Wolves and Livestock:The Never Ending Battle

[Bob33]

http://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Bear-Baiting_Act,_Initiative_655_(1996)

"“Shall it be a gross misdemeanor to take, hunt, or attract black bears with bait, or to hunt bears, cougars, bobcat or lynx with dogs?"

Yes votes: 63%.

[Special T]

I don't think any amount of cougar hunting without the use of hounds would have any effect on the cougar population. But I do agree- there's no reason we can't have a much more liberal cougar hunting season.

While this MIGHT be true we will never know. How? Because they have instituted quoats instead. Most of which are never met and were set almost arbitratily. This is one instance where the WDFW shows its true colors. Wolves are not really controlled in ID MT or even WY. Wolves are smart enough to stay away after getting shot at... At least during daylight. The WDFW COULD have allowed residents to shoot Wolves to protect property much sooner than they did.(Only doing so after much pressure) They COULD have increased the number of spring bear tags, and made cougar hunting nearly year round. (Because it so hard to foot hunt cougars)

When the WDFW games the numbers trying to protect bears and cougars yet we harvest LESS than before the ban how much sense does that make?

I judge the WDFW from thier actions and my disdane is fueled by the fact that the things they say do not line up with those actions.

[bearpaw]

I don't think any amount of cougar hunting without the use of hounds would have any effect on the cougar population. But I do agree- there's no reason we can't have a much more liberal cougar hunting season.

I'm sorry but that isn't exactly true. WDFW has put very limited quotas on cougar and shuts the season down in many units on Dec 31 instead of letting hunters take more cougar like we should be doing.

[bobcat]

I don't think any amount of cougar hunting without the use of hounds would have any effect on the cougar population. But I do agree- there's no reason we can't have a much more liberal cougar hunting season.

I'm sorry but that isn't exactly true. WDFW has put very limited quotas on cougar and shuts the season down in many units on Dec 31 instead of letting hunters take more cougar like we should be doing.

Yes I know that, but how many cougars would really be killed without the use of hounds? A few more might be killed but is that really going to make a significant difference? That's all I was saying. If it were up to me the cougar season would be year 'round. Why not? Most guys are only going to kill one by chance while hunting something else.

[JLS]

Can't really blame it on the WDFW. The people of this state voted to ban the only effective method of managing cougar populations - hound hunting.

Keep defending but still wrong

Did Washington Department of Fish and Wolves come out in opposition of banning hound hunting while knowing the consequences of the ban, NO!! I blame the agency that is responsible for managing all wildlife responsibly for maximum benefit with science! What a joke that anyone defends them because they go with politic vs science!!

By law they are not allowed to come out in opposition or support of a citizen's initiative, so your blame here is pointless.

[bearpaw]

I don't think any amount of cougar hunting without the use of hounds would have any effect on the cougar population. But I do agree- there's no reason we can't have a much more liberal cougar hunting season.

I'm sorry but that isn't exactly true. WDFW has put very limited quotas on cougar and shuts the season down in many units on Dec 31 instead of letting hunters take more cougar like we should be doing.

Yes I know that, but how many cougars would really be killed without the use of hounds? A few more might be killed but is that really going to make a significant difference? That's all I was saying. If it were up to me the cougar season would be year 'round. Why not? Most guys are only going to kill one by chance while hunting something else.

Actually if the season ran until March 31 instead of only Dec 31, I think numerous additional cats would be taken. If that wasn't enough they could make the season longer. The point is that it's WDFW's choice to limit the cougar hunting in spite of record cougar numbers.

[mfswallace]

Can't really blame it on the WDFW. The people of this state voted to ban the only effective method of managing cougar populations - hound hunting.

Keep defending but still wrong

Did Washington Department of Fish and Wolves come out in opposition of banning hound hunting while knowing the consequences of the ban, NO!! I blame the agency that is responsible for managing all wildlife responsibly for maximum benefit with science! What a joke that anyone defends them because they go with politic vs science!!

By law they are not allowed to come out in opposition or support of a citizen's initiative, so your blame here is pointless.

Ok, opposition isn't the correct word but,  my blame is very pointed. WDFW could of and should of come out with information that would help educate the uneducated citizens as to what the true impact of there ignorance would be. They did not!

[Humptulips]

I don't think any amount of cougar hunting without the use of hounds would have any effect on the cougar population. But I do agree- there's no reason we can't have a much more liberal cougar hunting season.

I'm sorry but that isn't exactly true. WDFW has put very limited quotas on cougar and shuts the season down in many units on Dec 31 instead of letting hunters take more cougar like we should be doing.

Yes I know that, but how many cougars would really be killed without the use of hounds? A few more might be killed but is that really going to make a significant difference? That's all I was saying. If it were up to me the cougar season would be year 'round. Why not? Most guys are only going to kill one by chance while hunting something else.

Actually if the season ran until March 31 instead of only Dec 31, I think numerous additional cats would be taken. If that wasn't enough they could make the season longer. The point is that it's WDFW's choice to limit the cougar hunting in spite of record cougar numbers.

Dale,
Over 60% of the unit quotas are not met and the season runs until March 31st in those units.
What's more is most of the cougar killed are taken in a moment of opportunity by deer and elk hunters. With all the deer and elk seasons closed after the first of the year it would seem like the chances of much harvest in those first three months of the year would be slim.
If WDFW would embrace a longer season I still don't think it would substantially increase the harvest without additional methods being allowed. It would show they recognized the problem though.

[wolfbait]

I don't think any amount of cougar hunting without the use of hounds would have any effect on the cougar population. But I do agree- there's no reason we can't have a much more liberal cougar hunting season.

I'm sorry but that isn't exactly true. WDFW has put very limited quotas on cougar and shuts the season down in many units on Dec 31 instead of letting hunters take more cougar like we should be doing.

Yes I know that, but how many cougars would really be killed without the use of hounds? A few more might be killed but is that really going to make a significant difference? That's all I was saying. If it were up to me the cougar season would be year 'round. Why not? Most guys are only going to kill one by chance while hunting something else.

Actually if the season ran until March 31 instead of only Dec 31, I think numerous additional cats would be taken. If that wasn't enough they could make the season longer. The point is that it's WDFW's choice to limit the cougar hunting in spite of record cougar numbers.

Dale,
Over 60% of the unit quotas are not met and the season runs until March 31st in those units.
What's more is most of the cougar killed are taken in a moment of opportunity by deer and elk hunters. With all the deer and elk seasons closed after the first of the year it would seem like the chances of much harvest in those first three months of the year would be slim.
If WDFW would embrace a longer season I still don't think it would substantially increase the harvest without additional methods being allowed. It would show they recognized the problem though.

I think there would be quite the increase in harvest especially in communities where cougars are coming down into the lower valleys to kill deer etc.. A friend of mine has had three to five cougars in his barn the last three years, he could have shot every one of them if the season would have been open. People are seeing cougars closer to town more frequently as well as in the surrounding farmlands.

It isn't that WDFW couldn't manage cougars better, they just don't want to.

[Special T]

Can't really blame it on the WDFW. The people of this state voted to ban the only effective method of managing cougar populations - hound hunting.

Keep defending but still wrong

Did Washington Department of Fish and Wolves come out in opposition of banning hound hunting while knowing the consequences of the ban, NO!! I blame the agency that is responsible for managing all wildlife responsibly for maximum benefit with science! What a joke that anyone defends them because they go with politic vs science!!

By law they are not allowed to come out in opposition or support of a citizen's initiative, so your blame here is pointless.

While they cannot come out and say Yes or No  on an initiate they could point out the impacts to the public. The WDFW is currently on a information campaign about the dangers of illegal shellfish sales and why the departments role is important... They COULD have pointed out the useful role hunters play in managing game but they chose to sit on thier hands instead.

[Elkaholic daWg]

Spot ON Special T
................................

Can't really blame it on the WDFW. The people of this state voted to ban the only effective method of managing cougar populations - hound hunting.

Keep defending but still wrong

Did Washington Department of Fish and Wolves come out in opposition of banning hound hunting while knowing the consequences of the ban, NO!! I blame the agency that is responsible for managing all wildlife responsibly for maximum benefit with science! What a joke that anyone defends them because they go with politic vs science!!

By law they are not allowed to come out in opposition or support of a citizen's initiative, so your blame here is pointless.

While they cannot come out and say Yes or No  on an initiate they could point out the impacts to the public. The WDFW is currently on a information campaign about the dangers of illegal shellfish sales and why the departments role is important... They COULD have pointed out the useful role hunters play in managing game but they chose to sit on thier hands instead.

[grundy53]

No wolf hunting in wyoming in 2014 and lack of wolves in Utah or even southern idaho is not because of some invisible rancher fence.

OK- I get that ranchers want wolves controlled, and I get that hunters want wolves controlled.  As groups (hunters:ranchers) we seem to have few other common interests.  If hunters and ranchers can work together for wolf control, that's great.  We should.  But we should also recognize that Ranchers and Hunters have different interests for wolf management.  The end result might look the same, but the motivations are clearly different. 

To say that ranchers are the reason there are no wolves in Colorado and Utah is disingenuous and helps the writer lose credibility right of the bat.

I don't know if you are naive or just don't want to admit the fact of what is happening across the west. I certainly think you guys are incorrect, here's why:

Southern Idaho and Utah are big ranching country. I have spent most of my fall and winter in both of those states since 1997 and know a few ranchers in certain areas of those states. But the vast majority I do not know and probably will never know them. Out of the small number of ranchers that I do know there are two ranchers in southern Idaho that have reduced the wolf threat and one rancher in Utah who has reduced the wolf threat. Two of those had livestock killed before they took care of the problem and the other reduced the threat before he lost livestock. I've also heard of additional wolf reduction "word on the street" but nobody is saying who. I operate in 7 F&G units in southern Idaho and a dozen units in Utah, so my guides and I see how many wolf tracks there are in many of those areas. I can say this, I know of more wolves that have been removed by ranchers than what we know are alive in those same areas right now. Please keep in mind that I don't know the vast majority of ranchers and local residents and have no idea how many wolves they may have removed without saying a word to anyone.

Dr Charles Kay is a professor at the University in Logan, I don't know him personally but he is a greatly respected man. I think he explained ranchers and wolves perfectly and I have specifically pointed out facts and reasoning why I think he is correct.

Washington is only in the beginning of this same cycle. The longer WDFW takes to drag out wolf management in NE WA the further this same cycle will repeat itself here in NE WA. I've already heard "on the street" of numerous wolves killed and nobody is saying who, people want it to happen, they aren't going to finger anyone for shooting a wolf, it's the only wolf management happening. Now a moose or deer poacher, yes people still report those poachers. My point is reinforced by the huge reward that was offered on local radio and in local papers by WDFW and CNW for info on the wolf poacher who killed the wolf at Deep Lake. Most local people laughed at that reward, nobody is going to report who shot that wolf. If they did it had better be kept quiet as they would be shunned by many people in the community.

In F&G management there is a term known as "social tolerance". I have talked about this "social tolerance" many times even though I may not have called it specifically that. You can walk into nearly any bar in any small town in Idaho or western Montana and strike up a conversation about wolves and learn all about local wolf management. It has been this way ever since Malloy shut down wolf hunting. That man caused more wolf management to happen than any other single person. So while wolf advocates thought they won they actually lost with that ruling as it set off a firestorm of "vigilante wolf management". Many people lost all confidence or trust in professional game management and that ruling was one of the main turning points for many people.

Disclaimer
Don't shoot me I am only the messenger telling you the way it is. Let me be clear, I have never shot a wolf and when I do it will be legal, I follow all wildlife laws, I buy wolf tags in Idaho so I can legally shoot a wolf when I get the chance. I also fully support wildlife management, I don't like to see what wolves and green leaning federal and state F&G Depts bowing to wolf groups have done to the public's confidence in professional wildlife management, I think it's unhealthy for our whole system of wildlife management. Having said that, I will also say that at this time I will not be the person to finger anyone for protecting their livestock from unregulated wolves. What people want to see is responsible wolf management by the agencies, I think most people are willing to see a few wolves on the landscape as long as they are managed so they don't impact livestock and ungulates. Currently what we have is wolf management dictated by urban wolf lovers who don't even want wolves where they live. That doesn't set well with people that have been forced to live with unregulated wolf numbers and especially people whose livelihood has been impacted.

It is incorrect to suggest ranchers and poachers are the reason wolves are less common in southern idaho and utah...and I think you know that so I must be misunderstanding your point.

What is the reason then ??

You'll never get an answer.

[grundy53]

Idahohuntr should probably set down his stuffed animal "wolfy" and read the entire article before he plays the "I know more than everyone else" card   

[bearpaw]

I don't think any amount of cougar hunting without the use of hounds would have any effect on the cougar population. But I do agree- there's no reason we can't have a much more liberal cougar hunting season.

I'm sorry but that isn't exactly true. WDFW has put very limited quotas on cougar and shuts the season down in many units on Dec 31 instead of letting hunters take more cougar like we should be doing.

Yes I know that, but how many cougars would really be killed without the use of hounds? A few more might be killed but is that really going to make a significant difference? That's all I was saying. If it were up to me the cougar season would be year 'round. Why not? Most guys are only going to kill one by chance while hunting something else.

Actually if the season ran until March 31 instead of only Dec 31, I think numerous additional cats would be taken. If that wasn't enough they could make the season longer. The point is that it's WDFW's choice to limit the cougar hunting in spite of record cougar numbers.

Dale,
Over 60% of the unit quotas are not met and the season runs until March 31st in those units.
What's more is most of the cougar killed are taken in a moment of opportunity by deer and elk hunters. With all the deer and elk seasons closed after the first of the year it would seem like the chances of much harvest in those first three months of the year would be slim.
If WDFW would embrace a longer season I still don't think it would substantially increase the harvest without additional methods being allowed. It would show they recognized the problem though.

We are in much different areas and sometimes it's easy for us to think how things are in our own areas without realizing things may be different in other areas. In NE WA we have so many cats the cougar quota gets shut down early almost every year. Without doubt if the season was longer in NE WA more cougar would be killed. We saw 10 cougar in the flesh last year while turkey, bear, and deer hunting, most were within 5 or 6 miles of Colville or Kettle Falls.

Admittedly it is probably much harder for hunters to harvest cougars in your area so I understand your reasoning, but cougars can be killed where I live by boot hunters or easily shot in peoples yards if we had liberal seasons. One of my guides has walked down three different cougars within 5 miles of Colville.

[JimmyHoffa]

Yeah, you get snow in your area.  A lot easier to get cat hunting interest when snow is on the ground.  Tougher to get people to go with you in the rain when it is 35 degrees and they would rather go for steelhead.  With snow, you can at least find a set of tracks and have that motivation going.