Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

WDFW gets it right- Wolves part trois

NFR 
8K views 114 replies 41 participants last post by  wa_desert_rat 
#1 ·
#36 ·
You may be giving WDFW too much credit. Seems whatever WDFW tries to "manage", they are great at achieving opposite their desired outcome. So if you hate wolves, hope that WDFW deems it a "species of concern". Show up at WDFW's public hearings and testify that the agency should make every effort to protect wolves and that they should use the best available science in their decision making. Rest assured that the agency will show that it's extremely competent in being dismissive of every point you make. And you will have preemptively helped WDFW build its list of "I don't care what you say, we know better" talking points that it can playback to every enviro organization that tries to protect the wolves.

Similarly if you want to see the wolf population explode across the state, just let the agency continue along its current path.
 
#38 ·
No joke.

Good grief, if they are serious about thinning out the wolf packs, have a lottery for them. Make them somewhat expensive, make a little money (if nothing else, to just offset the cost of the tag process) and let the private sector take care of it. You KNOW there are folks out there who would jump on that opportunity.
 
#40 ·
I think it's time to set up a new Wolves forum on WFF. While we're at it, can we bring back the Politics forum? J/K
 
#43 ·
I am sure you won't mind this ecotard telling his brethren that there is still a glimmer of hope to call the Gov. and/or Dept. of Wildlife to stop the killing of these wolves.
 
#54 ·
Like I said, I don't expect everyone to agree with my opinion on wolves. Sorry you can't seem to comprehend that.
I guess it is easier just to label anyone that doesn't see your point of view as a ecotard.
 
#56 ·
Dave you are not being combative.
The wolves are now getting used to being chased and hunted. The professional hunter I mentioned were full time fiel agents for DNR and WDFW people thatr spend most of their time in the woods where these critters live. If you look at the total numbers of wolf permits issued and the number of wolves killed in Id and Mt the success rate is very low. Both states have quotas or levels that they want to maintain in numbers of wolves/packs, and hunters were suppossed to be able to kill wolves easily and get the quotas the states wanted. It hasn't happened yet. That is why now the states are talking about trapping wolves.
All I am saying is if we are going to have wolves we need to have hunting priveliges for them then the wolf population will be controlled and the remaining wolves will eventually realize that the easy prey around human population is not the safest.
Maybe there can be a balance, At some time in the past all these animals coexisted in this part of the state.
jesse (not John)
 
#57 ·
I'm enjoying this thread, best in a long time. No one has made personal insults, arguments have been civil, yet, pointed.

By the way, you don't need pro-hunters for the job, let the hunters target wolves in the designated area as a free "bonus" species. Hell, put on a $10 tag requirement and we can use the money to run the ferry system over here for one more day.

Eastsiders have got to hate the politics in this state more than I do. Oh, I forgot for a minute, I'm an eastsider in drag.
 
#58 ·
I'll take wolves over cows any day.. If it really was that important to the rancher then he'd be out there with his cattle protecting them like they used to but now in these days of entitlement i guess ranchers feel like the government owes them something like the ability to lease federal land to graze upon or to protect their cattle from wildlife for them. LONG LIVE THE WOLVES! including the ones with a taste for beef.
 
#61 ·
"I guess ranchers feel like the goverment owes them something"
Not to many years ago and still in some states and countys there is a term called "blue sky"
This term is used by cattle ranchers to use any land that is private and not fenced for free grazing of their cattle.
So to keep from having problems with land owner, ranchers lease public land.
What ever the cost it's not free like "blue sky".
I agree with some of my fellow members that why should my tax dollar be spent on killing wolves when a paying lic. and tag holder will do the job and put $ back into wildlife conservation.
It is a proven fact that hunted predators fear humans and humans stuff.
In problem areas like the "Wedge" wolves should be shot on sight, year around, until the problem is over.
 
#64 ·
I agree that hunted wolves will begin to act a little more shy around domestic livestock, and once the professionals (who know better than any of us, despite what some might say on this board) think the wolf population is sufficient to sustain it, hunting should be reestablished.

But why should your tax dollar be spent fattening up your neighbors' cattle at well below market rate? We've got a country (or at least this is true in the western part of our country) of socialist cattle ranchers masquerading as independent, free-market, cattle ranchers. They don't want their 'right' to graze their cattle on public land to be restricted, but sure want the government to get rid of the wolves on that same public land.

If the Forest Recreation Pass we have to buy to go hiking on public land in the Cascades were priced proportional to the impact that grazing leases have on the land, there isn't a unit of currency small enough to charge for the pass.

D
 
#110 ·
BTW the ranchers don't manage the the public lands. that is the responsibility of the Federal land managers. The prime reason that the grazing on much of the USFS land is not that good is that over-dense forests don't produce a lot of forage
It just annoys me to have someone tell me that ranchers who have abandoned public land leases they've controlled for generations were not responsible at all for managing them. They certainly acted like they owned them if you worked for them (and I have). And if they sell the ranch they always include how many acres of leased land they have. Like: "1000 acres, 250 irrigated, 300 pasture plus 5,000 acres leased".

To completely dismiss overgrazing as something someone who doesn't know anything about the subject kinda stretches the topic, too. Overgrazing in the west is pretty well documented; just do a Google search on "overgrazing public lands" and you'll come up with a lot of information.

And almost everyone who has hiked, mountain biked, floated creeks and streams and traveled extensively outdoors in central and eastern WA has run across a rancher who has told them that they are on "his" land and to get off as well as "no trespassing" signs posted on what are clearly public property. In fact lots of us out here carry detailed maps so we can refute it when it happens

Farmers and ranchers, some of the most fiscally conservative voters in the Nation, get downright rabid when you talk about taking their farm subsidies away. But they don't think public health care for pregnant girls is very good; until it's their daughter.

So, yes... I guess you could call me a cynic...

Craig
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lugan
#114 ·
It just annoys me to have someone tell me that ranchers who have abandoned public land leases they've controlled for generations were not responsible at all for managing them. They certainly acted like they owned them if you worked for them (and I have). And if they sell the ranch they always include how many acres of leased land they have. Like: "1000 acres, 250 irrigated, 300 pasture plus 5,000 acres leased".

To completely dismiss overgrazing as something someone who doesn't know anything about the subject kinda stretches the topic, too. Overgrazing in the west is pretty well documented; just do a Google search on "overgrazing public lands" and you'll come up with a lot of information.

And almost everyone who has hiked, mountain biked, floated creeks and streams and traveled extensively outdoors in central and eastern WA has run across a rancher who has told them that they are on "his" land and to get off as well as "no trespassing" signs posted on what are clearly public property. In fact lots of us out here carry detailed maps so we can refute it when it happens

Farmers and ranchers, some of the most fiscally conservative voters in the Nation, get downright rabid when you talk about taking their farm subsidies away. But they don't think public health care for pregnant girls is very good; until it's their daughter.

So, yes... I guess you could call me a cynic...

Craig
I do not at all dismiss the fact that overgrazing on public lands is common, largely due to the factors I cited, and the fact that some public land managers are either too lazy or fear the consequences of taking action against grazing lessees. And yes some ranchers act as though they own the land, but if the Feds are doing their job, the rancher can lose his lease for denying public access to those lands. It's not an easy process and doesn't make the Federal manager very popular in the community (to say the least) but it can be done.

Before I went to work for a private timber company, I managed a large tract of BLM grazing land. I terminated the grazing leases of 2 different ranchers for putting up no trespassing signs and kicking the public off the leased lands, and drastically reduced the permit size for a couple of others for not following our requirements regarding how they grazed and thus causing a decline in range condition class. I wasn't able to accomplish this overnight and it took me a couple of years to build an ironclad case, during which the ranchers did everything they could to get me transferred from that district, but it got done. Needless to say the remainder of the time I spent in that small community was not very pleasant and I even had to do my shopping in another community some distance away. So I can understand why most public land managers shy away from rigorously enforcing the rules, especially when they have to live in the same small community with those who are affected either directly or indirectly by their actions. But ultimately it is the public land manager who is responsible for the management of that land not the ranchers.

BTW we didn't manage the private timberland -that I was responsible for - for grazing - we managed it for timber production. The good grazing conditions that resulted were simply a by-product of that management. Also BTW, cattle can do quite well on overgrazed range until it becomes extremely degraded - not just looking bad. The ranchers who gave up their Federal leases in favor of one from us (they didn't just abandon them, they were able to transfer them to other federal land lessees with qualifying base properties- undoubtedly for a price though I'm sure they would deny that) didn't do it because the Federal lands were no longer suitable for grazing cattle. They did it because all things considered (cost of doing business on the Fed land , the hassle of dealing with bureaucrats (and yes I was one in a former life). and better gains on their calves due to less required handling) it simply made better economic sense to them.
 
#67 ·
Why should we pay government officials to fly around in helicopters, shoot wolves when there's a group of hunters who would pay the WDFWP to solve the same problem at no cost to the taxpayer? It's a free market economy on wildlife in many states but not when it comes to wolves.

In turn there could be a small economic impact to the communities and outfitters for a wolf hunt. That in my mind sure would be better than sucking up funds - what the government is good at.

It's the mentality of don't worry the government will take care of you attitudes is why people expanded west to survive on there own, when wolves were present and they shot every one of them. It's funny how things change to revert back to a fantasy that some guy envisioned out of a history book for the 21st century.

Now if you think subsidies to ranchers/farmers is worse than paying some whore in the slums to pump out kids at our expense... then you need to go back to your cubicle and stay there.

I'd rather fund something to a person who works 24/7/365 than the example above. Plus I like to eat meat.
 
#68 ·
". . . It's funny how things change to revert back to a fantasy that some guy envisioned out of a history book for the 21st century.

Now if you think subsidies to ranchers/farmers is worse than paying some whore in the slums to pump out kids at our expense... then you need to go back to your cubicle and stay there."

Thanks, I guess, for eliminating any doubt about your ability to write something intelligent.
 
#75 ·
". . . It's funny how things change to revert back to a fantasy that some guy envisioned out of a history book for the 21st century.

Now if you think subsidies to ranchers/farmers is worse than paying some whore in the slums to pump out kids at our expense... then you need to go back to your cubicle and stay there."

Thanks, I guess, for eliminating any doubt about your ability to write something intelligent.
Just saying it like it is editor and chief, if you don't like it go screw a wolf.
 
#76 ·
The candidates and their party principals certainly have...the nation is about as polarized as it can be. I keeping hoping I don't see a MSLSD logo show up on WFF with Chris Matthews replacing Ed as moderator :eek:
 
#81 ·
Apparently the guy owning the house in Avery, ID (Hwy 50 along the St. Joe) felt this way. He had a rather large, professionally made banner on his fence that spoke about the grey aliens from Canada...and that he shoots them on sight. It sure seems that pack had been up to some no good.
 
#83 ·
Great!! Now hopefully they'll start on the other packs, at least push the invasive(non-native) wolf back into Canada.
 
#84 ·
Wolves don't pay attention to international borders these wolves have and will continue to roam in this area. The WDFW is already planning on what to do when the next pack wanders across the border, No visa required.
jesse
 
#87 ·
If we do end up allowing people to hunt the wolves in order to stimulate the economy, I sure hope they do the same for criminals, I mean why would we pay a professional to do a job that so many people would do for free. I'm sure that wouldn't back fire at all.
 
#95 ·
Ever consider starting a conversation to discuss such specifics? I would. Just an option since you seem to think being banned is a possible outcome.
 
#98 ·
I Love beef and have nothing against cattle ranchers I just do not agree that they are getting the shaft if wild animals eat some of their livestock. I am all for raising beef I am not for bitching about the cost of doing business. ( loss of animals due to wildlife is a cost of doing business) We, as a nation irradiated the wolves for the sake of ranchers . We through the best devices available to us are trying to make up for that MISTAKE. Ranchers got the benefit of wolf free forests in the past , now however ranchers have to pay the price for us to have wolves. There is NOTHING wrong with that , they are just going to pass it on to the rest of us anyway. SO the rancher really isn't paying for it anyway.. If wolves really become a problem then the price of beef will go up it's that simple.

Again i am all for eating and raising beef.. Just blaming everything on wolves is absolutely silly and I for one get sick of hearing it...

Wolves have been an absolute BOOM to the beaver population in Yellowstone park since their reintroduction..

It's not all about ranching and hunting...
 
#103 ·
Sue, I believe, as it applies to national forests and BLM land; the ranchers can graze, but cannot deny access. I used to guide during the summers in a leased area in the Toiyabe national forest south of Tahoe, with cattle all over the place. They wrought havoc on Silver King Creek for years. The problem I have with leased grazing in the forest is that the ranchers put up barbed wire fences, and then leave them when they're no longer running cows. The fences remain and become overgrown with vegetation, and pose a hazard to dogs hunting grouse in the area.
 
#106 ·
Sue, I believe, as it applies to national forests and BLM land; the ranchers can graze, but cannot deny access...
Yes Alex, that is correct.

Freestone, unfortunately that does happen, but it isn't public land (obviously), it's private land leased out to one guide. And yes, it is expensive from what I hear. I know that is comparing apples to oranges, but it does support your point.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top