Wolf Hunting in Washington

Not all of Washington was Delisted

If all of Washington was delisted, we would not be having this discussion. The problem that people have is the wolf plan, which is to fill Washington with wolves, and no hunting of wolves. I don't know what part of Washington you live in, or even if you live in Wa. but I can tell you first hand, if you enjoy the great outdoorss, and you have a high wolf population where you live that is not hunted, you will soon be enjoying the outdoors on TV or packing everywhere you go. Just give it time, and at the rate it's going it won't be to long...... wolfbait

http://washingtonwolf.info/
 
Wolfbait
Minnesota,Michigan come to mind with wolves and people and livestock and they kill plenty of deer there. Seems to me you rather have CWD, starvation,Blue tongue and a myraid of other diseases take care of the excess deer populations that hunters are unable to harvest, mostly due to lack of skill.Should I mention the number of vehicle collisions with wildlife that cause millions of dollars in damage ? A few wolves ain't going to decimate deer or elk poulations to the level you are suggesting.Has not happened in any place you care to mention.Animal populations go up and down for various reasons, predation is only one of many.I am not suggesting that wolves be treated like the lions in CA.Manage them accordinly it will be fine. I can take it or leave it I am not a wolf lover or hater.The folks in Minnesota and Michigan don't have their BVD'd all bunched up over the wolves why do you?
 
longranger,,,You mentioned a key word, "MANAEMENT" So far we have seen very little management,, thats where I come in on the wolf issue and I think just about everyone else that doesn't much care for the game herds being slaughtered. One does not have to be a biologist in order to have common sense. Bit of a differance there wouldn't you say?? Doesn't matter what the coyote habitate is, we are not talking about coyotes..A few wolves ain't going to decimate deer or elk poulations.. A few wolves would be just fine, but that is not the case, as far as wolves dscimating deer and elk herds, I suggest you take a trip into Idaho and Montana... Talk to the people that live where these wolves have been killing off the elk and deer,, Then come back and tell me what you have learned. It is a little bit differant when it is in your own back yard. You might be a bit surprised at the number of people that have the same concerns that I do with the on going lack of true management of the wolves.

http://washingtonwolf.info/
 
If you read the wolf plan "Hunting" is not mentioned as the eventual management tool. That means that taxpayers will most likely have to foot the bill for wolf management when wolf numbers exceed wildland spaces and wolves start causing serious problems.

Idaho has been having to pay professional hunters a reported $1500 per wolf plus heli flight time. Now that a hunting season has been established Idaho will save thousands.

People need to tell the Washington WDFW Commission to include "Hunting" as the eventual management tool once taget numbers of wolves have been reached.

There is an old saying "A fool and his money soon depart". :D

http://washingtonwolf.info/
 
If you were really a biologist you would know that suitable habitat for a wolf is not the same for a coyote.
Click to expand...
longranger, if you really knew anything about wolves, you would know that they once roamed over most of N America, the same area that is now being overrun by coyotes. In the future, keep your uneducated comments to yourself, please.
 
Bearpaw... If a fool and his money "depart", then I say good riddance to both...
But the "old saying" is actually, "A fool and his money are soon *parted*":D
Brent
 
Wolves tend to kill coyotes and other competitors. It would be interesting to see whether this caused a net decrease or increase in predation on domestic animals.
Coyotes are the main cause of livestock loss by a fairly large margin.

http://www.wildrockiesalliance.org/issues/wolves/articles/perspective.html
2000 Sheep Losses in Idaho

66% of sheep losses were due to disease, accidents, injuries and weather
34% were due to predator depredations.
Of these depredations, 69% were caused by coyotes, 9% by dogs, 6% by bears, 4% by mountain lions, 2% by foxes, 3% by unknown animals and only 0.4% by wolves.
(Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture)
Click to expand...

iirc the above information is also in the WDFW Wolf plan but I didn't have the patience to read the thing again.
Just to step back a bit. This is a subject that where it is surprisingly difficult to find primary sources. I've tried to link only to government sources or ones that directly link to them. But there's a large static to signal ratio.

For various reasons this is a subject that tends to get emotional. Imho how we treat wolves shouldn't have any more emotional weight than how we talk about moose or grouse. But that's not the way it is.

In other words it's probably a good idea to double check your sources and tone down on the snark.
 
There is a nother old saying that goes like this: You might be able to bullsh$t the fans, but you can't bullsh$t the players. One more time Buszzcook, I can run you into the dirt with facts and links that will turn you around an spit you out.

Wolves are the ultimate killer, there is nothing that beats these wolves that the USFW brought down from Canada when it comes to killing. They kill for fun as much or more as they do for food. They are the biggest waster of game animals and livestock known to mankind. Not being hunted makes them even more dangerous, they have no fear. I know, I have been real close to these wolves and not on purpose, they were not afraid.

Here's what is happening, the wolves are killing the hell out of the game. Other predators such as bears, and cats are running low on grub, that is one reason people are seeing an increase in bear and cat problems. Here in the Methow the coyotes are actually following the wolves and cleaning up after them, its almost as if they are running with the wolves, wolves kill something the coyotes are there howling it up. I have actually seen this. We are having more problems with wolves here than is being reported. Why because the WDWL will not confirm wolf killed livestock, nor are they being honest with the number of wolves that are actually here. The new Methow is a land of pro-wolf people, some have already had their dogs killed by wolves. They will not report it because they do not want to make it hard on the wolves, these same people have sold there livestock because the predators are more important to them. Do you have any idea what the end results will be? I have a darn good idea, and it is not going to be as pretty as these people think. In Arizona and New Mexico they have to build cages for their children to wait for the buss in, thats a fact. The people in the Methow who don't have their heads buried in the sand are packing everywhere they go. The WDWL think they are going to make the Methow into a wolf veiwing area, what about all the people who live here? Nope I don't see things turning out to good for any part of Washington without management where these wolves are concerned, or for the people who will have to deal with them. Maybe they are not in your backyard yet, but they will be. People need to get invloved and have a say in what the wolf plan turns out being, because we will be the ones dealing with the problems and also paying the $1500.00 per wolf, and thats after the WDFW spend thousands Collaring, watching, translocating, watching some more and then they will end up shooting the wolf. When the wolves get done killing all the game and it will happen, let me put it this way they won't get all the game, but they will kill enough that there will not be any hunting. Maybe than people will take an interest in what the hell is going on. But by then it will be to late. Do you know how hard it is to hunt wolves??? Do you know how fast they multiply with a full fridge? Do you know how much surplus killing they do? I have been seeing it for quite some time now. People are starting to question all the dead deer that they are finding, deer with just their butts eaten out, dead deer with not much at all eaten out. The Fawn count now thats a joke, we don't have a fawn count nothing to count. Deer hanging in town and around peoples yards, you can't hardly drive them off. They know where it's safe. If you want me to start pulling up links, not a problem I have a whole mess af them, and these are documented facts from real people, and real stories. Here's just a few. Look them over, tell me what you think.



http://rliv.com/wolf/09NFpred.pdf

http://s84.photobucket.com/albums/k6/waha338/?action=view&current=TheKillingSportbyRWalters.flv

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/may_2002/crying_wolf_again.htm

http://wolfcrossing.org/2008/02/25/flying-for-elk-in-idaho/
http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/p...defenders_helps_fly_wolves_to_yellowstone.php

http://www.theoutdoorlodge.com/features/articles/outdoors/yellowstone_wolf_experiment.html

http://www.wmicentral.com/site/printerFriendly.cfm?brd=2264&dept_id=505965&newsid=17108302

Best Regards
wolfbait
 
Back to the thread.....I will let you guys argue about how you want to word the old saying....

What is important is how many wolves they want to put in Washington, and what wolves are doing to western big game herds. Here are the facts from scientific studies. You can refer to the pages cited in the Washington Wolf Plan to verify these statistics.http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/gray_wolf/rev_wolfplan_cleanaug0309.pdf

The Washington Draft Wolf Plan is recommending a minimum of 15 breeding pairs but not limited to that number of breeding pairs, for 3 consecutive years (in appropriate distribution, see page 50) before delisting. Data from Idaho and Montana indicates that 15 breeding pairs translates into as many as 361 actual wolves. A problem with this requirement is that until there are the (appropriate quantity of breeding pairs in 3 or 4 of Washington's Wolf Areas), it doesn't matter how many wolves are living in the other areas, wolves will not be delisted. Another problem, these breeding pairs must exist for three years, in 3 or 4 areas. Data from Idaho indicates a wolf population increases 20% to 24% each year. Perhaps there will be 30 or 40 breeding pairs in central and eastern Washington before there are any breeding pairs in the Olympic Peninsula. Under this plan 40 or more breeding pairs (as many as 1000 or more actual wolves) could live in eastern Washington before the Olympics have any breeding pairs. Even if translocation occurs which is also mentioned in the plan in the event livestock killing wolves need moved to colonize a new area, yes you read correctly, they do not want to kill wolves that kill livestock, they want to move them (see page 52).

washington_wolf_plan_map.jpg

Map Showing Estimated Wolf habitat In Washington

Wolves Eat Elk And Deer, or Livestock

Studies indicate that 1 wolf eats 17 elk or 44 deer per year (page 73). At that rate the target of 361 wolves could eat as many as 6137 elk or 15,884 deer. If wolves do not populate all wolf zones at the same time, and overpopulate in some areas of Washington (which is possible under this plan) Washington could end up with 1000+ wolves just like in Idaho. That many wolves could eat as many as 17,000 elk or 44,000 deer per year in Washington before any breeding pairs are established in the Olympic Peninsula so that delisting can occur.

Hunters harvest an average of 8,000 elk and 38,000 deer in all areas of Washington (page 78, page 83). If wolves overpopulate, it is very possible that there would not be enough elk and deer to allow any hunting season.

Wolves also eat livestock (see page 63) and there are reimbursement programs, but the biggest problem is that most livestock predations are currently not being classified as "confirmed wolf kills", so the ranchers lose, they do not get any money for their loss, see the photo in the right column. A problem with the Washington Wolf Plan is that it allows too many wolves to inhabit Washington and when game herds are reduced too far, livestock and even human encounters will likely increase.

Wolf Plan - Minority Position

The Minority Position (hunters and ranchers involved in the wolf plan, see Washington Draft Wolf Plan page 246-247) states:

We are "unable to live with" the proposed numbers in the WWG Draft Plan. We believe the numbers are too high and will result in direct conflict with the Livestock and Sportsman Communities.

Therefore we feel that the WWG’s desired number of BP’s is unrealistic given the lack of suitable habitat and the much higher human population density of this state and that the requirement of 15 BP’s for 3 years (50% Higher that the USFW criteria for recovery in WY, MT, and ID,) defies common sense.

We therefore propose the following numbers of BP’s statewide: 3 BP’s to down list to Threatened, 6 BP’s to down list to State Sensitive, and 8 BP’s to change to a Big Game Animal. And we would eliminate the 3 year period since the state was not considered essential for recovery of wolves in the NRM (p.6119 Federal Register). This total number of 8 BP’s or approximately 80 wolves would fit in the states economic analysis as outlined in Chapter 14, "Economics" which states "Wolf numbers between 50 and 100 animals should pose little detriment to the states livestock industry as a whole…As wolf populations become larger and more widely distributed, financial impacts are likely to accrue to more producers" (p.126). "Populations of 50 to 100 wolves should not have negative effects on big game hunting in Washington" (p.139).

It is obvious that had the Washington Wolf Working Group not been stacked with pro-wolf members, the "Minority Position" would likely be the Draft Wolf Plan.
 
here we go again...

Wolves are fine and a sign of a healthy ecosystem the problem with the wolves is when they start eating and killing livestock and Susie's little purse dog.
Think about this for a moment,all the great hunting places in North America,that includes Alaska and all of Canada.They have the best hunting for all the species you care to take and they have wolves.So the argument that they will kill all the game is nonsense.We have wolves in the Big Horn Mtns. just outside of town.The elk and deer herds have never been in better shape.A few rogue wolves have taken a liking to sheep near town DFG dispatched the wolves swiftly.Respect for the wolves and the ranchers is the key to having it all.
Click to expand...

I live at the East Gate of Yellowstone National Park. I was born in this area and have lived here for the majority of my life. I was here at the ground floor of this debate when "they" re-introduced wolves to Yellowstone and the surrounding areas. The issue has been chewed up, regurgitated, and chewed again. Both sides quote data and provide experts who will spew forth technical and anecdotal stats ad-nausium. No one seems to come out on top.
I just could not stand ideally by while this gentleman form Buffalo Wyoming speak for all of us in Wyoming.
Like I said, I have seen personally the wolf introduced, grow, expand, and kill. I am not a biologist. I am not a trophy hunter. I have no expertise to lend. I hunt to put meat on the table. My comments are offered strictly as personal opinion and a layman's observation.
That being said, not ONE good thing has come of the re-introduction (a sill term if you ask me, the wolf was here before, and in greater numbers than folks were led to believe) of the wolf into Yellowstone and the surrounding area. Unless you count the feelings of longranger and his ilk.
Predation of so-called "sporting" game is through the roof. So much so that the number of licenses being sold for elk and deer etc. are being scaled back considerably. As for a the taking of "a few" sheep and "some" livestock, I direct your attention to the Montana Standard (link provided below, hopefully). 120 sheep slaughtered in one attack.
Much like humans, wolves are indiscriminant killers, and they don't just kill for food, they kill for fun too.
As for the feeding of elk, I assume you mean the feed-lots near Jackson Hole and other such places where groups of farmers and ranchers work with Wyoming Game and Fish to provide a habituated feeding ground to lure the elk away form rancher's hay fields so that the Game and Fish can avoid reimbursing rancher's and farmers for losses. Reintroduction of the wolf has just shifter the reimbursements from feed to animals slain by wolves. Last I checked, it was cheaper to feed a cow than to pay for the animal plus all the animals said animal would produce in years to come...
I feel for those of you in Washington state. If I had my way the wolf would be listed under "predator status". Shoot on sight. Shoot to kill.

http://www.mtstandard.com/articles/2009/08/28/area/hjjajbhchghbjc.txt
 
There is a nother old saying that goes like this: You might be able to bullsh$t the fans, but you can't bullsh$t the players. One more time Buszzcook, I can run you into the dirt with facts and links that will turn you around an spit you out.

There's the spirit.

So how about chewing on my link that indicates wolf predation is 0.4% of total sheep lost to predation.
If it is correct, it indicates that Idaho, with a much larger wolf population, doesn't have an insurmountable wolf problem.
Go ahead and start spitting.

I understand that dry statistics don't cover the entire story. There is also the possibility of serious under reporting, or other errors in the data. But we gots what we got.

http://www.peer.org/docs/doj/06_9_5_nass_report.pdf
According to the Ag. department wolves account for a minor percent of livestock lost to predation. 2.3% of cattle loses nation wide, for 2005. From the same source Idaho lost 105,000 cattle and calves to all sources, 2,500 of those to all predators. Unfortunately this report doesn't give state by state numbers for wolf predation.

Each of those animals lost to predation is statistically small, but it means a lot to the ranchers and herders who lose them. I don't want to denigrate their loss.

Bearpaw gives us this above.
The Washington Draft Wolf Plan is recommending a minimum of 15 breeding pairs but not limited to that number of breeding pairs, for 3 consecutive years (in appropriate distribution, see page 50) before delisting. Data from Idaho and Montana indicates that 15 breeding pairs translates into as many as 361 actual wolves.
Click to expand...

361 total wolves. Lets round that up to 500. 500 wolves doesn't seem to be a large enough number for us to use aggressive control measures right now.
To put that in perspective
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/living/cougars.htm
Cougars occur throughout Washington where suitable cover and prey are found. The cougar population for the year 2008 was estimated to be 2000 to 2,500 animals. The cougar population in eastern Washington is declining and the westside population is stable. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has nine management zones around the state designated for "maintain" or "decline," and adjusts harvest levels accordingly.
Click to expand...

That population is after the state put restrictions on cougar hunting.

My point here is that 500 wolves is not a large enough population to get so excited about.
Should we start allowing wolf hunts? Maybe. But telling me we're hip deep in wolves, when we are plainly not, doesn't make me want to condemn the WDFW.
 
Buzzcook, You are talking nation wide with the stock kills, when you figure it state by state, the states where the wolves are, are getting hammered. It is not fair to lump them all togeather. Most wolf kills are not even discovered, and when they are who can tell what killed it. The bit that they do get paid for confirmed kills does not even come close to what they have lost. Here in the Methow like other states, WDFW will not confirm kills, even though there is no doubt. One lady here actaully saw the wolf that killed her chickens, WDFW biologist said he didn't believe it was a wolf because it was not afraid of her. So that tells me, in order to get a confirmed wolf kill the wolf/wolves will have to be laying there next to the kill.

Here's a bit of information on what has happened and is still happening.


February 7, 2004: Wolves - Now a Major Problem (American Hunter): from clardon@aboutmontana.net (Clarice Ryan)
From: Gary Marbut/MSSA/TOS [mailto:mssa@mtssa.org]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: American Hunter on Wolves


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear MSSA Friends,

In case you don't get the NRA's publication American Hunter, pasted below is their feature story about wolves from the January edition. They've received some complaints about "crying wolf" over this story. I believe, if anything, they've understated the scope of the problem that wolves bring to Montana.

My view is this:

Sportsmen and sportswomen spent a century fostering huntable wildlife populations in Montana through investment in wildlife management. In doing so we created a type of savings account to pass on to our children and grandchildren - abundant populations of huntable wildlife and a strong hunting culture in Montana..

Along came the advocates for one animal, wolves, and turned their pet predator loose to savage and consume the savings account we had built slowly and patiently over a century, and our hunting culture. Like yeast or any other biological life form, wolves will not slow their population explosion until they've consumed the available food supply.

Within a very few years, if wolves are not controlled aggressively and soon, we will see an end to elk hunting in Montana, eventually of deer hunting too. As wolves take more and more of the newborn and biologically productive animals, wildlife managers will have no choice but to rachet back seasons, quotas and game harvests, and hunter success will fall off dramatically as wildlife inventories dwindle.

Stockgrowers have not yet begun to see the livestock losses that will be common when wolves eat themselves out of deer and elk. For most stockgrowers, the difference between a black and red bottom line is a VERY narrow one indeed. Where wolves exist, many stockgrowers will be driven out of business, accelerating the buy-up of Montana agricultural properties by wealthy people who do not live in Montana, and who have no roots in our culture.

This will also have implications long term for our right to keep and bear arms, as the pool of gun-owning hunters shrinks because of dismal hunter success rates. Remember when Max Baucus said that "You don't need an Uzi to hunt elk." Well, pretty soon you won't need a "sniper rifle" to hunt elk either because there won't be any elk. Amid a shrinking pool of gun owners, it will become increasingly more difficult to muster the political muscle necessary to defend all of the legal and political details essential to full enjoyment of our right to keep and bear arms.

I believe that at least some of those advocating wolf repopulation have foreseen this complete scenario/progression, and, for them, it is part of their long-range plan. One popular misconception is that if we, the hunters and shooters of Montana, are just allowed to shoot wolves, we can curtail the problem.

I have news for you. Forget that notion. If total open season were declared on wolves tomorrow, even if the Governor went on TV to beg Montana citizens to shoot every wolf they could find, not enough wolves would be taken to even slow their rate of population increase, much less check that rate of increase or diminish their populations. Take my word for this, it has been proven in Alaska, Canada and Russia.

The only things proven so far to roll back wolf populations are starvation, disease, or widespread use of poison. Starvation means they've run totally out of game and livestock to eat, and are picking off the last brave few backpackers in the woods. Do we wait that long? How soon do you think the public tolerance will exist for widespread use of poison to legally kill wolves? Some want to wait for canine disease to get among wolves and limit their populations? You should ask how frequently wildlife biologists who catch and collar wolves vaccinate this "endangered wildlife" against a whole range of canine diseases. Don't bother to ask if it's never, sometimes or often done, just ask if it is done EVERY time.

Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association

===========

American Hunter
January `04 Issue


Here's a link that has a pile of really good info. spit,spit:D

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1073500/posts
 
wolfbait, I did give state specific information for Idaho. I can give state specific information for other states where sheep are concerned. I'm trying not to make blanket statements.

I read with interest the article by Gary Marbut. It is a well written appeal to emotion.
The only things proven so far to roll back wolf populations are starvation, disease, or widespread use of poison. Starvation means they've run totally out of game and livestock to eat, and are picking off the last brave few backpackers in the woods.
Click to expand...

wolfbait, The Kaibab Plateau is a popular story about how when wolves were extirpated, the deer population exploded and all the deer got sick and starved in a massive die off of tens of thousands of animals. Kind of tugs at the heart strings to imagine Bambi with his ribs sticking out and coughing his last breath out.
The only problem is that it isn't quite true.
http://depts.alverno.edu/nsmt/youngcc/research/kaibab/story1.html
In 1970, ecologist Graeme Caughley reviewed the tangled evidence of the lesson and questioned the way two generations of textbook authors had perpetuated Leopold's use of the Kaibab example. The evidence, Caughley suggested, was found wanting and the textbooks were just plain wrong in stating that predator control alone had caused the Kaibab irruption. He concluded that predators had a relatively minor influence on the deer population. More significant were variations in habitat caused by factors including climate, livestock grazing, and changing federal and state wildlife policies (Caughley, 1970).
Click to expand...

Extirpating top predators isn't a good idea. But that doesn't mean using an appeal to emotion such as the Kaibab story is a valid argument, even if there is some truth to it.

And I'd also like to point out that just cutting and pasting, does not an argument make.
 
Buzzcook, Where ever the wolves end up being released, eventually livestock ends up getting killed. Defenders of wildlife claim ranchers are paid for their losses, not true,,this is not always true even when the livestock has been proven a confirmed wolf kill. That beng said the pro-wolf people don't care one whit about the ranchers or anyone else for that matter. The wolves were not released in the lower 48 for any benifits for the wolves, they were released so that special agendas could be fullfilled.

If you want to bring emotions into the wolf issue, which is a good point, I am sure that you are aware, that is how the environmentalists sell the wolf program, by false facts and out right lies. That is the one of the differance between the people who have to deal with these wolves and the hunters who see the game herds being desimated. Everyone who has problems with these wolves has to make sure what they are saying is the truth, the environmentalists lie to people day in and day out, its the only way they can sell the wolf.

As far as extirpating the top predator, what the people want is some management. The USFW and the Defenders of wildlife brought the wolves into this country illegaly and have been dishonest from the start, what they have done stinks of lies and disception. We already had a wolf population that if left alone would have expanded in thirty years to a viable wolf population. But then that wouldn't have caused the problems that we have today, the USFW and the Defenders of Wildlife brought a wolf into this country that they knew would cause the most damage, in my opinion these people are the lowest form of life.

I know that WDFW have no plans on being honest with the public on how many wolves they have released or even the amount of wolves they know are in Washington, thats a given. So in respect to that I feel that the wolf plan should come out as the minority plan which would be less wolves. I would also like to see hunting as an alternative to translocting problem and over populated wolves. Maybe when the WDFW translocates our problem wolves into your backyard you will have a differant opinion on how things really work and not what the special interests groups tell you. That was sugjested a while back, let all these people that think a lot of wolves is great have a few hundred in their backyards and then see how they feel about their beloved wolves.

Wolves multiply up to 50%, 34% is average, the USFW and special interests groups down play all the damage the wolves have done and are doing to this country. All the people want is some honest managment. Honesty period would be a big step.

Don't like that cutting and pasting,eh. Kind of puts it right out there where everyone can see it. I wasn't the one that started slapping links on here, remember.

http://washingtonwolf.info/

Best Regards
wolfbait
 
Last edited:
If you want to bring emotions into the wolf issue,
Click to expand...

Well actually the point of my post was that we should not bring emotion into the issue.

Don't like that cutting and pasting,eh
Click to expand...

Again you miss the point. There is a difference between saying "this is what I think and here is a citation that backs me up", and just pasting some guys fact free rant without explanation.

How do you expect to get people to pay attention to you if you can't craft an argument in your own words?

So far I've shown that the wolf population is relatively low, under 1000 in Idaho and well under 500 Washington. That the other apex predator in Washington is managed well by the WSFW. Cougars at 2000 to 2500 steady in the West, declining slightly in the East.
Livestock depredations by wolves are a minor percent of domestic animal predation, less than coyote by a very large margin.
Finally the Idaho elk harvest doesn't show a corollary decline with the growth of the wolf population.
I've back up each with a citation of an authoritative source.

I'm done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top