$7,500 for information on wolf killing

4 free views left!

$7,500 for information on wolf killing

By K.C. Mehaffey
World staff writer

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

TWISP — After watching wolves disappear from the Methow Valley’s Lookout Pack, a Bellingham-based conservation group is offering up to $7,500 for information that leads to the conviction of a wolf poacher in Washington.

That’s 15 times the state’s current offer of $500 for information in a felony poaching case.

Conservation Northwest announced the reward Tuesday, along with rewards of up to $5,000 for information about people who have killed grizzly bears, wolverines, lynx or fishers, and up to $3,000 for spree killings or other egregious violations involving deer or elk.

The compensation for information on wolf killing is higher because the animals are only now venturing back into the state from Canada and Idaho, and are at a fragile state of recovery, said Mitch Friedman, Conservation Northwest’s executive director.

He said recent news about the state’s investigation into a wolf poached 18 months ago, and a growing concern that wolves in the Lookout Pack are disappearing, gave his group a sense of urgency to offer the rewards now. Local residents who once saw eight Lookout Pack wolves together haven’t seen more than two at once since last summer.

“There’s an incredible amount of vocal hostility around wolves, and people need to realize it’s OK to have concerns about wolves, and talk about concerns. But we’re talking about illegal acts that impact everyone in the state,” he said.

Mike Cenci, Wildlife’s deputy chief of enforcement, said the larger rewards could help in ongoing investigations into wolf poachings, and act as a deterrent to poachers, who will have to worry about a bigger incentive for turning them in.

He said some people see poaching as a victimless crime, but when someone takes an animal illegally, everyone else in the state loses the ability to hunt or enjoy that animal. Communities dependent on natural resources suffer. And, if the species needs protection, taxpayers will pay for its recovery, he said.

Friedman said he’s concerned about the lack of prosecution when it comes to wildlife poaching. “I don’t know whether it’s a matter of prioritization given in prosecutors’ offices, or whether these cases are inherently more difficult to prosecute, because they happen in the woods,” he said.

Cenci said Wildlife officers have mixed results from prosecutors statewide. “Some counties are very aggressive in pursuing natural resource law violators, and others, not so much,” he said. “We find ourselves in the position of continually having to educate prosecutors’ offices with respect to the impacts that environmental or natural resource crime can have,” he said.

Friedman said he’s not aware of recent poachings in this state of any of the other species for which rewards are offered, but there have been unprecedented poaching of large numbers of big game animals in Western Washington recently.

“This can’t be about wolves alone,” Friedman said of the new rewards. “This is about protecting the state’s wildlife.”

The reward will be offered to those reporting poaching through the state’s poaching tipline, 1-877-933-9847.

K.C. Mehaffey: 997-2512

mehaffey@wenatcheeworld.com

» Recommend this story.

» 64 comments on this story

Want to comment on this story? All Wenatchee World members are invited to comment on stories, by using the form below. Please know that we at wenatcheeworld.com hope our site is useful, entertaining and civil. So we'll delete comments that are obscene, abusive or way off topic. We appreciate it when readers use the "suggest removal" button to flag inappropriate comments. For more about interacting with the site, see our Use Policy.

wendya 2 years, 2 months ago

Hooray!! Hopefully it will deter these people that think they have the right to kill whatever they want. I'm a taxpayer too, and I want wolves to live and thrive in my world, just like they have for thousands of years. If they cause harm to livestock, then ranchers can be compensated. If they kill elk and deer, then hunters will just have to do with less game to hunt. They can always go to the grocery store to buy meat. I'm tired of a very vocal minority saying they don't want wolves. They majority of Americans want wolves in the wild.

sky7051 2 years, 2 months ago

Good to hear Wendy...... can I have your address so when the wildlife officers want to place the next pack we can drop them off in "your world" (ie... backyard works). I have nothing against all of the native species being allowed to thrive and humans coexisting with these species. The problem lies in the wildlife dept placing a non-native species into our enviro and expecting us to coexist. These large predators have no natural predator in the area (hunters not included) so the population WILL grow larger and larger until we start seeing domestic animals attacked or people.

maria 2 years, 2 months ago

what about cattle/livestock? they are a TRUE non native invasive species that causes damage to the environment and to NATIVE wildlife. Do you know ranchers are responsible for killing millions of native wildlife in order to protect their NON NATIVE invasive species we call cattle/livestock? gray wolves are very much native, but it's a fact that cattle are a non native invasive species. You are a predator hater who onl cares about getting the chance to kill elk and deer. You are no friend of wildlife.

2 years, 2 months ago

"Ryan, I'm curious why you think wolves are "non-native"."

What they are trans-planting (they are NOT just wondering here from BC) is a larger, more aggressive sub-species from the Northern Territory and the sub-species that USE to exist in the lower 48 states. This larger sub-species killed off the remaining lower 48 state sub-species shortly after being introduced. There is a lawsuit on this right now.

It is kind of like trans-planting Kodiak Bears here to reintroduce the grizzly. After all, they are all BEARS aren't they?

wendya 2 years, 2 months ago

Ryan, They can drop some off anytime. I will coexist with them as I do with humans that haven't got a clue how to live with other people. A non-native species? That makes no sense at all. People that spout off stuff that don't have a clue, are why they are offering rewards to begin with.

sky7051 2 years, 2 months ago

Wendy the wolf they're reintroducing is a grey wolf native to the north territories. This wolf is much larger and more aggressive than the native wolves that used to roam the PNW.

maria 2 years, 2 months ago

Wrong, you have no clue what you are talking about. Like all of the wolf haters I encounter, you have nothing more than wrong information you believe is the truth when it isn't. All of the experts agree that gray wolves you see today are the same ones as before. The wolves today average anywhere from 80 to 120 pounds. As for them being more agressive, that is the most absurd lie I ever heard. There is no evidence what so ever that these wolves are more aggressive than the ones before. You are clueless and have no idea what you are talking about RYAN. Get a clue and educate yourself.

ladylaland 2 years, 2 months ago

I hope they find the suspect who did this as I am glad we are taking intitiative in protecting our wildlife. As we all our species of our mother nature!

sky7051 2 years, 2 months ago

The worst part of this whole deal is the reintroduction was fueled by liberal enviros wanting the wolf species back in Washington state. Now most of these people who wanted this to happen are located in the western portion of the state. If they wanted the species back so bad why not plant the first few packs in the Olympic or Seattle foothills??? No, instead they burden the poor farmers of the eastern side with this destructive species....... typical liberals, wanting to put all the burden on someone else's shoulders.

JimboBear 2 years, 2 months ago

Armin says: "The "poor farmers" need to get out of the cattle industry, and become productive members of society. Or raise crops that actually provide benefits to a healthy society."

Well, Mr Hammar, has it occurred to you that many "farmers" have their land laid out so as to raise multiple "crops"? Case in point; two friends of mine who happen to be brothers, and raise a good sized alfalfa crop, a large grain crop and a herd of somewhere near a thousand cattle. So, you are saying that they are to do what? Perhaps throw away one third of their family's income? The portion of their ground that isn't under cultivation and provides the range for their cattle is impossible to use for a cultivated product, so what should they do with that? Build a housing development and sell units to people who don't eat meat? Good thinking Armin! I'll propose that to them when I see them next time. By the way, they are far from being the only ones in Douglas County who run a very similar operation, and I suspect that all of them would question your sanity.

JustanObserver 2 years, 2 months ago

Armin - How again is raising cattle not being a productive member of society? You may not think it's the best of use of the land, but that would be like me going to a jewelry store located within the mall and telling that business owner to start being a productive member of society - that storefront could in fact be used to sell mittens, which are more useful during the winter months.

JimboBear 2 years, 2 months ago

Armin, you are correct to a point, when you say all these crops can be and are eaten by cattle, but in the case I mentioned, the grass and scrub land used as cattle range is not tillable soil, usually because of it's steep slopes and rocky soil. It is not crop ground. Therefore, that ground is being put to the best possible use. It is producing food in the only way possible. It is basically worthless for anything but cattle grazing. Alfalfa is certainly fed to dairy cattle, but beef cattle seldom see hay until they are sent to feed lots for the final fattening before slaughter. At that time they are just as apt to be fed some sort of grain or vegetable matter considered inedible by man, (pea vines for example) as any other type of hay such as alfalfa. I think you'll find that the equestrians among us feed far more hay than cattlemen do. As for the grain raised on that crop ground, it is generally sold to millers who may do almost anything with it, but the end product of a grain crop is beyond the control of the ranchers. Whether you eat meat or not, you can't expect the rest of the world to conform to your dietary standards. Keep in mind that man is an omnivorous creature by nature. Vegetarians of this world will face quite a challenge if they intend to change the eating habits of an entire species.

TroyMcClure 2 years, 2 months ago

"...why not plant the first few packs... in the Seattle foothills??? ... Typical liberals"

hahah, wow man...

girlfawkes 2 years, 2 months ago

Errrrr. To all the people going on about "transplanting" and "reintroduction". My understanding is that these packs have migrated into the area from the north and east, they haven't been put here at all. This begs the question of whether these animals are actually being poached at all (aside from the single confirmed case), or whether they are simply splitting their time between Idaho/Washington/Canada. My understanding is that wolves already have a very large range and since they are so close to the border anyway...

2 years, 2 months ago

The day they establish a pack in the Green Lake Park is the day I will support WDFW's efforts.

The wolves coming over from Idaho were introduced in Yellowstone to supplement the population that was already there. But, they promptly eliminated these smaller, less aggressive sub-species and now have multiplied so much; they have spread all the way over to WA in short order.

Yes, wolves were here many years ago just like they were in the Seattle area. But, the big difference now is there are the easy meals available (cattle, sheep, cat, dogs, etc) that wasn't around back then. Why do you think they were eliminated? They were feeding one the settler's livestock once the ranchers arrived. Lots of easy food available caused an increasing population. You can see the same thing happening with Raccoons in Lacy and even Wenatchee.

2 years, 2 months ago

"You can see the same thing happening with Raccoons in Lacy and even Wenatchee."

We've relocated 6 Raccoons in the last 7 months, and there are still at least 4 in the neighborhood. The big mama is over 50 pounds. And this is within a stone's throw of Walgreen's, not on the outskirts of town. They seem to have discovered that--in town--they have no natural enemies, and an endless supply of dumpster goodies, dog food, cat food, bird food, etc. People even feed them! They hold their own quite nicely against dogs and cats. One neighborhood dog received 23 stitches for his short bout with a small one. If they are as prolific in other neighborhoods as they are in mine, there must be thousands of them in Wenatchee. If people haven't noticed that we have a problem, I'm betting they soon will. I'm surprised we haven't had children being mauled by them.

Orin 2 years, 2 months ago

Some facts that I found by searching the internet after reading this article and being intrigued by peoples comments:

There are app. 2 million head of cattle in Idaho. http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/cnp/nutritionResources/healthy_harvest_posters/Beef.pdf

Sheep account for less than 1% of livestock sales in US.There are app. 210,000 sheep in Idaho. http://www.sheep101.info/farm.html

In 2009 there were 127 confirmed/probable attacks on cattle by wolves that included deaths and injuries to both cattle and calves. There were 520 confirmed/probable deaths to sheep. For these deaths, 107 wolves were culled. http://westinstenv.org/wibio/2010/04/02/idaho-wildlife-services-wolf-activity-report-2009/

I agree with wolf protection and reintroduction, just like I agree with African conservation.Of course there is going to be friction, but I think wolves can remain, farmers can be compensated, and data can be looked at for wisdom to the problem areas and possible solutions without knee-jerk reactions.

JimboBear 2 years, 2 months ago

Well Mr. Melvin, you say ". . . farmers can be compensated,". Yes, I suppose they can. And by whom? The taxpayers? Would you please tell me why we should burden the American taxpayer with an expense that would not have been there if the government and environmentalists had not reintroduced the wolves? Perhaps you can suggest a method by wich those who were and are opposed to said reintroduction can be excluded from paying that portion of their taxes. I think it would also be quite fair if they can be excluded from the costs of the reintroduction as well. Oh! Pardon me. I guess my knee is jerking.

Orin 2 years, 2 months ago

With an issue like this there is a philosophical, economic, and scientific view point all to be looked at. My philosophy is that yes, wolves should stay, because they are a part of this amazing, life filled planet and they are very extraordinary animals. To have them lost from not only this planet but the universe would be tragic (philosophy is highly subjective!). From a scientific point of view the wolves play a primary role in the health of their environment - there are numerous articles and programs on this. My point above is that the economic viewpoint that wolves do catastrophic harm to a ranchers lively hood (particularly in modern times) is just unfounded and can be managed.

To get more to your point, yes I do think our tax dollars should go to rancher compensation within a larger management program and that by being creative with long term goals and with compromise on both sides of the issue, it can work. There would be millions of people on hundreds of issues that would by my book, "How to get out of the taxes you don't want to pay." I will let you know when I've written it.

maria 2 years, 2 months ago

There are a lot of misonceptions among the anti-wolf people. They constantly lie thru their teeth about wolves because they dislike them because they eat deer and elk, animals they only care about killing. Hunters are not the conservationists they claim to be. They are wildlife killers and only want animals around, so they can kill them. The gray wolf you see today is the same wolf that was wiped out decades ago. All gray wolves are the same according to wolf expert Dave Mech, so if anyone tells you different, it's clear they are buying the koolaid and have no idea what they are talking about. Wolves kill elk and deer. That is what they are supposed to do. it sickens me how a tiny minority group such as hunters want to kill off wolves so that they themselves can kill the elk and deer when the majority of people in WA are for wolves. Why should we let this wildlife hating wildlife killing minority group we call the hunters call the shots? cattle are the real non native invasive species.

Grizzly_man 2 years, 2 months ago

I am a hunter and I hope I am at least half of the conservationist I claim to be. I do not only want animals around so that I can kill them. I love to hike, camp, and drive forest roads to view the beautiful creatures. I teach my daughter about the importance of wildlife, including the wolf! The problem is the endangered species act and what it has done to the elk populations in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. I have no problem with the wolf, I have no problem with the cougar, I identify my screen name with a LIBERAL who as silly as some of his beliefs were, lived with grizzly bears in Alaska!

Now onto other things, you can't lump hunters into a wolf hating group! Not as many hunters hate wolves as you make it sound! Believe me, they are not calling the shots, as proved by Montana judge who reversed the decision to hunt wolves in Idaho and Montana. Overpopulation is the fear and most hunters, me included, know the importance of MANAGEMENT for the better of all species.

maria 2 years, 2 months ago

600-700 wolves in Montana

150,000 elk

close to 1 million humans

millions of cattle animals

Yeah, wolves are overpopulated

No, the truth is you want wolves killed so there are more game animals that wolves kill for yourself. I know how you hunters operate and I am aware of your true agenda.

2 years, 2 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

2 years, 2 months ago

Well, I am no rocket scientist and plenty of people have thought I was a numb skull, so I guess that answers that question! If you are interested in the current research on the effects of wolves on elk populations, I will post a link to an article from 2010 that sums up last years studies for Idaho.

http://www.rexburgstandardjournal.com/news/article_b48259ac-9ec0-11df-9cd9-001cc4c03286.html

2 years, 2 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

2 years, 2 months ago

I love it how people like you have the nerve to claim gray wolves are non native, but you say nothing about your cattle being a non native species which they are. There is no debate,

2 years, 2 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

2 years, 2 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

2 years, 2 months ago

Save that nonsense for someone who believes it. You hunters, all you care about is killing animals. You wan t predators wiped out or theirt numbers reduced very lowso that there are more chances for you hunters to kill animals. You are not conservationists.

2 years, 2 months ago

ha you are absolutely right. "If it weren’t for the sportsman, hunters and fishermen, there wouldn't be any of the State wildlife areas". These wildlife areas have to be protected from hunters! Wolves can't just wander into this area while being killed over the last 100 years.

Norm 2 years, 2 months ago

"Save that nonsense for someone who believes it. You hunters, all you care about is killing animals. You wan t predators wiped out or theirt numbers reduced very lowso that there are more chances for you hunters to kill animals. You are not conservationists."

That's absolutely not true - and I'm speaking as a student of environmental law who is not a hunter. Hunters and fishers are some of the very strongest allies of habitat preservation, in terms of getting protective laws passed, in terms of putting up their own money to preserve habitat (involuntarily through hunting licenses and voluntarily through contributions to groups like Ducks Unlimited), and in terms of volunteering their time to help out in habitat protection and restoration measures.

As far as killing animals goes, wild animals rarely die of old age; something kills them and eats them at some point. If there is nothing that keeps their population in check by killing some of them, they overpopulate their habitat and large numbers of them die a slow, painful death from starvation. Wild animals taken by hunters were able to live a free, natural life; animals raised in captivity where they are highly concentrated (cows in a factory, not cows on a pasture), live a short, painful life of constant torture. If you're concerned about animal welfare, hunting animals is a far more ethical way to eat meat than raising them in a factory farm.

maria 2 years, 2 months ago

wild animals rarely die of old age because you hunters kill them. What an absurd comment to make. yes, there are other things that kills animals, but some animals in the wild do live to a old age. I love it how you hunters make up stupid excuses to defend what you do, kill animals. And those animals would have been able to live a longer natural free life if you hunters didn't kill them. To suggest that we kill wolves because they are eating deer and elk is stupid. I'd rather have the deer or elk go to the wolves who really need it instead of some. Killing something because it's trying to survive.

2 years, 2 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

2 years, 2 months ago

Teddy Rossevelt was a sport hunter. He is no friend to wildlife. John, I don't care what you believe. In your own mind, you think what you do is right and I can't change that, but one remember you cannot change is that YOU PAY TO KILL WILDLIFE. This is not even about killing a deer to feed a family. This is about all of the other animals you hunters kill for sport and specifically for trophies. You can hide behind the "we pay for conservation" argument all you want, but we know you just love killing animals with your guns. If you valued and cared so much for wildlife like you claim, you would shoot it with a camera and not a gun. I never said humans are native. I said cattle are a non native species and people like you have the nerve to claim that wolves are non native when saying nothing about your cattle. Hypocrite you are. This isn't even about eating meat. This is because of the fact that hunters claim they care so much about wildlife when all they do is kill it and take pictures of the dead animals they just killed with smiles on their faces. If you truly love wildlife, you wouldn't be killing it end of story unless it was for food to put on your table.

2 years, 2 months ago

Ms. Millman, I hunted for many years. I no longer do so because I am unable to get around out there in the woods, but I did hunt for close to fifty years. I can truthfully say that never once in that time did I kill any animal for the sake of seeing it die. I also never killed an animal for the sake of using parts of it as a trophy. Every animal I ever took was consumed as food for myself and my friends and family.

That said, have you any idea why the elk out on the Olympic Peninsula are called Roosevelt Elk? You see, even "Old Rough and Ready" wanted to see this magnificent species abound right here in our state. Your ignorance of the acts of men such as Roosevelt protecting and promoting wildlife and your insistence that "hunters just like to kill things" completely ruins any legitimate and productive argument you may have on this topic. You are simply not informed and therefore not in a position to judge those who love the animals just as much as you do, or perhaps more than you but choose to harvest some of them as well.

Now, I personally can live with a few wolves around and I doubt strongly that I would shoot one if I saw it in the wild, but I am totally opposed to "reintroducing" them to any area here or in any other state. We have done quite well without them for a good many years and there is just no sense in bringing back this animal which is most often a nuisance anyway. Can you tell me one thing that the wolf has ever done that is beneficial to you or any of the rest of mankind? The best thing I can think of is that their hides were used for centuries to provide great warmth in clothing worn by man to ward off frigid temperatures. We have wonderful synthetic fibers now that serve that purpose so I don't think we need them for that any more.

2 years, 2 months ago

It does not matter if wolves are beneficial or not. They have a right to exist. People do not care what you want. The majority of people wanted wolves back. You having that attitude just proves how little you care about wildlife. People like you are disgusting human beings.

2 years, 2 months ago

maria says: "People do not care what you want. The majority of people wanted wolves back."

First off tina . . . . where did you get this idea that the majority of people in this state wanted the wolves back? Can you back that up with some sort of data? I'm quite certain that you pulled it out of thin air just like the rest of your statements.

As for your little jab; "The people don't care what you want", the same can be said for you. Your opinion just like mine, means nothing to anyone but you. I think your entire argument is worthless, in fact I don't believe you even have an argument, so you think whatever you want and I will do likewise. Now, go ahead and rant some more, but I'm outta here on this one, as far as talking to you goes. I can talk to my pickup and have a more intelligent conversation than talking to you.

2 years, 2 months ago

Actually, people do care. me and people like me (the wildlife lovers) are the ones who are the majority. You must be on something if you hunters are the majority in wa. They are not and the hunters themselves know it. As for where didI get this idea? It's called polls.

2 years, 2 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

2 years, 2 months ago

Teddy rossevelt is a person who slaughtered animals like tigers, elephants, lions, etc for SPORT. If anything, he wanted wildlife around so they can be shot, much like the hunters today. When are you "sportsmen" going to get it, we the real wildlife lovers don't owe you wildlife killers anything. We the environmentalists are the ones that protect wildlife when all you hunters want to do is kill it. We are the true and real conservationists. You are nothing more than a person who pays to slaughter wildlife.

2 years, 2 months ago

BTW, we are the ones that brought wolves back, not you hunters. You hunters did not want wolves in the first place. Wolves had to be reintroduced because people like you with the same attitude were responsible for the wolf's eradicaton all those decades ago. We try to protect animals while people like you kill them. That is the big difference that separates people like me and you apart. We try to protect animals from people like you when all you want is to kill off predators so there is more elk and deer to kill for yourselves. We know what is going on here and don't bother denying it.

2 years, 2 months ago

Tina - Might I suggest that you attend a (very) remedial course in critical thinking? Just out of curiosity, and since I'm doing a little survey myself, might I inquire as to what high school pops out such amazing intellects such as yourself? That is, to clarify for your sake, what high school did you attend?

thirdrail 2 years, 2 months ago

Sounds like an SSS club has formed up in Twisp.

artmann 2 years, 2 months ago

Tina, let me go way out on a limb here and take a wild guess that you voted for Obama.....

2 years, 2 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

2 years, 2 months ago

Not if she votes republican.

maria 2 years, 2 months ago

Johnny boy, the truth hitting a nerve little guy?

2 years, 2 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

maria 2 years, 2 months ago

Didn't vote for Obama and as far as I'm concerned, he will go down as one of the worst presidents of all time. I would love to see you try and call me a tree hugger to my face. I'd call you a worthless wildlife killer to your face.

Norm 2 years, 2 months ago

I'm surprised WW hasn't figured out your user name, whuck.

ToddMaltais 2 years, 2 months ago

Mitch Friedman, Conservation Northwest’s executive director. (The compensation for information on wolf killing is higher because the animals are only now venturing back into the state from Canada and Idaho, and are at a fragile state of recovery, said Mitch Friedman, Conservation Northwest’s executive director.)

We have been hearing the same poaching propaganda for the last six months. Scott Fitkin and John Rohrer biologists for WDFW and the USFS would like everyone to believe that there are only two or three wolves left in Lookout wolf pack. What they fail to mention is that the Lookout pack split last spring, so instead of having just one pack now there are two wolf packs. Another thing that these two Biologist fail to mention are the packs that they will not confirm, such as the War Cr. wolf pack with an estimation of 15 wolves, the Buzzard Lk. wolf pack. There are several wolf packs throughout Okanogan county. Below is a comment that I posted on Conservation Northwest Facebook wall along with two trailers of a documentary put together be by Scott Rockholm. My comments were deleted and I was blocked from their Facebook page.

I was one of two people interviewed by the BBC filming crew and Jasmine Minbashian, special projects director for Conservation Northwest Feb. 16 2011, I ask Jasmine why Scott Fitkin would not confirm the War Cr. wolf pack as I knew that he knew of them. She said she was sure that Scott knew of the War Cr. wolf pack and that WDFW were too broke to confirm wolf packs. So I then ask her if they were so broke where did they get the money to run a cougar collaring program, she didn't have an answer. We also gave her pictures of four different wolves taken with in a three week period in the Lookout packs home range. I wonder why the wolf pack in the Buzzard Lk area has never been confirmed? And the wolves on the Colville Reservation, why haven't they been mentioned? There are several wolf packs in Okanogan County, why is it that the very people in charge of monitoring wolf packs are doing such a poor job? It shouldn't have to fall on the locals of Okanogan country to tell WDFW where their wolves are. What about the 6 confirmed wolves of the 1990's? Why the lie that the 2008 wolf pack was the first wolf pack in 70 years? In Washington, Feds Opt For Wolf Introduction Over Recovery http://mainehuntingtoday.c om/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washi ngton-feds-opt-for-wolf-in troduction-over-recovery/

Yellowstone is Dead http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYxGJB... Yellowstone is Dead Theatrical Trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhnZva...

Orin 2 years, 2 months ago

Thanks for the links. I watched the trailer and the extended clip on youtube and it definitly made me think and do some more research. I think one of the issues here is how do we define Yellowstone as a healthy ecosystem. To what point in time do we go back to and say this is how it should be? I say that because there are currently scientists in ecology whose job it is to monitor and protect the fauna of Yellowstone, and they say there are still too many elk in Yellowstone even after the wolves introduction for the aspen to make a comeback. The saplings and branches are still being overeaten by the elk to the point where they are not recovering due to the size of the herds. Using tree ring research they place the point of decline of aspen to the decline of the wolf.

People are going to have different opinions on how and why our parks and forests should be managed. In some of the large wilderness tracts we can hopefully let nature take its course (although there can still be issues like rancher/wolf conflicts) but in parks like Yellowstone there needs to be a clear management vision. Do we stop fires or let them burn? Do we have smaller elk herds and wolves and more aspen, or large herds, no wolves, and little aspen? The issues go on obviously and to parks beyond Yellowstone.

2 years, 2 months ago

"maria (tina millman)"

Hot dang! You go girl! I like your style even though I disagree with much of what you type. No matter, you've got spunk and determination and I admire that!

JasmineM 2 years, 2 months ago

Hi Todd, I think we both want to find out if there are any other packs out there. Where we disagree is that there is a government conspiracy to hide packs. I think its just incredibly challenging and expensive to document these critters. To clarify I said I believed that the Fitkin and WDFW knew there were sightings up War Creek but thats within Lookout Pack territory so there's nothing new there. The photos you showed me also were of two animals in Lookout territory as well. I'd love to see some evidence that there are other packs in Okanogan County other than the Lookout Pack.

Rockholm66 2 years, 2 months ago

Jasmine, By simply wishing for wolves publicly, and actively working behind the scenes to implement a wolf infestation is another story that will be told very soon.

I will begin production of my documentary covering the corrupt wolf promoters of Washington. Now that the evidence of the corrupt wolf introduction of Idaho and Montana have made it to the surface, we will expose those responsible in the other States. As you already know, Todd has informed you of my plans to begin filming this month. I did call your office for scheduling an appointment for an interview, but I never heard from you. If you would like, I can meet up with you and the BBC film crew, and show you both how to reveal "The Truth". Todd has been documenting the wolf planting for a while now, and I assure you the truth will be seen in my film.I will be expecting a call from you, or we can meet up later this week.

ToddMaltais 2 years, 2 months ago

Jasmine M, there is no "WE" with you and I. As you well know, you and I are working opposite of each other, I don't want to see Washington end up looking like Idaho. You and Mitch Friedman would like everyone to believe there are only two or three wolves in the Methow valley, in which case you ARE the laughing stock of the Methow Valley and Okanogan county. And you might be under the gun to "To clarify". I would like to clarify that I was not the only one in the room that heard you say that Scott Fitkin knew of the wolf pack in war creek! And as I told you at the second interview with the BBC crew where we gave you 4 pictures of wolves in the Lookout pack. I also told you the rest of our pictures would be going into Scott Rockholm's documentary along with the evidence of WDFW releasing wolves, which is no secret in the MV or Okanogan country.

I asked you about the 6 confirmed wolf packs in the early 1990's, which you didn't want to talk about. Back in the 1980's and 1990's WDFW were doing the wolf push. How many articles will Conservation Norhtwest try to discredit? How much money has WDFW spent on land that they don't take care of? How much land is enough? Is WDFW respnsible for all wildlife? Who will replace the deer that the wolves kill? What will the cougars eat when the deer are gone?

Here is an article from a friend of yours-http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/rural-legislators-question-wdfw%E2%80%99s-wolf-info-land-plans/

One thing I might add, if MITCH FRIEDMAN was a real hunter or even cared about wildlife he would not be for an un-contolled wolf population that will kill all and leave a barren land behind like the Yellowstone. It doesn't matter how many wolf packs or breeding pairs the Washington wolf plan has if WDFW will not confirm wolf packs, which is where we are today.

Remember I ask you and the BBC crew why you didn't go film Idaho, If I remember right you said Idaho was old news and Washington was the new wolf story. I believe I told you that in a few years Washington would look just like Idaho when the wolves finished. You don't live in the Methow Valley Jasmine , you have land here, but you don't live here. What will the wolves eat after they finish off the deer? Do wolves attack humans? http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_myth_legend_misconception.html 16 years of wolf facts on the ground in WY, MT and ID. WDFW, Conservation Northwest, and of cource good old Defenders of wildlife who helped with the illegal wolf introduction want Washington state filled with wolves, WHY?$$$$$$$$$$$$http://www.takingliberty.us/TLHome.html http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/april_2002/wildlands_project_history.htm http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2010/09/Oopswolvesnotsavinga.htm http://www.prosts.com/Documentary-Undue-Burden.htm Read these two books, Playing God in Yellowstone, by Alston Chase and Wolves in Russia, by WIll Graves.

Rockholm66 2 years, 2 months ago

Crickets!

ToddMaltais 2 years, 2 months ago

It's amazing Scott, with 15 years of wolf problems (wolves decimating wildlife and slaughtering livestock) since the Illegal wolf introduction, state game agencies are still promoting these wolves. There is evidence of wolves being released in Oregon the same as has happened in Washington. These states game agencies along with Defenders of Wildlife and Conservation Northwest are treating WA and OR wolves as if they are a different wolf, using the same failed techniques in treating wolf predation on livestock. In Wyoming it has been proven that the only way to stop wolf packs from killing livestock is to remove the entire pack.

From the very beginning of the wolf introduction the wolves have been purposely under estimated, just as is now happening in Washington.

http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf

http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No.28%20May%202008%20FWS%20Biologist%20Says%20Wolf%20Numbers%20Underestimated%20Mech%20Says%203,000%20Wolves%20Exist%20in%20ID,%20MT%20&%20WY.pdf

http://www.outdoortalknetwork.com/030511_1212_hr1.MP3

Montana Encouraging Killing of Wolves http://news.yahoo.com/video/science-15749654/24416766

Rockholm66 2 years, 2 months ago

It's like the movie "Groundhog Day" Todd. It's as if a mote was dug, separating WA. and Or. from Idaho. The corrupt Game departments, along with the NGO's, are all in on the scam. You have to be brain dead to not see what has been happening to Idaho, and Montana.

ToddMaltais 2 years, 2 months ago

http://www.lobowatch.org/adminclient/WolfNews2/go

Robert Fanning, the founder of Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd has this to say about how accurately MT FWP can count wolves...

(September 2002 - Missoula, Montana)

"In an address to the extreme left WildlandsProject group 'The Alliance for the Wild Rockies' , Doug Smith, Yellowstone Park Wolf Project Coordinator , bragged that only one out of six wolves were collared and that process did not even continue outside of YNP. Smith cited 'lack of funding , equiptment and personel' for the refusal to collar wolves almost a decade ago.

Despite a law that was passed by the Montana Legislature ORDERING Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to collar at least one member of ANY pack that lived near livestock or human settlements, that agency refused to collar wolf packs. These agencies bend over backward to hide the damage done by wolves, the true numbers of wolves and the location of wolves. They admonish game wardens who report new packs to the point that they resign.

NOW, with metaphysical certainty, the USFWS and state agencies make population declarations about wolf numbers, despite the fact that wolf packs have not been collared for a decade. They do it so APHIS can't do their job of lethal wolf control.

Mech (Dr. L. David Mech) declared to the federal courts in 2008 that there are 3,000 wolves. Wolf populations grow at a 30% rate. So...there are (now) 4,800 wolves in the Northern Rockies."

How many wolves does Okanogan County really have? Every wolf sighting that goes public in Okanogan county is said to be part of the Lookout wolf pack. So how can Scott Fitkin and John Rohrer claim there are only two or three wolves left in the Lookout pack? Have they checked on the wolves in Hooker Ck, Buzzard Lk, Pine Ck? And the wolves in Orville, then there's five wolves that have been hanging in Cow Ck all winter long, not to mention the wolves up the East Chewuch above Winthrop, the War Ck wolf pack and of course there are the wolves on the Colville Indian Reservation. Did Scott and John check all of these wolves out before they came up with their number of wolves in the Lookout Wolf Pack?

ToddMaltais 2 years, 2 months ago

http://yellowstone-is-dead.myshopify.com/products/yellowstone-is-dead

This documentary was put together by Scott Rockholm, it shows the fraud and corruption of the Canadian wolf introduction. The damage 15 years of no wolf control causes, the suffering of wildlife and livestock, and the hardships the wolves have caused ranchers and people who live in the country. If you want to learn the truth of what really happened in the Canadian wolf introduction, you need to watch this documentary.