Should WA State Control Their New Wolf Population

Should WA State Control their wolf population

  • Yes, this is an invasive and destructive subspecies.

    Votes: 37 66.1%

  • No, let nature take it's course.

    Votes: 19 33.9%
  • Total voters
    56
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Art, the two subspecies are quite different. The Mackenzie Valley wolf is the largest wolf subspecies and the native Idaho wolf was much smaller, more solitary and much less aggressive. Not understanding that there are significant differences in the wolf subspecies is tantamount to ignoring the differences in the dog subspecies.

If folks think an Irish wolf hound is the same as a chiwawa, then I have a swamp to sell them in Arizona. Here is an excellent comparison of the two subspecies. The Feds gave us the Great Dane of wolves to replace what had been here. We have been duped. That makes the Federally implanted "reintroduced" wolf an invasive subspecies. It just doesn't belong in this ecosystem. Folks that claim to be so understanding of ecology show themselves ignorant of this detail. That is the entire debate. The Mackenzie Valley wolf belongs in the Mackenzie Valley, not the Rocky Mountains.

http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2011...ain-wolves-v-introduced-canadian-gray-wolves/
 
The facts are....wolves are here to stay. All those "Little Red Riding Hoods" need to get over it. While I feel wolves have a place in our ecosystem, I also believe they need to be controlled to within practical numbers and need to be hunted enough to regain their fear of man. There can be a balance, even tho we humans have put it askew. Those wanting to kill them all are just selfish and greedy. Statements such as "they're killing all of OUR elk!", is a prime example. As for the bible telling us to rule over all the animals of the earth, one needs to remember, God didn't write the bible, man did.....and greedy men edited it's text. There are many other things the bible tells us, that now, as modern educated men, we know are not to be taken literally. Besides, the last definition I saw of ruling said nuttin' at all about killin'. If you really believe in God and the bible, you should realize that God created wolves for a purpose and when they kill wild game or even domestic livestock, they are only doing what evolution and the good Lord intended for them to do. Man is not God, nor is he nature..........nor does nature need to take a backseat to man. Without nature there will be no man.
 
Today, 10:54 AM #22
buck460XVR
Senior Member

Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 549
The facts are....wolves are here to stay. All those "Little Red Riding Hoods" need to get over it. While I feel wolves have a place in our ecosystem, I also believe they need to be controlled to within practical numbers and need to be hunted enough to regain their fear of man. There can be a balance, even tho we humans have put it askew. Those wanting to kill them all are just selfish and greedy. Statements such as "they're killing all of OUR elk!", is a prime example. As for the bible telling us to rule over all the animals of the earth, one needs to remember, God didn't write the bible, man did.....and greedy men edited it's text. There are many other things the bible tells us, that now, as modern educated men, we know are not to be taken literally. Besides, the last definition I saw of ruling said nuttin' at all about killin'. If you really believe in God and the bible, you should realize that God created wolves for a purpose and when they kill wild game or even domestic livestock, they are only doing what evolution and the good Lord intended for them to do. Man is not God, nor is he nature..........nor does nature need to take a backseat to man. Without nature there will be no man.
Click to expand...

Now, back to the topic, man has placed many invasive species in new environments for alleged benefit that has turned into ecological disasters. Despite the deep rooted propaganda surrounding wolves, they are reeking an ecological disaster across the northern Rocky Mountains. Not even the 9th circuit court or Obama could stay in that propaganda driven denial any longer.

The public health consequences of placing wolves here where they don't belong as an invasive subspecies designed to run down ill caribou instead of slower deer and elk is ending in the decimation of elk and deer in these infected areas. In addition, all of the wild game in these areas are now becoming infected with hydatid cysts which also infect people.

Look up the history of Finland's war against wolves where they hunted them down with AK47's from helicopters in the 1970's. The mindset that man is the invading species is a bunch of baloney to say it mildly. We have the responsibility to keep in check this terrible experiment with this large, aggressive and dangerous beast that has gone terribly wrong from the beginning. Instead of spouting propaganda, go dig into the history of the wolf in Finland and juxtapose that experience with what we shall have in the future here if we do not aggressively control this creature's population density.
 
Last edited:
they are reeking an ecological disaster across the northern Rocky Mountains. Not even the 9th circuit court or Obama could stay in that propaganda driven denial any longer.

The public health consequences of placing wolves here where they don't belong as an invasive subspecies designed to run down ill caribou instead of slower deer and elk is ending in the decimation of elk and deer in these infected areas. In addition, all of the wild game in these areas are now becoming infected with hydatid cysts which also infect people.

The mindset that man is the invading species is a bunch of baloney to say it mildly. We have the responsibility to keep in check this terrible experiment with this large, aggressive and dangerous beast that has gone terribly wrong from the beginning.
Click to expand...

.....all I can say is wow. No emotion affecting judgement there. Sounds more like a sci-fi horror film than a discussion about wolves. :rolleyes:

I have read and reserached all of the links you have posted in this thread. They are the same ones you post everytime you get into your rant about wolves and the risk they impose on little girls in red jackets. You ask us to get real, while you yourself preach fire and brimestone about how we are all gonna die from the mere presence of the big bad wolf. I doubt if any knowledgeable person that posts in a hunting forum will want wolf populations to go unchecked. Read my post, I have no problem with a legitimate hunting season on them. But I also believe there is a legitimate reason to have them in our ecosystem. Guess you musta missed that.
 
Dear Buck,

Sorry you are taking an emotional view of this thread. Simple question, should WA state control the growing wolf population. Looks like the majority of folks answer in the affirmative. Shouldn't be a surprise that the Feds no longer consider the native Rocky Mountain wolf endangered any longer (canus lupus irremotus) when in reality the Mackenzie Valley wolf (canus lupus occidentalis) that they implanted here has put it into extinction. I guess if you are extinct, you are no longer endangered.

I guess that means we will simply agree to disagree. By the way, do you live in any of the infected areas? For me, this is not theoretical or emotional but the cold hard facts that wolves in large numbers are now the reality of the places I go such as the Bull River in MT, the St. Joe in Idaho and all the places in the northern Idaho panhandle.

Here, you need to understand the risk of hydatid disease and take precautions. In addition, several dogs have been killed in the last couple of years. Yeah, yeah, yeah, emotional response all right my friend. Glad I live in a state that recognizes the dangers of this invasive subspecies and is doing something to counteract the out of control Feds. If you don't have any of these beasts in your backyard yet, maybe you can ask Uncle Sam to send you some.

Have a nice day and just agree to disagree.
 
Native Rocky Mountain wolf is now extinct at the hands of the Feds wolf "reintroduction" program. Several of my friends, one a rancher born, and raised here in northern Idaho used to see this wolf very frequently on his property. That is until the Feds "reintroduced" the Mackenzie Valley wolf which has brought this subspecies native wolf into extinction.

Canis lupus crassodon (Vancouver Island Wolf-ENDANGERED)
Canis lupus fuscus (Cascade Mountains Wolf-EXTINCT)
Canis lupus hudsonicus (Hudson Bay Wolf-ENDANGERED)
Canis lupus irremotus (Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf-EXTINCT)
Canis lupus labradorius (Labrador Wolf-ENDANGERED)
Click to expand...

http://canislupus101.blogspot.com/p/wolf-species.html

Here is an excellent commentary and summary of these two subspecies and the impact on the people that now live with this experiment gone wrong.

http://graywolfnews.com/pdf/Editorial_Failed_Wolf_Experiment_2.pdf
 
Id expect the population of wolves in WA and ID are way over the 'target pop' set by CITES when the wolves were listed, probably in the 70s. 6-8 times that population 'goal' that they all agreed on.

In MI there are officially 637, if I recall correctly. Many say it is about 3x that many. In WI, I dont know. Perhaps someone could chime im.

The 'goal' for MI and WI was 100 wolves. When MI should attempt to set a season the weirdos will think the sky is falling.

The best thing we can do in MI is send the wolves back to the HILLS- Irish Hills, Rochester Hills, and Farmington Hills and see how they fit in!!
 
The data on wolves in the Rockies is that they take 40-50 elk for each wolf each year. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see what kind of impact that has on the elk population.

Many of these kills are left to rot without eating in what the scientists call thrill kills just for the fun of it.
 
The introduction , not re-introduction, of this particular species is the problem.
This is like introducing African lions to replace a mountain lion population.
If the tree huggers can't get a handle on this, they need to go hug poison ivy.
After the plate is clean of elk and deer, what do you suppose the super wolves will hunt next?
 
Today, 07:24 AM #30
Strafer Gott
Senior Member

Join Date: May 12, 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 207
The introduction , not re-introduction, of this particular species is the problem.
This is like introducing African lions to replace a mountain lion population.
If the tree huggers can't get a handle on this, they need to go hug poison ivy.
After the plate is clean of elk and deer, what do you suppose the super wolves will hunt next?
Click to expand...

+1 Strafer Gott, go hug poison ivy. LOL.:eek:
 
Alaska444: Washington state does have a wolf management plan.

The people that keep crying wolf need to get a grip.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00001/
The purpose of the plan is to ensure the reestablishment of a self-sustaining population of gray wolves in Washington and to encourage social tolerance for the species by addressing and reducing conflicts. Goals of the plan are to:

Restore the wolf population in Washington to a self-sustaining size and geographic distribution that will result in wolves having a high probability of persisting in the state through the foreseeable future (>50-100 years).

Manage wolf-livestock conflicts in a way that minimizes livestock losses, while at the same time not negatively impacting the recovery or long-term perpetuation of a sustainable wolf population.

Maintain healthy and robust ungulate populations in the state that provide abundant prey for wolves and other predators as well as ample harvest opportunities for hunters.

Develop public understanding of the conservation and management needs of wolves in Washington, thereby promoting the public’s coexistence with the species.
Click to expand...

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00001/july2011_final_recommended_wolf_plan.pdf

While the number of livestock killed by wolves in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming has generally increased over time as wolf numbers have grown, these are small compared to losses caused by coyotes, cougars, bobcats, dogs, bears, foxes, eagles, and other predators. Coyotes and other predators were responsible for almost all of the losses in which the predator was identified (98.8% of the cattle losses and 99.4% of the sheep losses) during 2004 and 2005; wolves were responsible for 1.8% and 0.6% of the losses
Click to expand...

And yes the plan includes...
Lethal Removal

Lethal control of wolves may be necessary to resolve repeated wolf-livestock conflicts and is performed to remove problem animals that jeopardize public tolerance for overall wolf recovery. Large numbers of wolves have been killed in control actions in both the northern Rocky Mountain states (1,517 wolves from 1987 to 2010, with 7-16% of the population removed annually since 2002; Table 5) and Great Lakes states (3,145 wolves from 1978 to 2008, with 3-4% of the population removed annually; (Table 6) during the recovery of wolf populations. While federally listed, most lethal control of wolves in the northern Rocky Mountain states was performed by wildlife agency staff. As wolves became more common, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service gradually loosened restrictions on this activity to allow increased take by agency staff and private citizens with a federal permit (Fritts et al. 1992, Bangs et al. 2006). In Washington, if wolves are federally listed in any part of the state, WDFW would consult with and coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to any lethal removal proposal to ensure consistency with federal law.
In Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, agency decisions to lethally remove wolves have been made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account specific factors such as a pack’s size and conflict history, status and distribution of natural prey in the area, season, age and class of livestock, success or failure of non-lethal tools, and potential for future losses (Sime et al. 2007). Where lethal removal is deemed necessary, incremental control is usually attempted, with one or two offending animals removed initially. If depredations continue, additional animals may be killed. Stepwise incremental control can result in the eventual elimination of entire packs if wolves repeatedly depredate livestock (Sime et al. 2007).
Lethal control of wolves by agency staff can have the advantages of being swift, effective, and tightly regulated. The benefits of allowing lethal removal by livestock producers are that offending wolves are more likely to be targeted, it can eliminate the need for agency control, shooting at wolves may teach them and other pack members to be more wary of humans and to avoid areas of high human activity, it allows producers to address their own problems, and it may reduce animosity toward government agencies and personnel (Bangs et al. 2006). Drawbacks of lethal control are that it is always controversial among a sizeable segment of the public, depredation may recur, there is uncertainty whether the wolves killed were the offending animals, wolves may respond by becoming more active at night to avoid people, it can be costly when performed by agencies, and it is open to abuse when conducted by the public, thereby requiring law enforcement follow-up (Fritts et al. 1992, Musiani et al. 2005, Treves and Naughton-Treves 2005, Bangs et al. 2006). Two recent analyses of long-term lethal control of wolves found that removals generally have limited or no effect in reducing the recurrence of depredation (Harper et al. 2008, Muhly et al. 2010a).
Click to expand...

Here in Washington state we have a Department of Fish and Wildlife. Part of their job is to figure out how to handle the new wolf population. So far they seem to be doing a better job than anyone on the internet.

BTW
This is like introducing African lions to replace a mountain lion population.
Click to expand...
African lions would not be very good at doing the cougars job.
 
I think all states should manage all their various forms of wildlife, both four legged and two legged. Management doesn't necessarily mean killing them.
 
Dear Buzzcook,

Let's discuss this looking at the data instead of throwing unneeded personal invectives my way.

I am aware of the WA program to PROMOTE wolf populations and I have seen those sites, but that was not the question that I posed. I seriously doubt that WA state will have the political will to control the wolf population through hunting once it reaches a level that seriously impacts other game animal populations and threatens human populations directly through encroachment in suburbs and through public health issues related to the spread of hydatid disease.

Will WA state keep wolf numbers under control through hunting of wolves to prevent damage to the entire ecosystem or will the false propaganda associated with wolves dominate the political debate preventing control of this species leading them to paralysis of what will one day be a significant issue. My guess is that WA will not be able to come to a consensus politically like ID and MT who see the great public health risk posed by wolves and aggressively control their populations and wolves will overwhelm the entire ecosystem. It will be interesting to see how popular those cute little wolves will be in WA state in the next 5-10 years.

Let's stick to the issues since your view is in the minority here on TFL and since we are discussing real issues, TFL has to date allowed the discussion to progress.
 
Today, 02:48 PM #33
ripnbst
Senior Member

Join Date: November 24, 2010
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 667
I think all states should manage all their various forms of wildlife, both four legged and two legged. Management doesn't necessarily mean killing them.
Click to expand...

Management of most game animal populations almost always involves one form or another of culling a herd of critters when they go beyond their sustainable resources.

Types of wildlife management

There are two general types of wildlife management:

Manipulative management acts on a population, either changing its numbers by direct means or influencing numbers by the indirect means of altering food supply, habitat, density of predators, or prevalence of disease. This is appropriate when a population is to be harvested, or when it slides to an unacceptably low density or increases to an unacceptably high level. Such densities are inevitably the subjective view of the land owner, and may be disputed by animal welfare interests.

Custodial management is preventive or protective. The aim is to minimize external influences on the population and its habitat. It is appropriate in a national park where one of the stated goals is to protect ecological processes. It is also appropriate for conservation of a threatened species where the threat is of external origin rather than being intrinsic to the system.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildlife_management
 
Already read it and others before I put my post up. The wolf management plan is not my question. The wolf management plan is a "custodial" management plan to increase the wolf population.

My question and my post concerns whether WA will ever must the political will to introduce a "manipulative" management program once the wolf population outstrips its resources as it did in WY/ID and MT? I seriously doubt WA state will muster that political will since the wolf is shrouded in propaganda and the darker side of this killing machine is not mentioned. The Discovery channel program is one example of this propaganda that does not give a clear presentation of why that man was hunting wolves in Idaho.

Instead, they only presented a slanted view of wolves as an endangered creature when that is laughable given their huge numbers in Alaska and Canada. We have had a very sustainable ecology in the Pacific Northwest without any wolves whatsoever. As essential as the propaganda shows allege, game and forest lands have flourished for the several decades these critters were gone.

Now with an invasive subspecies that belongs on the tundra and not in the Pacific Northwest and Rockies bringing in deadly public health diseases to boot, I believe WA state deserves the full truth of the experiment that their state government is about to engage.

If you wish to believe that the Mackenzie Valley wolf is native and belongs here, so be it. The data and information appears to be something you simply wish to ignore. However, 2/3rds of those responding to the poll know the facts and understand the danger of this invasive species. Perhaps you should do a bit more homework on this subject than government websites. That is why I posted this since the majority of people believe what is stated on the Discovery channel program linking in my OP. It is completely devoid of the reality of living with wolves in large numbers.

BTW, hugging poison ivy is quite humorous response and that is why I noted it. Lighten up guy and go learn some more about this entire issue.
 
While the number of livestock killed by wolves in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming has generally increased over time as wolf numbers have grown, these are small compared to losses caused by coyotes, cougars, bobcats, dogs, bears, foxes, eagles, and other predators. Coyotes and other predators were responsible for almost all of the losses in which the predator was identified (98.8% of the cattle losses and 99.4% of the sheep losses) during 2004 and 2005; wolves were responsible for 1.8% and 0.6% of the losses
Click to expand...
this is clear and utter nonsense. pure propaganda.
my family owns a large portion of land on Craig MT south of Lewiston and near one of the first canadian gray wolf populations established in Idaho. they have had cattle there since before the indigenous wolves were completely killed out. they rarely lost cattle and when they did it was normally a sickly one that had left the herd to die. there are coyotes, bobcats, cougars, unconfirmed sightings of lynx, dogs,I laugh at the stories of eagles killing livestock but we have those too, foxes, badgers, and bears. the number of livestock that has disappeared or found dead has always remained about the same...until recently. I do not buy for one second that the amount of cattle that my uncles have had disappearing(which has increased exponentially over the the last decade) has anything to do with the NATIVE PREDATORIAL SPECIES. I do believe that these canadian gray wolves that have adapted to a much harsher environment are 100% to blame for the reason that it is next to impossible to get drawn for elk, moose or deer tags in the mountains. it is why I am seeing elk and moose in lower elevations than anyone has seen since the first settlers have arrived. their instincts tell them to kill anything that comes along because in a canadian winter they don't know the next time they will find food again, here in idaho it is not so tough...or at least it wasn't before they started wiping out entire herds of elk and leaving them to rot.
washington is notorious for incredibly strict hunting laws and an inability to deal with over population. along the snake/columbian river basin there are herds of whitetail deer that contain over 400. the land can not sustain a population that large and washington only allows the taking of bucks 2 points or larger(that's 2 points on each antler) so these herds containing over 90% does and most of the bucks being spikes are largely untouched by hunters. they are starving, they are diseased, and washington refuses to thin them out. not only that but they've gone one step further. a handful of people have been taking matters into their own hands and started a non-sanctioned thinning of these herds and washington fish and game started ordering patrol boats on the river to prevent this "poaching" and protect these herds... what is going to happen when all the blacktail, whitetail, mule deer and what few elk they have are gone and the wolves start killing livestock? I think I have a pretty good idea what they will do based on previous population control measures they've taken.
 
Last edited:
+1 tahunua001, great summary of the situation in Idaho and in WA state. I believe that WA state is facing a grave problem in 5-10 years since it is very unlikely that they will have the political will to control this aggressive wolf. Great summary.
 
Maybe we need to send some of our NM wolves up to the poor guys in Idaho, they're doing population control hunts here. The few grey wolves they introduced don't seem to be making the promised dent.
As for the "50 elk per year per wolf" number, that's 20-30 lbs of meat per day for each wolf. I don't think they'd be running down that many elk with their belly dragging on the ground. 50 elk per pack sounds more reasonable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top