a coherent plan that addresses wolf numbers and management in a way that can satisfy the stakeholders, then we're screwed.
I really think this thread is so far off topic that it's usefulness has been lost. Wolves are here to stay. If hunters aren't going to be involved in a reasonable attempt to manage them, then we're not going to see anything happen that might benefit this percieved crisis.
Basically, what I'm saying is that we need to get our $hit together and start thinking of some constructive ideas...more constructive than whining about the nativity, politics, gun rights, ... whatever other nonsense is here that has nothing to do with wolf recovery and our (hunters) having some part in the planning of a wolf plan. :twocents:
I agree.
Post by: sebek556 on June 08, 2011, 07:48:31 PM
now robert these 15 wolf packs will this include instate transent packs?
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 08, 2011, 07:50:20 PM
Robert- you're going to loss any credibility by not being a hunter on a hunting website, but I don't think it's all that bad that you're here. We're all going to have to work together in the wolf recovery. If hunters think they can manage this deal without input from antihunters they're crazy. EVERYONE is going to be at the table. I'm glad to hear your inputrobert g two questions 1 what do you think is the correct number of breeding pairs for wa?
2 what is your personal feelings on gun ownership?
Honest answer, I have no idea, but I will go with what WDFW says, 15 breeding pairs. I have no problem with people owning guns to protect themselves.
ok, to protect themelves what about for recational use? I.E sport shooting, hunting, etc.
Don't have any problem with others hunting for food.
Post by: alecvg on June 08, 2011, 07:51:54 PM
I think it is true, wolves had their place in YNP. If the original plan had been kept there would not be the issue. Instead a very bold move is still be played. What can Washington State expect? Lets look at the instant replay.
Lolo Elk Herd, Idaho had 20,000 elk before wolves and now has 1700 total.
Gallitan Valley Elk Herd had 1500 before wolves and how has 200 total.
Yellowstone Elk Herd had 20,000 elk before wolves and now has 6,500 total.
Jackson, WY Shiras Moose had 1200 Moose before wolves and now has 120 total.
Well, what are we acting all paranoid for? The Pro's are saying this is totally typical and that we are hysterical, radical, uneducated, I admit I am not a ace at math but this seems clear. Unmanaged wolves are unacceptable. We invested in the Wildlife and that is being wasted. It is unnecessary.
Now, 10 wolves in Washington. 2 confermed dead and 8 missing has created a Statewide manhunt for imaginary mass poachers. Keystone Cops at their best. (Ridiculous, I wish I had been there at the meeting.)
Very well said. I am willing to accept wolves. But them MUST be managed, like the original plan was, I think 15 breeding pairs is too much. And as said earlier, maybe now they are considered an invasive species? Maybe the environment has changed, yes, they were once native, but can the environment we have now handle them? I don't know, I am skeptical.
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 07:53:16 PM
ok thank you I was getting someback ground on who i am talking to.
now robert these 15 wolf packs will this include instate transent packs?
when they are 15 breeding pairs in WA for 3 years, then I believe they will be delisted.
Post by: CementFinisher on June 08, 2011, 07:55:06 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 08, 2011, 07:55:17 PM
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 07:55:43 PM
Robert- you're going to loss any credibility by not being a hunter on a hunting website, but I don't think it's all that bad that you're here. We're all going to have to work together in the wolf recovery. If hunters think they can manage this deal without input from antihunters they're crazy. EVERYONE is going to be at the table. I'm glad to hear your inputrobert g two questions 1 what do you think is the correct number of breeding pairs for wa?
2 what is your personal feelings on gun ownership?
Honest answer, I have no idea, but I will go with what WDFW says, 15 breeding pairs. I have no problem with people owning guns to protect themselves.
ok, to protect themelves what about for recational use? I.E sport shooting, hunting, etc.
Don't have any problem with others hunting for food.
I don't hunt, but I'm always open to what the other side has to say. The only way anything will get done is if all sides come together and talk about it. All the talk about "sss" and wanting wolves exterminated will not help anything.
Post by: grundy53 on June 08, 2011, 07:56:28 PM
ok thank you I was getting someback ground on who i am talking to.
now robert these 15 wolf packs will this include instate transent packs?
when they are 15 breeding pairs in WA for 3 years, then I believe they will be delisted.
The citizens of Idaho and Montana were told the samething when they reintroduced the wolves back in 1996. Ask them how that went.....
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 08, 2011, 07:56:46 PM
Has there been a organization organised yet for WA hunters to join to help monetarily and to voice our opinions? Is there a gov committie still active on this issue in WA? We need to organise. We need to find some hunter friendly BIO'S that can help with good statistics and infoI agree- a reasonable approach and organization would be helpful to send a unified message.
Post by: sebek556 on June 08, 2011, 07:56:57 PM
ok thank you I was getting someback ground on who i am talking to.
now robert these 15 wolf packs will this include instate transent packs?
when they are 15 breeding pairs in WA for 3 years, then I believe they will be delisted.
Does this 15 pairs include the wolves crossing from canada and idaho? this is what i am asking, sorry if i did'nt get it across properly my spelling and gammar are horrible
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 07:58:34 PM
ok thank you I was getting someback ground on who i am talking to.
now robert these 15 wolf packs will this include instate transent packs?
when they are 15 breeding pairs in WA for 3 years, then I believe they will be delisted.
The citizens of Idaho and Montana were told the samething when they reintroduced the wolves back in 1996. Ask them how that went.....
I'm not going to change your mind. If you don't think wolves will be delisted when there are 15 breeding pairs, I don't know what to tell you.
Post by: Klyne3 on June 08, 2011, 07:59:11 PM
Has there been a organization organised yet for WA hunters to join to help monetarily and to voice our opinions? Is there a gov committie still active on this issue in WA? We need to organise. We need to find some hunter friendly BIO'S that can help with good statistics and infoI agree- a reasonable approach and organization would be helpful to send a unified message.
:yeah:
Post by: h2ofowlr on June 08, 2011, 07:59:29 PM
This is the plan now, but when it is time the Humane Society and all the other animal lovers make it a court matter. Then it gets dragged out like we have watched in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Why would they not do the same. Make it black and white to the Humane Society that they have a plan in action if you turn it into a legal battle then the hunters will handle the matter at hand. There management plans for wolves have been crap at best.ok thank you I was getting someback ground on who i am talking to.
now robert these 15 wolf packs will this include instate transent packs?
when they are 15 breeding pairs in WA for 3 years, then I believe they will be delisted.
Post by: Huntnphish on June 08, 2011, 07:59:38 PM
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 07:59:56 PM
I don't know to be honest.ok thank you I was getting someback ground on who i am talking to.
now robert these 15 wolf packs will this include instate transent packs?
when they are 15 breeding pairs in WA for 3 years, then I believe they will be delisted.
Does this 15 pairs include the wolves crossing from canada and idaho? this is what i am asking, sorry if i did'nt get it across properly my spelling and gammar are horrible
Post by: jager on June 08, 2011, 08:00:54 PM
Yes the Yellowstone wolves are being hit by disease....Parvo, for the last what? 7 or 8 years maybe longer.
Yet at the same time they sure managed to wipe out a whole lotta elk even with their weakend numbers.
The talk of YNP is like it's a fenced in enclosure, those animals are free to come and go as they choose.
The wolf will always have the upper hand. It is an apex predator. Period.
Why the lack of any science based facts disputing what is happening to ungulate populations in Idaho or Montana.
Fact: It's all the fault of the human intervention. Creating YNP, "exterminating" the wolf. Building your house. Coming to America. It's all our fault. It's all history and now we have to deal with it all.
This problem will not take care of itself naturally without horrendous consequences.
We have to manage most if not all species. Period.
I for one will not stand by, and let all the fantastic efforts that have been done for all wildlife over the last 80 years or so be thrown to the wind because some folks don't necessarily agree and want to reinvent the wheel. Not gonna happen!
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 08:02:43 PM
Robert, do you honestly believe 15 breeding pairs will "naturally" make their way into this state? I seriously doubt this state will ever have more "naturally" breeding pairs than it does now, the only way I ever see 15 is if they are transplanted. :twocents:
I don't believe wolves will be transplanted. I think over time, more wolves will end up in WA. This 15 breeding pairs is not something that I think is going to happen quickly.
Post by: Huntnphish on June 08, 2011, 08:09:48 PM
I don't believe wolves will be transplanted. I think over time, more wolves will end up in WA.
At the rate the wolves have been "disappearing" in Washington lately, the lack of confidence our hunters, and general public for that matter, have in our officials, how will the wolves ever reach that number without being "helped"?
Post by: dscubame on June 08, 2011, 08:10:25 PM
why are you double posting? Same post on two different threads. Perhaps your a trouble maker and should move on. referring to robertg.
What do you mean double posting? I was responding to a comment seth made to me.
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,76638.60/topicseen.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,76638.60/topicseen.html)
Double posting as you did on the Cougar Seasons thread here.
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 08:14:54 PM
I don't believe wolves will be transplanted. I think over time, more wolves will end up in WA.
At the rate the wolves have been "disappearing" in Washington lately, the lack of confidence our hunters, and general public for that matter, have in our officials, how will the wolves ever reach that number without being "helped"?
Not sure.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 08, 2011, 08:17:02 PM
(Even if you do ignore me :chuckle: )
The nice thing about this thread is that is shows the need for a unified voice for our heritage. To be honest a few weeks ago I flat out blew a gasket. I had as much as I can take. I decided it is over, Screw everything. My new mantra was to defund this crappy Government at every turn in every way. The outdoors as it has been for 100 years is my escape. There are forces seeking to and succeeding in changing and in many cases destroying it. I see that I was on the right track before. We need to join as many organizations as we can afford to. It is going to take time and effort to save some pieces of what we once had. Things will change, they have changed. We are going to have to adapt to it. I do think we have more support than we realize. Just because people don't hunt does not mean they don't support us. Just because we hunt does not mean we won't accept 4 legged competition. It isn't the wolves that are cheating, it is Defenders of Wildlife and their ilk. It would be nice when we get a new Governor if we could get them out of WDFW.
Post by: Kain on June 08, 2011, 08:20:13 PM
robertg's stance is far from radical compaired to what I have dealt with. Welcome to the site dude.:yeah: Totally. :tup:
(Even if you do ignore me :chuckle: )
The nice thing about this thread is that is shows the need for a unified voice for our heritage. To be honest a few weeks ago I flat out blew a gasket. I had as much as I can take. I decided it is over, Screw everything. My new mantra was to defund this crappy Government at every turn in every way. The outdoors as it has been for 100 years is my escape. There are forces seeking to and succeeding in changing and in many cases destroying it. I see that I was on the right track before. We need to join as many organizations as we can afford to. It is going to take time and effort to save some pieces of what we once had. Things will change, they have changed. We are going to have to adapt to it. I do think we have more support than we realize. Just because people don't hunt does not mean they don't support us. Just because we hunt does not mean we won't accept 4 legged competition. It isn't the wolves that are cheating, it is Defenders of Wildlife and their ilk. It would be nice when we get a new Governor if we could get them out of WDFW.
Post by: Huntnphish on June 08, 2011, 08:23:03 PM
I don't believe wolves will be transplanted. I think over time, more wolves will end up in WA.
At the rate the wolves have been "disappearing" in Washington lately, the lack of confidence our hunters, and general public for that matter, have in our officials, how will the wolves ever reach that number without being "helped"?
Not sure.
Me either. I don't believe all the existing wolves in Washington are here naturally myself, my opinion, and I realize you and WDFW say they are, we can agree to disagree.
What I am going to find interesting is how after all these years, we only have the three or so "confirmed" packs, yet some way some how, after this new plan passes, we will miraculously end up with new, previously unknown packs confirmed in places where they have not been for many many years, and the Lookout Pack female will miraculously re appear.
We will see what happens, but if I was a betting man.........
Post by: sebek556 on June 08, 2011, 08:23:48 PM
Post by: Kain on June 08, 2011, 08:27:00 PM
Me either. I don't believe all the existing wolves in Washington are here naturally myself, my opinion, and I realize you and WDFW say they are, we can agree to disagree.
What I am going to find interesting is how after all these years, we only have the three or so "confirmed" packs, yet some way some how, after this new plan passes, we will miraculously end up with new, previously unknown packs confirmed in places where they have not been for many many years, and the Lookout Pack female will miraculously re appear.
We will see what happens, but if I was a betting man.........
You may be right but Im not so sure. There is a LOT of money to keep them on the list as long as they can and no incentive to take them off.
Post by: CementFinisher on June 08, 2011, 08:32:10 PM
I dont, our states to the east of us tried that and it failed. We can not trust the fed's or the far left to manage the wolves properly.Has there been a organization organised yet for WA hunters to join to help monetarily and to voice our opinions? Is there a gov committie still active on this issue in WA? We need to organise. We need to find some hunter friendly BIO'S that can help with good statistics and infoI agree- a reasonable approach and organization would be helpful to send a unified message.
:yeah:
im not talking about giving in or compromisesing. Im talking about a venue to creat a united educated front. thats the only way to get what we want. were dealing with goverment there for we must show power in numbers and education
Post by: jager on June 08, 2011, 08:42:00 PM
In 2008 Idaho had An estimated 846 wolves in about 88
packs, at least 39 of which were documented as breeding pairs. There has been nearly an 15% increase every year.
Post by: mulehunter on June 08, 2011, 09:01:50 PM
So 15 breeding pairs is how many wolves +/- 400?:yeah: that's question we all need to know. Why they refused open wolf hunt after it hit 40 BP. I am sure u all washington people to understand. E.G. keep it closed until 88 B.P. and they are gonna close it as hard as they try to not allow idaho open wolf hunt.
In 2008 Idaho had An estimated 846 wolves in about 88
packs, at least 39 of which were documented as breeding pairs. There has been nearly an 15% increase every year.
Mulehunter.
Post by: Jack Diamond on June 08, 2011, 09:02:38 PM
Post by: mulehunter on June 08, 2011, 09:40:51 PM
What if. They didn't folllow WDFW their plan. And decide to increase B.P.
Mulehunter.
Post by: WA hunter14 on June 08, 2011, 09:44:11 PM
Read what jager said. How can we trust WDFW if it passed 15 bp and it hasn't open any wolf hunt until it hit 58 B.P. how u all feel.
What if. They didn't folllow WDFW their plan. And decide to increase B.P.
Mulehunter.
isnt that "what if" a when will they? :dunno:
Post by: Gringo31 on June 08, 2011, 10:37:24 PM
Quote
when they are 15 breeding pairs in WA for 3 years, then I believe they will be delisted.
This was what WDFW said at the meeting I went to as well. BUT...then someone from the crowd asked about the Pelican. He wanted to know how long ago it has been they they petitioned to be delisted. The answer 25 years.
WDFW asking for a species to be delisted doesn't mean crap.
How again is a overpopulated SPECIES on one side of a line...........and then if they cross that line, that state will pay money to build back that SPECIES?
The pro wolf people don't live by them (for the most part). Science is too often twisted. I like the research out of UW that was done by anonymous people. REAL scientific.
Post by: jackelope on June 08, 2011, 10:48:53 PM
Robert, do you honestly believe 15 breeding pairs will "naturally" make their way into this state? I seriously doubt this state will ever have more "naturally" breeding pairs than it does now, the only way I ever see 15 is if they are transplanted. :twocents:
I don't believe wolves will be transplanted. I think over time, more wolves will end up in WA. This 15 breeding pairs is not something that I think is going to happen quickly.
Transplant from other states is not in the plan but I believe translocation within state lines is part of the plan when the time comes.
Lots of good info in this thread. Lots of junk too.
Post by: Huntnphish on June 09, 2011, 01:00:41 AM
Transplant from other states is not in the plan but I believe translocation within state lines is part of the plan when the time comes.
And here in lies my issue Jackelope. Its my contention that the wolf advocates, as well as WDFW, realize that with the rogue hunters applying the SSS initiative and the occasional vehicle mortality, their target goal of 15 BP will never be reached "naturally". Because of this I fear they will "plant" wolves in the areas they feel should have them or in the areas they feel can sufficiently sustain a new pack.
Again, WDFW will play it off as coincidence that a new pack just happened to establish itself in a new area, BS, and then see it as a new pack that needs to be "confirmed".
I hate to be such a pessimist when it comes to WDFW but their past actions speak volumes.
The other thing I have an issue with is
Quote
I believe translocation within state lines is part of the plan when the time comesEven Robert says its all supposed to be natural and there is no need for translocation or "reintroduction" so why is it that we all know they will pull this BS and plant pairs where they see fit?
It comes down to politics and bureaucrats again, we cant trust any of them or the guys like Robert. Have you noticed how he has avoided my questions about this? I wonder why, maybe its because he knows this is exactly their plan. :dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on June 09, 2011, 01:08:02 AM
Yellowstone elk populations decline, but are wolves to blame?
Brodie Farquhar
Yellowstone elk populations have dramatically risen and fallen in recent decades, but researchers are arguing over the relative impact of wolf predation on elk populations.
For example, Yellowstone's famed northern range elk increased from about 4,000 head in 1968 to some 20,000 by 1988, due to a combination of factors: elk colonized new winter range in and north of the park, wet summers resulted in better plant production, winters were mild, and the fires of 1988 opened forests allowing more ground cover to grow. With the reintroduction of wolves into the ecosystem in 1995, elk populations held their own from 1995 to 2000 (17,000), before they dramatically dropped by 50 percent to 8,335 in winter 2004.
At the same time, researchers note both high human harvest levels and seven years of drought at the same time wolf numbers were growing throughout the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.
In a broader context, more than 30,000 elk from 7-8 different herds summer in Yellowstone and approximately 15,000 to 22,000 winter in the park, according to National Park Service biologists.
Are wolves to blame?
Doug Smith and Daniel Stahler (NPS wolf biologists) and John Vucetich (Michigan Tech biologist) joined forces to investigate the influence of harvest, climate and wolf predation on Yellowstone elk. The three built computer models based on elk-related data prior to wolf restoration (1961-1995). The goal was to use the best of these models to predict how elk populations might have fared, had the wolves never been reintroduced.
Their models suggested that human harvest (hunting) might be "super-additive," that for every one percent increase in the harvest rate, elk population growth rate would decline by more than one percent.
"According to the best-performing model, which accounts for harvest rate and climate, the elk population would have been expected to decline by 7.9 percent per year, on average, between 1995 and 2004," they wrote in a study published by the peer-reviewed journal of ecology, Oikos. "Within the limits of uncertainty, which are not trivial, climate and harvest rate are justified explanations for most of the observed elk decline. To the extent that this is true, we suggest that between 1995 and 2004 wolf predation was primarily compensatory (of no significance)."
The researchers acknowledge that some wildlife managers and segments of the general public believe the decline of the northern range elk herd is attributable to wolf predation. "Our analysis indicates that there is greater justification for believing that the harvest rate and severe climate, together, account for at least much of the decline," they wrote.
Competing view
Yet ungulate biologist P.J. White (NPS) and ecologist Dr. Bob Garrott (Montana State), in a paper for Biological Conservation (2005) contend that the rapid growth of the wolf population has in fact contributed to rapid demographic decline for elk.
White and Garrott have also speculated that as wolf recovery continues, there will be greater numbers of bison and antelope, because of wolf pressure on elk and coyote populations, respectively.
Yet wolves are beginning to take bison in the park's interior. The Pelican Valley wolf pack hunts bison in late winter when they are more vulnerable and migratory elk are not available. White and Garrott suggest that a change of prey preference from elk to bison, by wolves, could lead to stable populations for elk and bison.
"Counts of northern Yellowstone elk have decreased more than predicted," wrote White and Garrott, "and counts will likely continue to decrease in the near future given the strong preference of wolves for elk and the high kill rates."
In a telephone interview, White said he believes that wolves have overshot their favored prey base of elk.
"I don't think (the elk population) decline is entirely due to wolves," said White. A moderate to liberal harvest policy has played a role, he said, as well as predation by a growing population of grizzly bears.
But simple answers are both elusive and often wrong, say scientists, citing the sheer complexity of the northern range ecosystem.
White said ruefully that 10 years after the reintroduction of wolves, "the range of predictions is as large as it was before." Past predictions have been spot-on, but others have been wildly off the mark. Today, there's disagreement on whether wolf predation is negligible or significant, where the elk and wolf populations will eventually settle, and at what level the elk hunting harvest can be sustainable.
What everyone would agree to, is that ongoing research is needed to better understand the complexity of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.
Elk Facts
Elk are the second largest antlered animals in the world, only moose are larger. Bull elk are 4.5 to 5 feet tall at the shoulder and weigh 550 to 800 pounds. Cow elk weigh from 450 to 600 pounds. The National Elk Refuge near Jackson, Wyoming, has an elk herd with consists approximately 20 percent bulls, 65 percent cows, and 15 percent calves.
While most members of the deer family are primarily browsers (feeding on twigs and leaves of shrubs and trees), elk are both browsers and grazers, feeding extensively on grasses and forbs, as well as shrubs.
Grizzly bears, black bears, mountain lions, wolves, and coyotes prey on elk. By weeding out the weak, predators help maintain healthy, vigorous elk herds.
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The USFWS is the agency that stold tens of millions of dollars from the Pittman/Robertson fund, these are funds that were supposed to go back to the states for wildlife management. Jim Beers, the former employee who blew the whistle and testified before congress on the subject, I beleive has also stated those funds were used to "introduce" northern canadian wolves into Idaho and Montana. :twocents:
The former Director of the USFWS now works for Defenders of Wildlife. :twocents:
Why would any person of average intelligence think that the USFWS is being honest about the impacts of wolves. :twocents:
Post by: Huntnphish on June 09, 2011, 01:53:57 AM
The former Director of the USFWS now works for Defenders of Wildlife. :twocents: Why would any person of average intelligence think that the USFWS is being honest about the impacts of wolves. :twocents:
EXACTLY!!!! They are not being honest and have a contingency plan already in effect, knowing that the only way they get the target BP of 15 is to secretively plant them, I think Robert knows this too and doesnt want to admit it. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on June 09, 2011, 02:20:41 AM
Quote
As far as national parks like yellowstone go, wolves are being managed. Wolves die from other things like disease, starvation, getting hit by cars, etc. I do find it a bit odd that Washington has a lot of cougars and as of now, they are killing many more deer and elk than wolves and all people seem to focus on is wolves. There seems to be a lot of hate for wolves and not that much hate for cougars even though there are by far many more cougars in WA and they are killing many more deer and elk than wolves as of now.
This is exactly what you can expect from the wolf fraternity. They want to take your attention off the wolf issue with silly little arguments like this. Consider this a learning process for hunters. :twocents:
I have posted on pro-wolf sites and posted data they could not argue against, I was banned because they could not deal with the facts. :chuckle:
robertg has ignored any questions regarding his lack of facts. He claims science is on his side but that is a lie. All the new science says that the land and herds can not support the number of wolves desired by the wolfers. He cleverly avoids the decline of elk in other areas and prefers to focus on YNP, claiming that wolves were needed there because the herd was unmanaged. That's a lie, as I have stated before and is recorded by surrounding states, elk herds were managed with thousand of permits issued to hunters. YNP elk were being managed by man and could have been reduced by additional hunting if desired. The Yellowstone Migration hunts were some of the best elk hunting in the world, but that has been destroyed by wolves. Nearly all of the migration hunting has been curtailed because wolves have reduced the Northern YNP herd from nearly 20,000 to less than 5,000. Now, many of the YNP wolves are dispersing to new areas to destroy other herds.
Funny he says wolves are being managed in YNP by natural causes, but on the other hand he claims elk were not being managed, which way is it robert, you can't have it both ways to suit your fancy. :twocents:
Hunters are concerned about growing cougar numbers, herds are barely able to withstand the impacts of too many cougar. Funny robert says we are not concerned about cougar, Oh that's right, you wolf lovers are also cougar lovers and have effectively halted cougar management in Washington. :twocents:
Post by: Dave Workman on June 09, 2011, 03:44:15 AM
robert g two questions 1 what do you think is the correct number of breeding pairs for wa?
2 what is your personal feelings on gun ownership?
This thread is getting rediculous. Sadly, this is what we're going to face as we move forward with wolf recovery in WA. If hunters don't put their heads together and come up with a coherent plan that addresses wolf numbers and management in a way that can satisfy the stakeholders, then we're screwed.
I really think this thread is so far off topic that it's usefulness has been lost. Wolves are here to stay. If hunters aren't going to be involved in a reasonable attempt to manage them, then we're not going to see anything happen that might benefit this percieved crisis.
Basically, what I'm saying is that we need to get our $hit together and start thinking of some constructive ideas...more constructive than whining about the nativity, politics, gun rights, ... whatever other nonsense is here that has nothing to do with wolf recovery and our (hunters) having some part in the planning of a wolf plan. :twocents:
The problem is not that hunters refuse to get involved...their input seems to be considered irrelevant by the people dominating this discussion in Olympia and Ellensburg, and you should know that.
As we have already seen in Montana and Idaho, until the state takes over, the concerns of hunters are meaningless to wolf advocates, and if they were honest they would admit it.
However, honesty seems to have taken flight, along with "good faith." When wolf reintroduction began, there was a target level. When that level was reached, wolves were supposed to have been taken off the ESL. But instead, the wolf advocates intervened with lawsuits to stop or delay the process. That is fact, it is indisputable, and it established a track record for these people. No matter what level we reach with wolves, for them there will never be enough.
The wolf advocates here need to "man-up" and acknowledge that. If you believe we can reach a rational solution with people who have not acted honestly, honorably or, in some cases, rationally, then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
I mentioned this yesterday...the Neville Chamberlain approach. Appeasement and negotiation has only so much horsepower before there is a confrontation. At some point, responsible people must draw a line and put a stop to the nonsense.
Post by: Dave Workman on June 09, 2011, 04:21:23 AM
Robert- you're going to loss any credibility by not being a hunter on a hunting website, but I don't think it's all that bad that you're here. We're all going to have to work together in the wolf recovery. If hunters think they can manage this deal without input from antihunters they're crazy. EVERYONE is going to be at the table. I'm glad to hear your input
I don't hunt, but I'm always open to what the other side has to say. The only way anything will get done is if all sides come together and talk about it. All the talk about "sss" and wanting wolves exterminated will not help anything.
Item #1:
Wacoyote: I think your effort to be diplomatic with wolf advocates is going to leave you bleeding from knife wounds in the back. People who have watched this drama unfold over the years have, albeit reluctantly perhaps, come to the realization that you cannot practice diplomacy with people who simply will not negotiate in good faith.
Item #2
Robertg: I honestly don't think you give a rat's ass about what "the other side has to say." The more wolf advocates obfuscate and obstruct with lawsuits the natural progression of de-listing...which will result in hunting...the more you are going to provoke the "SSS" philosophy, and you know it.
The sad part about all of this is that hunters in Idaho and Montana, and livestock people have learned through experience — all of it bad — to not trust wolf advocates, and program biologists in and out of the USFWS and state fish and game agencies (and soon in a state fish and wildlife agency, I predict).
But these people lost that trust all on their own. They threw it away in their zeal to have howling wolves within earshot of every campground on the map, or so it would seem.
Personally, it hasn't bothered me to know there are wolves here and there. I saw wolves in Yakima County on opening day of elk season in 2004, promptly reporting that sighting to a guy I know at WDFW and the very first thing he said was "They're not ours." Well, then whose were they?
No, I didn't "SSS" the wolves, even though they were hot on the track of a cow elk that had passed my way about 20 minutes before.
You cannot expect to push people into a corner and keep them there under the guise of negotiation and cooperation, as the wolf advocates evidently believe they can push hunters and ranchers. Eventually, those hunters and ranchers are going to push back, and the more unfaithfully they are treated now, the worse that backlash is going to be.
Post by: Dave Workman on June 09, 2011, 04:29:45 AM
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015269378_wolves09m.html (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015269378_wolves09m.html)
Members of a Methow Valley ranching family have been charged in the killing of several endangered gray wolves and the attempt to illegally mail at least one of the pelts to Canada in a bloody box.
A federal grand jury Tuesday handed up a 12-count indictment that accuses Bill White and his son Tom White, of the Twisp area in Okanogan County, of poaching at least two wolves and then conspiring with Tom's wife, Erin White, to smuggle one of the pelts to an acquaintance in Alberta. The men may have killed another three of the endangered species, according to the indictment.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 09, 2011, 05:19:59 AM
So what are you suggesting hunters do? If hunters refuse to meet somewhere in the middle we will be left sitting in the corner with a pouty look on our face and our arms crossed while everyone else decides what's going to be done. If we don't make some type of intelligent engagement we're not going to be taken seriously. :twocents:
The wolf advocates here need to "man-up" and acknowledge that. If you believe we can reach a rational solution with people who have not acted honestly, honorably or, in some cases, rationally, then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
I mentioned this yesterday...the Neville Chamberlain approach. Appeasement and negotiation has only so much horsepower before there is a confrontation. At some point, responsible people must draw a line and put a stop to the nonsense.
Post by: grundy53 on June 09, 2011, 06:10:29 AM
So what are you suggesting hunters do? If hunters refuse to meet somewhere in the middle we will be left sitting in the corner with a pouty look on our face and our arms crossed while everyone else decides what's going to be done. If we don't make some type of intelligent engagement we're not going to be taken seriously. :twocents:
The wolf advocates here need to "man-up" and acknowledge that. If you believe we can reach a rational solution with people who have not acted honestly, honorably or, in some cases, rationally, then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
I mentioned this yesterday...the Neville Chamberlain approach. Appeasement and negotiation has only so much horsepower before there is a confrontation. At some point, responsible people must draw a line and put a stop to the nonsense.
Your argument sounds very reasonable.... There in lies the problem though. The DOW are not reasonable people. If we go your route what will happen is DOW will tell the state what they want to do. Then the state will do it and be able to say with a straight face that they came to this decision with the help and support of hunters. Sound familiar? I don't think we should bend over backwards and let these people stick a knife into our back. If they try to leave us sitting in the corner then we need to get even louder. Don't let them ignore us. Be loud enough that that have no choice but to listen. If this was a fairy tale world I would have no problem with your plan. I would meet them half way. But in reality they won't settle for half and I think any semi intelligent human being can look at Idaho,Montana, and Wyoming and see that. They won't budge. Even when you meet THEIR goals they will just adjust THEIR goals higher. You can't reason with these people.... :twocents:
Post by: Skyvalhunter on June 09, 2011, 06:14:52 AM
Post by: billythekidrock on June 09, 2011, 06:19:09 AM
So what are you suggesting hunters do? If hunters refuse to meet somewhere in the middle we will be left sitting in the corner with a pouty look on our face and our arms crossed while everyone else decides what's going to be done. If we don't make some type of intelligent engagement we're not going to be taken seriously. :twocents:
The wolf advocates here need to "man-up" and acknowledge that. If you believe we can reach a rational solution with people who have not acted honestly, honorably or, in some cases, rationally, then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
I mentioned this yesterday...the Neville Chamberlain approach. Appeasement and negotiation has only so much horsepower before there is a confrontation. At some point, responsible people must draw a line and put a stop to the nonsense.
Exactly.
It is happening and we can't stop it so we may as well work towards something in the middle.
Post by: bearpaw on June 09, 2011, 06:34:03 AM
Quote
“The majority of the scientific reviewers agree with NPCA that a higher number of breeding pairs is needed to produce a sustainable wolf population in Washington,” said David G. Graves, the NPCA's Northwest field representative.
According to NPCA officials, some scientists who conducted an independent peer review of the state's DEIS found that its population recommendations are not biologically defensible and will not ensure the ‘reestablishment of a self-sustaining population of gray wolves in Washington.’
Folks here is a perfect example of how the wolfers are using this "self sustaining wolf population argument" to justify that we need 15 or more breeding pairs in Washington.
HERE ARE WOLF FACTS THAT ARE HARD TO IGNORE
The government now considers wolves from Alaska to Wisconsin to Utah as one breed of wolf. FACT
Government data illistrates that wolves are moving back and forth across state and provincial borders. FACT
Government data has shown that in 6 months 1 wolf traveled over 1000 miles across 5 states. FACT
Government DNA testing has shown that Washington wolves are migrating in from Canada and Idaho/Montana. FACT
USFWS has acknowledged that Washington wolves are part of a greater wolf population and delisted the eastern 1/3. FACT
Congress acknowledged that Washington wolves are part of a greater wolf population and delisted the eastern 1/3. FACT
The gray wolf population in North America is estmated by the USFWS at roughly 60,000 animals. FACT
This is far more wolves than is needed for genetic viability according to any popular population model. FACT
Population Information source is the USFWS: http://library.fws.gov/pubs3/wolves00.pdf (http://library.fws.gov/pubs3/wolves00.pdf)
Population Viability Analysis: www.cfr.washington.edu/classes.esrm.458/Esc458-6/LECT6.PPT (http://www.cfr.washington.edu/classes.esrm.458/Esc458-6/LECT6.PPT)
Evidence shows Washington does not need a selff sustaining wolf population, Washington is already part of a larger self sustaining and growing wolf popualtion. :twocents:
Post by: Dave Workman on June 09, 2011, 06:35:28 AM
So what are you suggesting hunters do? If hunters refuse to meet somewhere in the middle we will be left sitting in the corner with a pouty look on our face and our arms crossed while everyone else decides what's going to be done. If we don't make some type of intelligent engagement we're not going to be taken seriously. :twocents:
This may come as something of a shock, but you're probably not being taken seriously now.
Think about this: What would stop the hunting community from filing a preemptive federal lawsuit to REQUIRE the state and feds AND ESPECIALLY the wolf advocacy groups, to adhere to a management plan that sets a threshold of X-number of breeding pairs and that mandates that upon reaching that threshold, the state would be required to open a hunting season on the animals. Period, end of story.
Up to now, the Defenders of Wildlife have been playing court games and getting away with it thanks to what appears to be a sympathetic judge. Ultimately, this issue could end up before the Supreme Court.
Post by: Jack Diamond on June 09, 2011, 06:39:26 AM
Post by: grundy53 on June 09, 2011, 06:40:18 AM
So what are you suggesting hunters do? If hunters refuse to meet somewhere in the middle we will be left sitting in the corner with a pouty look on our face and our arms crossed while everyone else decides what's going to be done. If we don't make some type of intelligent engagement we're not going to be taken seriously. :twocents:
The wolf advocates here need to "man-up" and acknowledge that. If you believe we can reach a rational solution with people who have not acted honestly, honorably or, in some cases, rationally, then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
I mentioned this yesterday...the Neville Chamberlain approach. Appeasement and negotiation has only so much horsepower before there is a confrontation. At some point, responsible people must draw a line and put a stop to the nonsense.
Exactly.
It is happening and we can't stop it so we may as well work towards something in the middle.
Do you actually believe DOW will negotiate? Do you think they will meet us in the middle? I'm not that naive. They have proven they will lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want. And you guys want to trust them?
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 09, 2011, 06:46:28 AM
That is exactly what mentioned earlier. I think it's a good idea Dave. Sticking to that simple solution might be better than making a huge fuss over other topics that are not going to gain any headway with the DFW or with the pro wolf groups.So what are you suggesting hunters do? If hunters refuse to meet somewhere in the middle we will be left sitting in the corner with a pouty look on our face and our arms crossed while everyone else decides what's going to be done. If we don't make some type of intelligent engagement we're not going to be taken seriously. :twocents:
This may come as something of a shock, but you're probably not being taken seriously now.
Think about this: What would stop the hunting community from filing a preemptive federal lawsuit to REQUIRE the state and feds AND ESPECIALLY the wolf advocacy groups, to adhere to a management plan that sets a threshold of X-number of breeding pairs and that mandates that upon reaching that threshold, the state would be required to open a hunting season on the animals. Period, end of story.
Up to now, the Defenders of Wildlife have been playing court games and getting away with it thanks to what appears to be a sympathetic judge. Ultimately, this issue could end up before the Supreme Court.
IMO- the parasites and nativity arguments are not going to gain a lot of ground. I might be wrong, but I think they make hunters look like alarmists and will only deteroiate credibility. Again, maybe I'm wrong?
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 09, 2011, 06:49:56 AM
"So what are you suggesting hunters do? If hunters refuse to meet somewhere in the middle we will be left sitting in the corner with a pouty look on our face and our arms crossed while everyone else decides what's going to be done. If we don't make some type of intelligent engagement we're not going to be taken seriously."
Successful negotiations dictate a strong stance, usually stronger than that for which you are willing to settle. You don't give an inch of your stance. You have to remember that most of these wolf people aren't just for introducing wolves, they're against hunting at all. So by trying to find middle ground (which they won't), you sink deeper into the hole. You can speak respectfully to people and still not give ground. If you believe that wolves are wrong for this state, then that's your stance. If you start out by making concessions, you'll lose even more ground by the end. Arm yourself with information and facts from MT, ID, and WY to call these people onto the carpet. Learn about the parasites. Get real numbers from RMEF and the F&W dept.s of those other states. Most of these hosers are emotional nut jobs with little in the way of real knowledge. When faced with real facts, they just get mad and run away.
Post by: bearpaw on June 09, 2011, 06:52:28 AM
to go view wolves in the wild would require a discovery pass which is $30
deer bear elk and cougar tag $79.20
Which is more money for the state?
Plus if someone would like to view wolves wouldnt they already be viewing wildlife and have a discovery pass?
Where are after the wolves wipe out the elk population and move onto others they will not sell tags for them.
https://fishhunt.dfw.wa.gov/ so you can check the prices yourself
Last numbers I saw indicate that only 3.7% of the state's population (and decreasing) hunt. If they can sell a discovery pass to 9.77% of the state (roughly 10% of non-hunters) they make the same amount.
I disagree:
The Discover Pass is for access to state lands.
1. You would have to assume that everyone goes to state land to see wolves.
2. There is an option for a day pass for $10.
3. If there is any wildlife watching for wolves, people can go to the National Forest system for free.
4. History shows that most small towns in Idaho and Montana have seen a decrease in tourist dollars with loss of hunters.
Post by: bearpaw on June 09, 2011, 06:55:29 AM
Are you kidding? Look back through the posts. Lots of people are talking about taking this into their own hands.
yesterday, a guy by the name of machias said "we need to kill every wolf we see and don't stop until they are all dead". I didn't see his comment on here, so I assume the mods took it off. Extremist attitudes like this won't do the hunter's cause any good. Advocating breaking the law doesn't help anyone's cause.
So robertg following the law, how's that working for Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Minn, Wis??
It's working good. Come fall, there will be a hunting season on wolves in Idaho and Montana.
Upon what do you base your comment robertg, history has shown that the wolfers will use the courts to shut down hunting seasons and wolf populations continue to grow, how can you say that won't happen in Washington. :bdid:
Post by: bearpaw on June 09, 2011, 06:59:24 AM
You can not win anything by always being on the defense. :twocents:
Post by: seth30 on June 09, 2011, 07:01:12 AM
Post by: bearpaw on June 09, 2011, 07:02:31 AM
Attack to defend :twocents:
:tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 09, 2011, 07:37:40 AM
to go view wolves in the wild would require a discovery pass which is $30
deer bear elk and cougar tag $79.20
Which is more money for the state?
Plus if someone would like to view wolves wouldnt they already be viewing wildlife and have a discovery pass?
Where are after the wolves wipe out the elk population and move onto others they will not sell tags for them.
https://fishhunt.dfw.wa.gov/ so you can check the prices yourself
Last numbers I saw indicate that only 3.7% of the state's population (and decreasing) hunt. If they can sell a discovery pass to 9.77% of the state (roughly 10% of non-hunters) they make the same amount.
I disagree:
The Discover Pass is for access to state lands.
1. You would have to assume that everyone goes to state land to see wolves.
2. There is an option for a day pass for $10.
3. If there is any wildlife watching for wolves, people can go to the National Forest system for free.
4. History shows that most small towns in Idaho and Montana have seen a decrease in tourist dollars with loss of hunters.
A bit off topic but this State's Administration has a habit of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Even if there is a shred of positive outcome from this new tax they will begin to divert funds to the General fund, it is one of my biggest gripes. Tax me for something then use it for that, don't divert funds again and again all the while raising that tax. It is why Tim Eyman has such a following.
Another grip, it is argued that Game Departments cater to hunters and fishermen, we pay the bills. So yeah, that has been the case. On a bigger scale these people who are against us have their eyes set on stealing our taxed hunting dollars at both a Federal and State level. It would be nice to get some assistance from the NRA or another large Nationwide organization that could use our State as a battle ground for this issue.
Post by: mulehunter on June 09, 2011, 07:56:45 AM
I am very thankful to have delcious dinner who managed cattles from predators.
Mulehunter.
Post by: BIGINNER on June 09, 2011, 07:58:28 AM
If I own 300 cattles on 1,000 acrege below mountain with wolves hanging out above the property. People have to understand if wolves start to howling above my house. Trust me I would not trust all biologlists if wolves start to kill my cattles. People have no idea how all ranchers feel. Its something need to be fixed. I believe all ranchers aren't poachers. They have to spend lot of time to fix all fence and all year around protecting cattles from wolves.
I am very thankful to have delcious dinner who managed cattles from predators.
Mulehunter.
IF YOU NEED ANY HELP PROTECTING THE CATTLE, JUST LET ME KNOW :tup: :IBCOOL:
Post by: Special T on June 09, 2011, 08:08:54 AM
1) Fight within the system to bet a proper outcome. I believe this is what Wacoyote Hunter recommends.. Argue the facts, hold people accountable and bargain for the best "Deal" possible.
2) Attack the money side of the problem. Go after the funding of the enforcement of the ESA, The funding of ESA related work by the WDFW, or the misuse of pitman roberts funds.
Examples of option 1's downfalls are evident in this post. Playing within the system against a stacked deck is a suckers proposition. Not only do we not hold any cards but we are able to sidetracked and marginalized just like in this thread.... I for one have little trust in the WDFW or the USFS on this matter so why would i talk to them? It is a good tactic for them and not us... Not to mention this route is how MT and ID chose to deal with it and how has it worked out for the?
Option 2 is much cleaner in my mind EVERYONE is concerned about $$$ right now... You have a larger more sympathetic audience about government misuse of funds. It also easier to point out the lack of common sense in what is happening. I think it is easier to avoid being pidgin holed by or adversaries. Everyone is more likely to be concerned about $$$ Not just dumb ignorant rednecks that are only concerned will killing animals, like me. :twocents:
Post by: Machias on June 09, 2011, 08:37:28 AM
Post by: Dave Workman on June 09, 2011, 08:39:34 AM
Methow Valley ranchers Bill White and his son, Tom and Tom’s wife, Erin have been indicted by a federal grand jury in Spokane for wolf poaching, adding more fuel to a debate that has been raging this week over wolf reintroduction in Washington State.
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/methow-ranchers-indicted-for-wolf-killings-as-battle-lines-drawn (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/methow-ranchers-indicted-for-wolf-killings-as-battle-lines-drawn)
Post by: Huntnphish on June 09, 2011, 09:02:53 AM
Quote
A weasel is a Democrat congressman from New York who sends lewd images of himself to women and then lies about it to everyone, including his pregnant wife.
:chuckle:
Post by: trippledigitss on June 09, 2011, 09:18:25 AM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,77285.0.ht (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,77285.0.html)
there are many hunters from WA who are preaching "sss" and want wolves exterminated from WA. Just look at that link and these people arew supposed to be so called conservationists.All these people care about is having large #s of deer and elk to shoot.
If you are interested, the Times comment section can be referenced here: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/reader_feedback/public/display.php?registration_return=true&source_name=mbase&source_id=2015269378&offset=20 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/reader_feedback/public/display.php?registration_return=true&source_name=mbase&source_id=2015269378&offset=20)
Just a friendly heads up
Post by: sebek556 on June 09, 2011, 09:26:07 AM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 09, 2011, 10:01:53 AM
Methow ranchers indicted for wolf killings as battle lines drawn
Methow Valley ranchers Bill White and his son, Tom and Tom’s wife, Erin have been indicted by a federal grand jury in Spokane for wolf poaching, adding more fuel to a debate that has been raging this week over wolf reintroduction in Washington State.
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/methow-ranchers-indicted-for-wolf-killings-as-battle-lines-drawn (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/methow-ranchers-indicted-for-wolf-killings-as-battle-lines-drawn)
Good job :tup:
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 09, 2011, 10:44:44 AM
Not sure if this has already been posted on this thread but a commenter named "rickg1" supposedly from Missoula on the Seattle Times comment section posted a link to this thread with the following comment:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,77285.0.ht (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,77285.0.html)
there are many hunters from WA who are preaching "sss" and want wolves exterminated from WA. Just look at that link and these people arew supposed to be so called conservationists.All these people care about is having large #s of deer and elk to shoot.
If you are interested, the Times comment section can be referenced here: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/reader_feedback/public/display.php?registration_return=true&source_name=mbase&source_id=2015269378&offset=20 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/reader_feedback/public/display.php?registration_return=true&source_name=mbase&source_id=2015269378&offset=20)
Just a friendly heads up
This is exactly what I was saying about the posts in here. Folks from the outside see this and we as hunters lose credibility. Here's the proof. Hunters are not the only ones reading on our site.
Post by: trippledigitss on June 09, 2011, 11:59:30 AM
This is exactly what I was saying about the posts in here. Folks from the outside see this and we as hunters lose credibility. Here's the proof. Hunters are not the only ones reading on our site.
I dont know what all is in this thread as I havent been reading it - but that was exactly my same concern and what I wanted everyone here to be aware of.
Post by: Bob33 on June 09, 2011, 12:06:42 PM
Post by: Machias on June 09, 2011, 12:15:49 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 09, 2011, 12:51:00 PM
Post by: Dave Workman on June 09, 2011, 01:05:15 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 09, 2011, 01:19:02 PM
what is SSS please?Shoot, Skin, Ship to Canada
Post by: denali on June 09, 2011, 01:24:07 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 09, 2011, 01:59:30 PM
what is SSS please?Shoot, Skin, Ship to Canada
:bdid: :police: :spank_butt:
Post by: Dave Workman on June 09, 2011, 04:07:18 PM
I gotta tell you guys for several years I felt exactly as WAcoyotehunter. I liked the idea of having wolves in the mountains and believed once we reached the original management objectives that they would be delisted and both sides would be happy, Managed wolves back in the wilds. That they were bigger than the original species, did not really bother me. That some elk numbers would go down was expected and did not bother me. I did not support or condon the SSS crowd, I believed it was counter productive for our side. After watching the last 3 to 5 years unfold I have come to the realization that I'm a fricken moron. The GOVERNMENT and the pro wolf advocates have no intention of ever compromising with us. I have gone to the three year meetings with WDFW and have seen first hand they have no intentions of taking anything we ask for into consideration. The few times they have capitulated on a issue is when we have, in force, confronted them and demaded action (Bear season in Aug). On this issue WDFW and the Pro wolf advocates will not in any way meet us anywhere near the middle. So what options do we have? Lawsuits? I don't believe with the liberal courts in this state (upholding unconstitutional ballot initiatives 655 and 713) will give us any relief. So what are we left with? We are left to fight for our heritage or give up and bitch an moan in a few years. I believe we will all be fishing in just a few short years. I see it as almost a sure thing. :'(
I believe machias has certainly illustrated why there is such animosity in the community toward the WDFW and wolf reintroduction advocates...and this is a "reintroduction" effort. They have even said so.
Post by: billythekidrock on June 09, 2011, 04:21:26 PM
Not sure if this has already been posted on this thread but a commenter named "rickg1" supposedly from Missoula on the Seattle Times comment section posted a link to this thread with the following comment:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,77285.0.ht (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,77285.0.html)
there are many hunters from WA who are preaching "sss" and want wolves exterminated from WA. Just look at that link and these people arew supposed to be so called conservationists.All these people care about is having large #s of deer and elk to shoot.
If you are interested, the Times comment section can be referenced here: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/reader_feedback/public/display.php?registration_return=true&source_name=mbase&source_id=2015269378&offset=20 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/reader_feedback/public/display.php?registration_return=true&source_name=mbase&source_id=2015269378&offset=20)
Just a friendly heads up
These types of threads should be private for members only to hash out a proper plan, not open to the world.
This thread makes all hunters look like a bunch of uneducated rednecks and does nothing for the cause when there are SSS type comments and uninformed rhetoric.
Post by: seth30 on June 09, 2011, 04:40:42 PM
Post by: Huntnphish on June 09, 2011, 04:42:23 PM
I believe machias has certainly illustrated why there is such animosity in the community toward the WDFW and wolf reintroduction advocates...and this is a "reintroduction" effort. They have even said so.
But even the pro wolf advocates like Robertg admit there is no reason.
There is no reason to reintroduce wolves to Washington when they are already come over naturally from places like Idaho and Canada.
Post by: True Sportsman on June 09, 2011, 04:50:34 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 09, 2011, 04:54:07 PM
Not sure if this has already been posted on this thread but a commenter named "rickg1" supposedly from Missoula on the Seattle Times comment section posted a link to this thread with the following comment:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,77285.0.ht (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,77285.0.html)
there are many hunters from WA who are preaching "sss" and want wolves exterminated from WA. Just look at that link and these people arew supposed to be so called conservationists.All these people care about is having large #s of deer and elk to shoot.
If you are interested, the Times comment section can be referenced here: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/reader_feedback/public/display.php?registration_return=true&source_name=mbase&source_id=2015269378&offset=20 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/reader_feedback/public/display.php?registration_return=true&source_name=mbase&source_id=2015269378&offset=20)
Just a friendly heads up
These types of threads should be private for members only to hash out a proper plan, not open to the world.
This thread makes all hunters look like a bunch of uneducated rednecks and does nothing for the cause when there are SSS type comments and uninformed rhetoric.
It won't matter. I have been receiving spam in my inbox and in my facebook account from people who are attacking me over this issue. Would 80 senseless hate filled emails equal harassment?. I don't think they are from H-W they are out of Oregan. If people are going to glean posts and only see posts that justify their preconceived ideals that is all they are going to see. If they can't find cause to dismiss anything other than their stance it they will create cause to dismiss us. It is part of the brainwashing. They have to attack me because they can't stand the idea that I might have valid points.
SSS = jail. If you are doing it like illegal drugs, theft and murder I'd recommend keeping it to yourself. That is the shut up part. If you are beating your chest as an armchair warrior it's cowardly. I for one do not think I am man enough for Federal Prision. Lawful debate and trying to reason for a sensible Wolf Plan for the State that serves the people of Washington is what I want. Hunters are going to have to give. Ranchers will have to change some practices. And, hopefully the Pro Wolf Agenda will be checked before the damage is equal to or worse than Idaho.
OK, enough, I'm off the soapbox.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 09, 2011, 04:57:22 PM
35 pages is a long thread. What have i missed in pages 2 thru 34?
We solved all the worlds problems and brought peace to the Middle East, then accidentally a moderator hit the delete key and reset things to the way they were yesterday :bash:
Post by: Huntnphish on June 09, 2011, 05:07:13 PM
Quote
Translocation (moving animals from one recovery region in Washington to another for the purpose of establishing a new population) is a conservation tool in the draft plan that may be used to establish and expand wolf populations in recovery regions that wolves have failed to reach through natural dispersal.
Does anyone have the slightest doubt that they have already planned to do this?
The second clip should really have you upset
Quote
The effects that wolves will have on elk, deer, and other ungulate populations and hunter harvest are difficult to predict, but observations from neighboring states suggest that as wolf numbers increase in Washington, there are likely to be localized impacts on ungulate abundance or habitat use. Improved habitat management, flexibility in harvest strategies, and greater prevention of illegal hunting are recommended as measures for sustaining healthy ungulate populations that will support wolves and maintain harvest opportunities.
I hope you all understand what they are quietly saying here.
Post by: jackelope on June 09, 2011, 05:36:16 PM
Robert, do you honestly believe 15 breeding pairs will "naturally" make their way into this state? I seriously doubt this state will ever have more "naturally" breeding pairs than it does now, the only way I ever see 15 is if they are transplanted. :twocents:
I don't believe wolves will be transplanted. I think over time, more wolves will end up in WA. This 15 breeding pairs is not something that I think is going to happen quickly.
Transplant from other states is not in the plan but I believe translocation within state lines is part of the plan when the time comes.
Lots of good info in this thread. Lots of junk too.
Post by: ICEMAN on June 09, 2011, 06:15:13 PM
By the way, for those that have not read the draft proposal here is a couple clips from it. First it clearly states that they may "translocate" wolves.QuoteTranslocation (moving animals from one recovery region in Washington to another for the purpose of establishing a new population) is a conservation tool in the draft plan that may be used to establish and expand wolf populations in recovery regions that wolves have failed to reach through natural dispersal.
Does anyone have the slightest doubt that they have already planned to do this?
The second clip should really have you upsetQuoteThe effects that wolves will have on elk, deer, and other ungulate populations and hunter harvest are difficult to predict, but observations from neighboring states suggest that as wolf numbers increase in Washington, there are likely to be localized impacts on ungulate abundance or habitat use. Improved habitat management, flexibility in harvest strategies, and greater prevention of illegal hunting are recommended as measures for sustaining healthy ungulate populations that will support wolves and maintain harvest opportunities.
I hope you all understand what they are quietly saying here.
It means they understand that game populations will decrease, hunters will lose opportunities, and they will lockup the woods to prevent "illegal hunting" in any area which may have wolves.
Post by: Machias on June 09, 2011, 06:19:03 PM
Lawful debate and trying to reason for a sensible Wolf Plan for the State that serves the people of Washington is what I want. Hunters are going to have to give. Ranchers will have to change some practices. And, hopefully the Pro Wolf Agenda will be checked before the damage is equal to or worse than Idaho.
OK, enough, I'm off the soapbox.
I throuoghly enjoy and agree with your thoughts and ideas so I'd like your thoughts and opinions on what do hunters have to give? We have no bargainning chips that I'm aware of, no numbers, no clout, no political muscle, nothing compared to the other side. How will the ranchers change exactly? And what gives you even a glimmer of hope that the last line is possible...to any degree at all? Please give me a glimmer of hope, any at all because I have seen no evidence of it in the past 5 years. I value your advice.
Post by: bobcat on June 09, 2011, 07:23:23 PM
Not sure if this has already been posted on this thread but a commenter named "rickg1" supposedly from Missoula on the Seattle Times comment section posted a link to this thread with the following comment:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,77285.0.ht (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,77285.0.html)
there are many hunters from WA who are preaching "sss" and want wolves exterminated from WA. Just look at that link and these people arew supposed to be so called conservationists.All these people care about is having large #s of deer and elk to shoot.
If you are interested, the Times comment section can be referenced here: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/reader_feedback/public/display.php?registration_return=true&source_name=mbase&source_id=2015269378&offset=20 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/reader_feedback/public/display.php?registration_return=true&source_name=mbase&source_id=2015269378&offset=20)
Just a friendly heads up
These types of threads should be private for members only to hash out a proper plan, not open to the world.
This thread makes all hunters look like a bunch of uneducated rednecks and does nothing for the cause when there are SSS type comments and uninformed rhetoric.
Maybe this should be in the political forum so only members can see it?
Post by: seth30 on June 09, 2011, 07:47:04 PM
Post by: dscubame on June 09, 2011, 07:48:19 PM
Post by: dscubame on June 09, 2011, 08:00:50 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 09, 2011, 08:01:00 PM
Post by: dscubame on June 09, 2011, 08:03:52 PM
I do wonder if that robertg came in and set it up a bit.
Post by: sebek556 on June 09, 2011, 08:04:35 PM
open yes shows everyone our emotion an passion about this issue, but when these emtoins hit the boiling point and angry keys are typed it looks bad.
open also shows other like minded organizations out thoughts and argument on this issue, but also our enemy so they can prepare arguments against.
closed would turn into our eyes only and who is to say we do not currently have enemy's within already?(pretty sure we do) no like there is a screening to join and there shouldnt be.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 09, 2011, 08:30:40 PM
Starting a thread for WFW members on top of this might be OK but why move or lock it? I feel people have been respectful and no rules have been violated. Even the mass cut and paste rule has been observed hasn't it? People like Robertg are allowed to express a point of view. I never felt he was rude or hostile. In order to bring people to WFW we need emotional issues to spur involvement. The suppression of ideas will chase people off. It is the threats, smears, trolling, and such that should be controlled. People knowing they will be banned and posts erased is enough. I owe each of you moderaters a drink some day. Thanks guys.
Using the swear filter was a good move :tup:
Post by: jackelope on June 09, 2011, 08:48:12 PM
Keep it here where it is for everyone to see it.
:twocents:
Ohh and next time someone decides to make a documentary about the damage wolves do to get the truth out and change everyone's minds and provide all the proof everyone's been waiting for forever, don't charge $16 for it and sell it on the internet. Some of you will surely know what I'm talking about.
Post by: Lowedog on June 09, 2011, 08:55:38 PM
Ohh and next time someone decides to make a documentary about the damage wolves do to get the truth out and change everyone's minds and provide all the proof everyone's been waiting for forever, don't charge $16 for it and sell it on the internet. Some of you will surely know what I'm talking about.
I was really looking forward to the "truth" too until I found out I had to pay for it.
Post by: denali on June 10, 2011, 09:47:37 AM
"Will there be impacts on ungulates (deer and elk) that certain people hunt? Probably. As a deer and elk hunter, that would be me," Tuck said. "But ecosystems are not vending machines. I don't need to put in my quarter -- ka-chunk -- and have a trophy elk pop out. That's not what this is all about." :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
could someone fact check the 8000 elk harvest number, sounds high too me ?
http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2011/06/09/some-panelists-say-population-cap-needed-for-wolves-in-state (http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2011/06/09/some-panelists-say-population-cap-needed-for-wolves-in-state)
Post by: Machias on June 10, 2011, 10:04:54 AM
Post by: Bob33 on June 10, 2011, 10:16:13 AM
could someone fact check the 8000 elk harvest number, sounds high too me ?7060 in 2010 according to this: http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2010/elk_general.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2010/elk_general.html)
Post by: Dave Workman on June 10, 2011, 06:49:04 PM
could someone fact check the 8000 elk harvest number, sounds high too me ?7060 in 2010 according to this: http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2010/elk_general.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2010/elk_general.html)
That is just plain damned pitiful.
We ought to be taking twice that many elk...and there ought to be enough elk around to allow that kind of harvest.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 10, 2011, 06:56:25 PM
could someone fact check the 8000 elk harvest number, sounds high too me ?7060 in 2010 according to this: http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2010/elk_general.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2010/elk_general.html)
That is just plain damned pitiful.
We ought to be taking twice that many elk...and there ought to be enough elk around to allow that kind of harvest.
I wrote the Herold and asked how they came to their stats. I explained why I ask, that a double didget discrepancy matters where this is concerned. They said they will get back to me. When they do I'll post it.
One thing I came up with on my own is Indian Harvest may be included in Human Harvest. I don't think they include Native Hunting with General Harvest at WDFW but I could be wrong. :dunno:
Post by: mulehunter on June 10, 2011, 07:44:34 PM
if we divided three units. Maybe we need know how many Elk each units. So we can watch closer every year.
Mulehunter.
Post by: Bob33 on June 10, 2011, 07:58:29 PM
Post by: mulehunter on June 10, 2011, 08:29:08 PM
Mulehunter.
Post by: Bob33 on June 10, 2011, 08:31:58 PM
Thanks bob33. It would be a while to do math and divide each unit of three.I wish I could find a summary. I will keep looking.
Mulehunter.
Post by: mulehunter on June 10, 2011, 08:48:25 PM
Mulehunter.
Post by: sebek556 on June 10, 2011, 09:14:45 PM
Post by: uncoolperson on June 11, 2011, 07:58:41 PM
These ladies live in Eagle River near Anchorage.
I think I used to walk that road with my mom when I was younger... crazy
just got back from my moms... yeah we used to walk that road.
Post by: Ridgeratt on June 11, 2011, 09:25:28 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01159/wdfw01159.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01159/wdfw01159.pdf)
Post by: bearpaw on June 12, 2011, 11:14:23 AM
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/06/new-mexico-wolf-recovery.html (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/06/new-mexico-wolf-recovery.html)
New Mexico abandons efforts to restore Mexican gray wolves
June 10, 2011 | 4:26pm
New Mexico's Game Commission on Thursday night voted to stop assisting the federal effort to restore Mexican gray wolves in the Southwest, the latest step by new Republican Gov. Susana Martinez's administration to reverse her state's green course.
Martinez appointed four new members to the six-member commission. Its vote is expected to have a mainly symbolic impact in the beleaguered attempt to reintroduce the wolf, which was once endemic to the state before government trapping pushed it to the brink of extinction.
Federal biologists supervising the reintroduction have found less than 50 wolves in both New Mexico and Arizona after the species was returned to the region in the late 1990s. Martinez's Democratic predecessor, Bill Richardson, ordered an end to government trapping of the wolves in 2007.
The state's Fish and Game Department is still required to conduct surveys of the wolves and protect them as an endangered species. The state has spent only $1.9 million on the program since 1999, with most of that paid by the federal government, and dedicated two employees to it.
Ranching groups, who complained the predators damaged their cattle and threatened children, were cheered. “It shows support for the rural industries that are under siege right now," said Laura Schneberger, president of the Gila Livestock Growers Assn. “But I don’t know how it will affect us immediately.”
Environmental groups were outraged. "New Mexico's governor sided with an intransigent, wolf-hating livestock industry," said Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity.
Republicans in Congress have separately proposed legislation to end the wolf re-introduction program, following their successful attempts to end federal supervision of the gray wolf in the northern Rockies.
Martinez has made a point of distancing herself from Richardson's environmental record, which she contended hurt business.
Shortly after taking office this winter, Martinez removed all members of an environmental board which formulated rules limiting emissions. She also overturned regulations that required a 3% cut in industrial greenhouse gas emissions and regulated waste on dairy farms, though the state Supreme Court later overturned those moves, ruling Martinez exceeded her power.
Post by: Curly on June 12, 2011, 11:24:43 AM
Post by: villageidiot on June 12, 2011, 09:32:16 PM
Post by: danderson on June 12, 2011, 10:21:12 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 13, 2011, 08:16:05 AM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 13, 2011, 08:26:26 AM
Tuck said good science, not hunting opportunity, was the management plan's mandate.
"Will there be impacts on ungulates (deer and elk) that certain people hunt? Probably. As a deer and elk hunter, that would be me," Tuck said. "But ecosystems are not vending machines. I don't need to put in my quarter -- ka-chunk -- and have a trophy elk pop out. That's not what this is all about." :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
could someone fact check the 8000 elk harvest number, sounds high too me ?
http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2011/06/09/some-panelists-say-population-cap-needed-for-wolves-in-state (http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2011/06/09/some-panelists-say-population-cap-needed-for-wolves-in-state)
Here is the responce the Herold gave to me. They were very polite.
Bob Crider, editor of the Herald-Republic, forwarded your question regarding the reference in my wolf-management story to the annual elk harvest being inconsistent with the 7,060 that were harvested in 2010.
The number I used in the “about 8,000” harvest referred not to a single year’s harvest but the average over the long haul, and the 10-year average is just a few dozen shy of 8,000. The wolf management plan used the number of “about 7,900” as the annual elk harvest, and in going back year-by-year through the past six years I noted that the harvest ranged from a low of 6,826 in 2008 to a high of 8,665 in 2005, with the harvest exceeding 8,000 in three of the six years. I went with the “about 8,000” in the interests of brevity in an otherwise not-brief story, and because I felt it was consistent with the historic averages.
I appreciate your taking the time to follow up on the story. Wolves are certainly a fascinating subject.
-- Scott Sandsberry
Post by: Special T on June 13, 2011, 08:57:36 AM
Post by: bearpaw on June 16, 2011, 06:29:56 PM
County, state talk wolves
By Summer Crosby
Published: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 4:40 PM PDT
Hunting and trapping seasons aren’t going to do the job if the goal of Idaho Fish and Game is to reduce wolf populations in the state, Rod Halvorsen, of the Benewah County Natural Resource Team, told IDFG officials.
The two groups met before the county commissioners Monday.
“We have methods for controlling lions and bears, but we don’t have methods today to control wolves that work,” said Mr. Halvorsen. “Wolves are a moving target. Utilizing traditional sport methods inside a short three-month hunting season is not going to reduce numbers.”
Regional Wildlife Manager Jim Hayden said no one knows an exact number of the wolves within Panhandle Region. He said it’s probably somewhere between 100 and 200 wolves, with fewer than 50 inside of Benewah County.
IDFG Director Virgil Moore said one of the largest questions facing the department and the commission is how the wolves should be distributed among the landscape. Part of the argument from the Benewah County Natural Resource Team was that wolves are causing a negative impact to the heritage, custom and culture of the county.
“They’ve impacted the livestock, the lifestyle of the people in our county,” Mr. Halvorsen said. “They are changing the behavior of other wildlife. You can’t manage them, you have to control them.”
Chip Corsi, Panhandle regional supervisor for IDFG, said that the commission will start hearing recommendation on managing wolves. He said it’s likely that will be accomplished through a variety of means.
“(People) are expecting us to go beyond the effort we made a couple years ago when we were just sticking tags in people’s pockets,” Mr. Corsi said. “We need to be aggressive and we need to have a broader range of tools. We have a low tolerance for bears that cause problems for people and when mountain lions show up in Lewiston, they don’t last long.”
Tony McDermott, IDFG commission, agreed. He said that hunting is something that “makes them feel better.” During the last hunting season, the period was extended. In a six month period, only 23 wolves were killed.
Mr. Halvorsen said that if the IDFG is serious about reducing wolf numbers, they need to look at some methods that will certainly not make them popular with the environmentalists.
The county’s policy on wolves recommends denning wolves, using bait to lure them into an area and shooting them, using electronic predator calls and no closed season. Mr. Corsi said they do have to be aware of some things socially.
“We’ve got, in Idaho, about 25 percent of people who pick up a gun and go hunting. We have another five to 10 percent of people who hate hunting and then the rest, 60 to 70 percent don’t hunt, but they support it. You have to be careful in the process of achieving that goal that you don’t flip those numbers around and have 60-70 percent of people become anti-hunters,” he said.
Mr. Halvorsen said many people need to be educated on the facts of what the wolf does as a predator.
“Let’s face it. Everyone thinks the wolf is beautiful, but what does that wolf have to do to become fat, sleek and shiny? There’s a grim reality of what wolves do as a predator,” he said. “And when people understand that, even those who are pro-wolf, they’ll take a step back and say �hey, maybe we need to do something a little differently here.’”
Mr. Moore expressed that they understand the frustration. He asked the Natural Resource Team and the commissioners to give the commission some time and a chance to get something put together.
Mr. McDermott added that if he had his way wolves do not belong in settled areas at all. But right now, the question is how do they manage the wolf?
“And it (the plan) is going to have be adaptive,” Mr. McDermott said.
Story:
County, state talk wolves
Hunting and trapping seasons aren't going to do the job if the goal of Idaho Fish and Game is to reduce wolf populations in the state, Rod Halvorsen, of the Benewah County Natural Resource Team, told IDFG officials.
The two groups met before the county commissioners Monday.
For more of this story, click on or type the URL below:
http://www.gazetterecord.com/articles/2011/06/15/news/news04.txt (http://www.gazetterecord.com/articles/2011/06/15/news/news04.txt)
Post by: Special T on June 16, 2011, 09:27:14 PM
I know it seems very conspiracy theory, but follow the money.... The animals are the tool and the ESA is the weapon that many non profits use to make Coin!
Post by: Jack Roscoe on June 18, 2011, 06:31:23 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 18, 2011, 06:54:45 PM
Post by: ErikN on June 21, 2011, 06:40:44 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 21, 2011, 07:02:23 PM
Ten breeding pairs was more than enough in Montana. Why 15 here? Makes no sense.
You are exactly right and additionally there is no federal mandate to even have 10 bp's in Washington. This whole 15 bp's theory is all homegrown right here in the evergreen state. :bash:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 21, 2011, 08:15:52 PM
Ten breeding pairs was more than enough in Montana. Why 15 here? Makes no sense.
You are exactly right and additionally there is no federal mandate to even have 10 bp's in Washington. This whole 15 bp's theory is all homegrown right here in the evergreen state. :bash:
That's what is so frustrating. People I talk to have been led to believe it is the Fed's that are doing it. It's not.
Post by: bearpaw on June 22, 2011, 02:56:53 PM
Utah's wolf plan calls for wolves in only one mountain range in northern Utah and the rest of the state is not going to managed for wolves. I think Washington could do the same type of plan if our WDFW and other state agencies would pursue that route.
Post by: BIGINNER on June 22, 2011, 03:02:04 PM
Eastern Washington has been delisted by the feds. We must have an approved wolf plan in order to manage wolves in Eastern Washington. There is no federal recovery plan for western Washington. This need to put wolves all over Washington is something that wolf advocates within our own state agencies are pushing.:yeah:
Utah's wolf plan calls for wolves in only one mountain range in northern Utah and the rest of the state is not going to managed for wolves. I think Washington could do the same type of plan if our WDFW and other state agencies would pursue that route.
Post by: bearpaw on June 22, 2011, 04:32:09 PM
June 22, 2011
Contact: Steve Wagner, Blue Heron Communications, 800-654-3766 or steve@blueheroncomm.com
RMEF Moves to Protect Appellate Rights in Wolf Decision
MISSOULA, Mont.—U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy will decide whether Congress
acted within Constitutional bounds when it delisted wolves in parts of the West. The
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has filed notice of its intent to appeal any decision that
adversely affects states’ rights to manage fully recovered wolf populations.
Molloy is expected to hear arguments soon from animal rights groups and environmental
extremists who sued to challenge the legality of Congress’ recent action.
An unfavorable ruling could stop wolf management hunts planned for fall in Idaho and
Montana—even though elk calf survival rates in some areas are already too low to sustain
herds for the future.
“We are protecting our right to appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals any
decision that results in another setback for conservation and science-based wildlife
management,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “Our notice of intent to
appeal includes a motion to stay any unfavorable outcome pending our appeal process.”
As he did with other conservation groups, Molloy recently denied an RMEF motion to
intervene in the lawsuit. At least two groups filed a second motion asking the judge to
reconsider. RMEF opted for a different response.
“We’re hoping for the best but preparing for the worst,” explained Allen. “A decision
could go either way because the laws being challenged leave too much to interpretation.
This built-in gray area is the inherent problem with federal rulemaking on wildlife that is
not endangered or threatened. All the science shows that wolves are recovered. But as
long as the federal government is involved, there will be more lawsuits and, potentially,
more unfavorable rulings. The new motion we filed prepares us for that scenario.”
“We will continue to fight until all states, from the Rockies to the Great Lakes, have true
state management authority unfettered with federal oversight,” he added.
Post by: Humptulips on June 22, 2011, 08:19:13 PM
Eastern Washington has been delisted by the feds. We must have an approved wolf plan in order to manage wolves in Eastern Washington. There is no federal recovery plan for western Washington. This need to put wolves all over Washington is something that wolf advocates within our own state agencies are pushing.
Utah's wolf plan calls for wolves in only one mountain range in northern Utah and the rest of the state is not going to managed for wolves. I think Washington could do the same type of plan if our WDFW and other state agencies would pursue that route.
Oregons Wolf management plan calls for 4 breeding pairs in only eastern Oregon to reach recovery goals. Seems like WDFW is the only State agency in love with wolves.
Post by: bearpaw on June 22, 2011, 11:50:26 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 25, 2011, 01:41:56 PM
Attempts to kill wolves are showing few results
By ERIC BARKER of the Tribune
Efforts to reduce wolf numbers around Elk City and in the Lolo Elk Hunting Zone have been largely fruitless more than a month after being implemented.
Idaho County deputies have not shot any wolves in the Elk City area, and hunting outfitters have been unable to kill wolves in the Lolo country. An Idaho Department of Fish and Game conservation officer shot one wolf near Powell last Saturday.
"I would have thought we would have had more, but that is it," said Dave Cadwallader, supervisor of the department's Clearwater Region.
In May, shortly after wolves were removed from federal protection, Cadwallader authorized deputies in the Elk City area to shoot wolves. He made the move after months of complaints by Elk City residents about wolves that had frequented the remote hamlet for much of the winter and spring. Cadwallader said wolves are still seen there but not as frequently.
"I think it's the time of year," he said. "The elk have moved out and are calving and the wolves have moved on."
Cadwallader also authorized hunting outfitters who operate in the Lolo Zone to shoot wolves while guiding clients during spring black bear hunting trips. At the same time, he gave authority to his conservation officers working in the Lolo Zone to shoot wolves. Wolves sometimes are attracted to black bear hunting baits, but that has not happened this year.
"Most of the outfitters I have talked to just aren't seeing any wolf activity."
When the state took over wolf management last month, it attempted to reduce wolf numbers in the Lolo Zone through aerial gunning. Five wolves were shot, far short of the goal of killing as many as 50.
While wolves were still under Endangered Species Act protections, the department had sought permission to help declining elk herds in the Lolo by reducing wolf numbers. Its plan had gone through peer review and public comment and was awaiting a final decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service when wolves were delisted. The plan was intended to be carried out during the winter, when wolves can be more easily shot from aircraft.
At the end of 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated the Idaho wolf population to number at least 700. Idaho officials believe the population is higher, but they don't know how high it might be.
A lawsuit filed by a handful of environmental groups claims Congress infringed on the powers of the judiciary when it passed a bill that included language that delisted wolves in Idaho, Montana and parts of three other suits. The case is pending before Judge Donald Molloy of Missoula, Mont.
---
Barker may be contacted at ebarker@lmtribune.com or at (208) 848-2273.
Reader Comments
Make it worth a hunter's effort and they will bag wolves. The biggest issue is keeping the wolves away from human settlements with their domestic and farmed animals and that is happening. Wolves have an aversion to gunfire and bullets zinging past.
"The elk have moved out and are calving and the wolves have moved on."
should really read:: "The elk have moved out and are calving and the wolves are following them."
What was that libby? "the wolves are gone" in one sentence. And in the next sentence, "it will take eons to rid ourselves of the wolf overpopulation." I wonder if libby even knows what kind of time frame an eon really is, especially in light of the fact that it took us less than 100 years to nearly eradicate wolves from the area in the first place.
Too Late!!! The food is gone. So are the wolves. It will take years to rid ourselves of the wolf overpopulation and eons to rebuild the elk population.
Post by: bearpaw on June 29, 2011, 09:58:27 AM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2011/06/audio/20110616_a.mp3 (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2011/06/audio/20110616_a.mp3)
Post by: CementFinisher on June 29, 2011, 10:51:50 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 29, 2011, 03:17:47 PM
Post by: Machias on June 29, 2011, 03:27:57 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 29, 2011, 05:13:04 PM
Post by: Curly on June 29, 2011, 05:16:10 PM
The fact that they're allowing themselves to be so heavily influenced by the pro-wolf lobby says to me that they've forgotten why they're there. Maybe a new, Republican governor could remind them. Let's hope.
:yeah:
Mckenna can't get in office soon enough.
Post by: bearpaw on June 29, 2011, 05:25:06 PM
the last few minutes with (i think it was) Whecker speaking are pretty telling... the at risk ungulate conversation :bash:
Exactly, I noticed that too.
Post by: bearpaw on June 29, 2011, 05:35:24 PM
Part of me wants Molloy to stop this fall's hunt. If he does then I believe Congress will have no choice but to gut the ESA. The rest of me knows we really need to have a hunt this fall. I guess the best of both worlds is we have the hunt this fall and then late next winter Molloy stops the hunt for next year and Congress eviserates the ESA.
I have thought the same thing. If Malloy stops the hunt again, it will spell the end of the ESA as it now stands. Congress will react to such nonsense.
Right now Idaho residents have already rebelled, go into any small town bar and start talking about wolves, you will get more info that you really want to know. :chuckle:
The sad thing is that this whole scenario is very unhealthy for responsible scientific game management. If the wolfers would have backed off when the original wolf quota was met, severe damage would have not occurred and many more people would have accepted wolves in reasonable numbers. Now nobody trusts any game department in any western state and more people are rebelling every year in affected states. :twocents:
Quote
For some reason, the WDFW is in love with wolves and intends to use our hunting dollars to proliferate the species.
What I think has occured is that hunters and fishers who get into wildlife management learn to be managers or biologist for fish and game or they become wardens. Wolf lovers and huggers get into endangered species mnagement and biology, so all the Fish & Game Depts now have wolf huggers running their endangered species divisions. The former director of USFWS is now working for Defenders of Wildlife. :bash:
Post by: grundy53 on June 30, 2011, 05:25:56 AM
Part of me wants Molloy to stop this fall's hunt. If he does then I believe Congress will have no choice but to gut the ESA. The rest of me knows we really need to have a hunt this fall. I guess the best of both worlds is we have the hunt this fall and then late next winter Molloy stops the hunt for next year and Congress eviserates the ESA.
I have thought the same thing. If Malloy stops the hunt again, it will spell the end of the ESA as it now stands. Congress will react to such nonsense.
Right now Idaho residents have already rebelled, go into any small town bar and start talking about wolves, you will get more info that you really want to know. :chuckle:
The sad thing is that this whole scenario is very unhealthy for responsible scientific game management. If the wolfers would have backed off when the original wolf quota was met, severe damage would have not occurred and many more people would have accepted wolves in reasonable numbers. Now nobody trusts any game department in any western state and more people are rebelling every year in affected states. :twocents:
I'm not sure they would gut the ESA. I wish they would but I always felt that the reason we got this bill past was because we add it as a rider onto the budget bill and congress HAD to pass the budget bill. I'm not sure if we could get it passed otherwise. Remember the senate is still controlled by liberals. And if some how it managed to pass it would still have to be signed by barry obama. Like I said, I would love it if they gutted the ESA but I don't think it would happen.
Post by: Machias on June 30, 2011, 10:05:03 AM
Right now Idaho residents have already rebelled, go into any small town bar and start talking about wolves, you will get more info that you really want to know. :chuckle:
The sad thing is that this whole scenario is very unhealthy for responsible scientific game management. If the wolfers would have backed off when the original wolf quota was met, severe damage would have not occurred and many more people would have accepted wolves in reasonable numbers. Now nobody trusts any game department in any western state and more people are rebelling every year in affected states. :twocents:
I was in Avery, ID last week, HUGE professional sign on a house there. "We shoot illegals, escpecially grey ones from Canada." I mean this sign is 20 feet by 20 feet and was done at a printing shop! The last paragragh is soo true. Had they stopped at 10 breeding pairs and delisted them when they originally said they would they'd have 50%+ of the sportsmen's support as well.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 30, 2011, 10:08:22 AM
Right now Idaho residents have already rebelled, go into any small town bar and start talking about wolves, you will get more info that you really want to know. :chuckle:
The sad thing is that this whole scenario is very unhealthy for responsible scientific game management. If the wolfers would have backed off when the original wolf quota was met, severe damage would have not occurred and many more people would have accepted wolves in reasonable numbers. Now nobody trusts any game department in any western state and more people are rebelling every year in affected states. :twocents:
I was in Avery, ID last week, HUGE professional sign on a house there. "We shoot illegals, escpecially grey ones from Canada." I mean this sign is 20 feet by 20 feet and was done at a printing shop! The last paragragh is soo true. Had they stopped at 10 breeding pairs and delisted them when they originally said they would they'd have 50%+ of the sportsmen's support as well.
Gives a whole new meaning to the term "wolf management". I don't condone it, but I sure understand it.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 30, 2011, 10:35:45 AM
Right now Idaho residents have already rebelled, go into any small town bar and start talking about wolves, you will get more info that you really want to know. :chuckle:
The sad thing is that this whole scenario is very unhealthy for responsible scientific game management. If the wolfers would have backed off when the original wolf quota was met, severe damage would have not occurred and many more people would have accepted wolves in reasonable numbers. Now nobody trusts any game department in any western state and more people are rebelling every year in affected states. :twocents:
I was in Avery, ID last week, HUGE professional sign on a house there. "We shoot illegals, escpecially grey ones from Canada." I mean this sign is 20 feet by 20 feet and was done at a printing shop! The last paragragh is soo true. Had they stopped at 10 breeding pairs and delisted them when they originally said they would they'd have 50%+ of the sportsmen's support as well.
Gives a whole new meaning to the term "wolf management". I don't condone it, but I sure understand it.
I understand this type of feeling but it is the Federal and the State Governments that people are taking on. They will put people in jail. If an individual is willing to do this and take on the Federal Agents the information and know how they will need for the standoff goes beyond H-W. I don't think they would be all wrong. But we need to look at all options. It would be nice if we massed and went after the jobs that employee the people who write the laws that enforce this crap. It would be nice to defund dangerous Wildlife nuisance calls. Let local PD's deal with predators on the Westside. That is the only way fir loving crazies are going to get it. IF people are going to go vigilante I'd keep it to yourself. Advertising that you are going to kill be it people or other things is not a good plan. It is an emotional plan. If we are going to win and not have Ruby Ridge type scenario's I'd recommend cool heads. If we are not going to use cool heads then I'd recommend not using public forums.
I don't understand all of the "Biology Studies." If the Wolves were now treated like coyotes their numbers will increase. There is nothing anyone can do about it. There is no way you are going to convince me the decision to undo the current plan for Big Game has not been the plan all along. Not just with DFW and the WDFW but with our entire Federal Government as well. What we need to do is figure out how to be the pea under the pillow of our Political Leaders and their legions of bureaucrats. Their policies are going to lead to massive, MASSIVE, budget shortfalls. We need to force them to fire people because of it not raise new taxes to keep things flowing. Shut Parks Down, close boat launches, make them Loose it all. That's how we win. When we bend over and pay for things like "Discovery Pass" we are assisting them in closing down hunting. If they can get everyone to pay the majority of Parks when there is no hunting there we make their case that we are so desperate to be given permission to hunt "Public Land" we will pay anything. They believe that the old belief that they need to manage for hunters is false because they slowly move Human Hunters out of the equation. That is where wolves come in. To create a new system, one where we are not the equation. I hope "Discover Pass" fails. It will help to bring them back to the table for us. We need to demand a better deal. To do that we need numbers and I believe we have it when you look at all the small group that make up the bulk of Hunting and Fishing using groups, we are just small and local. But if we unite and speak with one voice I think we can make real change, if we don't do this and soon I fear it is going to be to late.
Post by: Machias on June 30, 2011, 10:54:23 AM
I don't understand all of the "Biology Studies." If the Wolves were now treated like coyotes their numbers will increase. There is nothing anyone can do about it. There is no way you are going to convince me the decision to undo the current plan for Big Game has not been the plan all along. Not just with DFW and the WDFW but with our entire Federal Government as well. What we need to do is figure out how to be the pea under the pillow of our Political Leaders and their legions of bureaucrats. Their policies are going to lead to massive, MASSIVE, budget shortfalls. We need to force them to fire people because of it not raise new taxes to keep things flowing. Shut Parks Down, close boat launches, make them Loose it all. That's how we win. When we bend over and pay for things like "Discovery Pass" we are assisting them in closing down hunting. If they can get everyone to pay the majority of Parks when there is no hunting there we make their case that we are so desperate to be given permission to hunt "Public Land" we will pay anything. They believe that the old belief that they need to manage for hunters is false because they slowly move Human Hunters out of the equation. That is where wolves come in. To create a new system, one where we are not the equation. I hope "Discover Pass" fails. It will help to bring them back to the table for us. We need to demand a better deal. To do that we need numbers and I believe we have it when you look at all the small group that make up the bulk of Hunting and Fishing using groups, we are just small and local. But if we unite and speak with one voice I think we can make real change, if we don't do this and soon I fear it is going to be to late.
Question, not just to Wenatcheejay. When wolves were eradicated from the west before, there was a heck of alot less people, hunters and such, as there are now. How did they do it? One of the themes I have seen emerging lately being prepetuated by both sides is, it's futile now :dunno: , they couldn't even come close to the measly 220 qouta in Idaho, so there is no way they will ever be eradicated now. I see this argument being put forth by both sides, almost a sense of complete hoplessness that we can even manage wolves now let alone really knock thier numbers down. If that's the case how in the heck did they manage to make them extinct in the lower 48?
And Wenatcheejay, everything you laid out is exactly going according to their plans, they don't want boat lanches and peolpe using state parks and wilderness areas. They would be perfectly happy if everyone stayed out of the woods. We may end up being the pea under the mattress, but how does that compare to the boulder hanging over their heads in the form of PETA and HSUS and an uneducated mass. We're the flea on a speck to them, even with the one voice.....or am I not giving us enough credit?
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 30, 2011, 11:01:58 AM
I don't understand all of the "Biology Studies." If the Wolves were now treated like coyotes their numbers will increase. There is nothing anyone can do about it. There is no way you are going to convince me the decision to undo the current plan for Big Game has not been the plan all along. Not just with DFW and the WDFW but with our entire Federal Government as well. What we need to do is figure out how to be the pea under the pillow of our Political Leaders and their legions of bureaucrats. Their policies are going to lead to massive, MASSIVE, budget shortfalls. We need to force them to fire people because of it not raise new taxes to keep things flowing. Shut Parks Down, close boat launches, make them Loose it all. That's how we win. When we bend over and pay for things like "Discovery Pass" we are assisting them in closing down hunting. If they can get everyone to pay the majority of Parks when there is no hunting there we make their case that we are so desperate to be given permission to hunt "Public Land" we will pay anything. They believe that the old belief that they need to manage for hunters is false because they slowly move Human Hunters out of the equation. That is where wolves come in. To create a new system, one where we are not the equation. I hope "Discover Pass" fails. It will help to bring them back to the table for us. We need to demand a better deal. To do that we need numbers and I believe we have it when you look at all the small group that make up the bulk of Hunting and Fishing using groups, we are just small and local. But if we unite and speak with one voice I think we can make real change, if we don't do this and soon I fear it is going to be to late.
Question, not just to Wenatcheejay. When wolves were eradicated from the west before, there was a heck of alot less people, hunters and such, as there are now. How did they do it? One of the themes I have seen emerging lately being prepetuated by both sides is, it's futile now :dunno: , they couldn't even come close to the measly 220 qouta in Idaho, so there is no way they will ever be eradicated now. I see this argument being put forth by both sides, almost a sense of complete hoplessness that we can even manage wolves now let alone really knock thier numbers down. If that's the case how in the heck did they manage to make them extinct in the lower 48?
And Wenatcheejay, everything you laid out is exactly going according to their plans, they don't want boat lanches and peolpe using state parks and wilderness areas. They would be perfectly happy if everyone stayed out of the woods. We may end up being the pea under the mattress, but how does that compare to the boulder hanging over their heads in the form of PETA and HSUS and an uneducated mass. We're the flea on a speck to them, even with the one voice.....or am I not giving us enough credit?
We're a strong voice, Machias. There's 8,000 of us in HuntWA and the numbers of us in WFW are growing daily. When teaming up with the Cattleman's Association and others, we represent a large group of license-paying individuals that they must listen to.
In answer to your first question, I think a lot of poison was used, in addition to leg traps, snares, and shooters. The poison will be the big difference between then and now. And, I think your observation about concern regarding controlling their numbers is spot on.
Post by: grundy53 on June 30, 2011, 12:45:26 PM
I don't understand all of the "Biology Studies." If the Wolves were now treated like coyotes their numbers will increase. There is nothing anyone can do about it. There is no way you are going to convince me the decision to undo the current plan for Big Game has not been the plan all along. Not just with DFW and the WDFW but with our entire Federal Government as well. What we need to do is figure out how to be the pea under the pillow of our Political Leaders and their legions of bureaucrats. Their policies are going to lead to massive, MASSIVE, budget shortfalls. We need to force them to fire people because of it not raise new taxes to keep things flowing. Shut Parks Down, close boat launches, make them Loose it all. That's how we win. When we bend over and pay for things like "Discovery Pass" we are assisting them in closing down hunting. If they can get everyone to pay the majority of Parks when there is no hunting there we make their case that we are so desperate to be given permission to hunt "Public Land" we will pay anything. They believe that the old belief that they need to manage for hunters is false because they slowly move Human Hunters out of the equation. That is where wolves come in. To create a new system, one where we are not the equation. I hope "Discover Pass" fails. It will help to bring them back to the table for us. We need to demand a better deal. To do that we need numbers and I believe we have it when you look at all the small group that make up the bulk of Hunting and Fishing using groups, we are just small and local. But if we unite and speak with one voice I think we can make real change, if we don't do this and soon I fear it is going to be to late.
Question, not just to Wenatcheejay. When wolves were eradicated from the west before, there was a heck of alot less people, hunters and such, as there are now. How did they do it? One of the themes I have seen emerging lately being prepetuated by both sides is, it's futile now :dunno: , they couldn't even come close to the measly 220 qouta in Idaho, so there is no way they will ever be eradicated now. I see this argument being put forth by both sides, almost a sense of complete hoplessness that we can even manage wolves now let alone really knock thier numbers down. If that's the case how in the heck did they manage to make them extinct in the lower 48?
And Wenatcheejay, everything you laid out is exactly going according to their plans, they don't want boat lanches and peolpe using state parks and wilderness areas. They would be perfectly happy if everyone stayed out of the woods. We may end up being the pea under the mattress, but how does that compare to the boulder hanging over their heads in the form of PETA and HSUS and an uneducated mass. We're the flea on a speck to them, even with the one voice.....or am I not giving us enough credit?
Pianoman is absolutely right. The main reason they were able to do it before was POISON. Which is why they can't even make a dent now.... :bash:
Post by: bearpaw on July 01, 2011, 09:15:33 AM
Coyotes have been recently recognized by the state game agencies in Utah and Nevada as a primary factor in the lack of mule deer fawn recruitment. Not a lot of people realize it, but there is a bounty in Utah and Nevada on coyotes now.
There was legislation drafted in Idaho in the last year to create a bounty on wolves, but it didn't go anywhere. Unless wolves get controlled in Idaho soon, you will see that issue arise again. As Machias elated, people in Idaho are fed up with wolves, the destruction of elk herds, loss of pets and livestock, and they don't care who knows how they feel. People openly talk and advertise their intentions.
Myself, I would have had no problem with a small manageable population of wolves in Washington, after all, there have been some wolves in Washington for many years, but the current draft wolf plan will do to Washington exactly what has happened in Idaho. It's a travesty that modern game management has turned into a shoving match between enviro's and vigilanties willing to put their freedom and livilihood on the line. What ever happened to wildlife management based on truthful science and maximum recreational opportunity? Will Washington residents be forced into choosing a side between the two extremes?
Wildlife is one of America's greatest resources and our management system is the envy of the world. Why do so many agencies seem so anxious to throw it all away?
Post by: Machias on July 01, 2011, 10:16:16 AM
Post by: Special T on July 02, 2011, 10:13:57 AM
Post by: bearpaw on July 02, 2011, 03:17:09 PM
Post by: Guy on July 02, 2011, 03:51:16 PM
Well put Dale.
Post by: danderson on July 02, 2011, 04:13:11 PM
Post by: buckfvr on July 16, 2011, 10:00:35 AM