Killing wolf pack cost state $77,000
SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) - The state Fish and Wildlife Department spent nearly $77,000 to kill seven wolves in a pack that had been preying on cattle in Stevens County in northeast Washington.
Only one wolf was killed in a 39-day ground hunt that cost nearly $55,000. The other six wolves were killed in a four-day period in September using a helicopter and a marksman that cost $22,000.
The Spokesman-Review reports the cost was disclosed in a letter the Department of Fish and Wildlife sent to state Sen. Kevin Ranker of Orcas Island, chairman of the legislative committee overseeing the department.
Ranker has criticized the decision to kill the Wedge pack and is planning a legislative hearing next year.
Only one wolf was killed in a 39-day ground hunt that cost nearly $55,000. The other six wolves were killed in a four-day period in September using a helicopter and a marksman that cost $22,000.
The Spokesman-Review reports the cost was disclosed in a letter the Department of Fish and Wildlife sent to state Sen. Kevin Ranker of Orcas Island, chairman of the legislative committee overseeing the department.
Ranker has criticized the decision to kill the Wedge pack and is planning a legislative hearing next year.
The ranchers WERE paid for the lost stock but still demanded that the wolves be killed. None of the wolves had cow in their stomachs. Gross misuse of funds, they should be called to account over this. Why re-introduce them in the first place?
Why, why, why is it so hard for people to understand why we don't want to raise a single dollar more taxes until spending is under control? Â Really? Â That is an INSANE amount of money for this!!
How does it cost the state anything if ya let the citizens do it?
Hunter are to ignorant to do the job? Only the state can accomplish it?
Â
Just say WA.
sell a license $5000 for a wolf permit problem. Problem solved da
You'll have to break those numbers down for me cause I'm not buying it. Sound more like creative number crunching to make it look bad. You mean to tell me that when Fish & Game workers aren't hunting wolves they don't get paid or maybe they added in this payroll to grow the numbers.
its actually the whiney ranchers that cost us these tax dollars - and they also graze on public lands.
I wish they would spend $77,000 shooting gang bangers from a helicopter; now that would be money well spent
 @northwestsurfer I volunteer my marksmanship skills, nwsurfer can you fly a helo?
I know of a kick butt Pilot and an Armalite AR-30 .338 that needs to be dusted off. hint hint..  ;) My hike pack is packed 24/7 and equipment fueled up, lets go!
Killing 6 wolves at a cost of $3,700.00 per wolve over 4 days, verses killing 1 wolve at a cost of $55,000.00 over 39 days, doesn't it just warm your heart knowing people really believe their doing a great job...
One year wolves are endangered, the government spends money to protect and re-populate then another year they are a nuisance and we spend money to track them down and kill them. Thats how the government works, there is always a good reason to spend other people money.
Â
If they were running around Seattle snatching babies, then I can understand but why do a search and destroy mission way up in NE Washington ? Just repay the rancher for the occasional lost stock.
 @SkaBob the Wedge pack was not re-introduced, no wolves have been re-introduced to Washington, instead the Wedge pack wandered over from Canada.
 @SkaBob Agreed. Something tells me that would cost far less than $77,000
Again, another example of the government wasting our tax dollars. This is why I vote down just about every tax hike that comes along. The ranchers could have been given permit to shoot the wolves themselves. They can go out with their cattle and take care of business if needed. There was no reason to spend that amount of money.
 @The WA Mama Perfect! If the wolves attack your cattle shoot them. I believe they deserve to protect their herd. This way only the problem wolves will be killed and money saved. No reason to spend tax money on this
 @mune237  @The WA Mama explain to us why our tax dollars are being used to subsidize ranching in the first place. You don't seem to be too upset about that...
 @SilverGryphon  @WAbornnraisedÂ
Â
Maybe, oh I dunno, just maybe killing off the grass and forage they graze on? One ill-timed frost can force cattle ranchers to spend a fortune on hay, and hay can go from pretty reasonable to OMG WHAT prices in a single day based on supply and demand.
@WAbornnraised How would a bad frost affect ranchers (You know, the ones that raise COWS not CROPS) ?
 @tufa23  @mune237  @The WA MamaÂ
Â
Because they help feed the nation and ONE bad frost can completely screw them over for the year financially?
Why not open it up for a hunting season. Charge for a permit and let hunters do their thing. Win win.
I really don't get it. Farmers let their cattle roam on public land. Public land has wildlife. Wildlife feeds on unattended calves left to roam free. Farmers cry rape and demand action. Helicopter goes up and wipes out a pack. Hmmm, gotta wonder if any of it would have happened had farmers kept their cattle on their own land and supervised the property and their herds.
@what? They lease rights from BLM and DNR to have their cattle graze on public lands. Its more or less a revenue issue for the government; for them to continue collecting money from the farmers, they need livestock to graze on public land.
Oh and btw, did you know that BLM land belongs to the public? This means every taxpayer in this country owns BLM land and you are free to camp on it or any other legal activity. So technically, you have some say on grazing activities on that land.
 @what? Its public lands but money from ranchers takes priority over what is actually best for the land.
Â
Anyway, its not over. Now with the wolves gone there will be an overpopulation of deer, elk even rabbits and mice eating crops and and the cattle's grasslands. They will need to bring in more teams of hunters to control them. Eventually someone will say, we need to reintroduce wolves to the area to thin out these herds. Then the state will start paying for a wolf breeding program. Round and round. They should just let nature be and stop micromanaging the forests.
 @SkaBob  @what? There were no issues with overpopulation deer, mice etc before the wolves so why would this suddenly be the case if the wolves are gone again?
1st they ranchers. 2nd they pay for thier cattle to free range. the rights to free range cattle are hard to get. they except the usal lose to to mountian loins ,injury and so on. ;not man introduced wolves.love your free range western beef? Or should all beef be on feed lots ? (Please check out on your own)
 @BocaBob Man introduced Wolves? Or is it Man introduced cattle? I say let the ranchers protect their cattle, but not at the tax payers expense. If you like free range beef, then YOU can pay for it
@SeattleJoe @mune237 @BocaBob I know, why are you telling me this? Thats what my comment implied.
 @northwestsurfer  @mune237  @BocaBob "Wolves were here first."  Including right here in downtown Seattle. I don't see many people joining me in asking for the wolves to be reintroduced here...
@mune237 @BocaBob Just buy tires from Les Schwab, they have free beef.
Actually, cattle was introduced into this continent by man from europe. Wolves were here first.
 @what? I am liking your comments more and more... thoughtful response.  :D)
@Funky-Munky @what? ignorance about the destruction and carnage wolves leave behind...... the only good wolf is a dead one
@ufrigginkiddin using your logic, all wolves and carnivores such as bears and bobcats should be slaughtered. I am sure you wont mind then when the planet is overrun by prey such as small game, rodents, and rabbits. When that happens, you will have no natural population control. Then you will have farmers complaining about their grain and crops being consumed by animals; health hazards such as hantavirus, and desertifcation (read about it).
Yeah, wolves serve no benefit to the planet; kill them all.
i would have done for free.....actually i would have paid the state money to go out and get rid of those killing machines
 @ufrigginkiddin As awesome as you think you are I'm guessing you couldn't even hike back to where this pack was let alone find them once there.
There is no possible way the cattlemen should be allowed to protect their own livestock. They are simple ground dwellers and not a highly evolved, celestial species like Washington State bureaucrats who are here to protect everything but low-lifes, such as rest of us.
 @Whoanelly Agree except for they do protect, feed, and house the low-lifes! And expect us to pay for it
 @mune237  @Whoanelly my taxes support you... in roads, clean air, clean water, emergency services, & a lot of other ways..... & just about now, I don't like that. In fact, I'm pretty sure I'd like to cut you off.
At a price of over 2500 discover passes. Good work!
what a waste of tax money they should have left them alone. but if their is a next time call me i will do for 25k and i will pay for the ammo
I would of done it for free. Ammo included.
Lots of misinformation on here. The ranchers were cooperating. They said let us protect our livestock or pay us for the ones we lose, you pick. Washington said "no no, try these not lethal methods". Farmers complied. When their cattle still were killed the State determined the only way that the farmers and the wolves cold co-exist was to "reset" the pack by killing all of the current pack and hoping the next pack in the area primarily focuses on wild prey. They didn't want to leave it in the hands of the farmers (who were very willing) as they might not get the entire pack and would then ruin their "reset" idea.
Â
Farmer never asked to have the pack killed, they either asked permission to shoot to protect or money if they weren't allowed to. The state responded by hiring contract killers to wipe out the pack.Â
Â
I would've thought they probably could've received plenty of volunteers to do it much cheaper, as in free, but if there's an opportunity to spend money, well then why not. Wonder if it'll stimulate the airborne sharpshooter job market?
 @farm2city Thanks for educating this old man
 @mune237  @farm2city The story I read when this first came up was that it was ONE rancher, who refused to do the non-lethal things suggested. I think it fair that he reimburse the state for the cost. He's running his cattle on public lands and while he may have a lease, it doesn't begin to cover the cost of the problems his cattle create. Polluting streams, overgrazing, adding to fire risks, etc. And before the trolls come, I grew up in a rural area with an uncle who had several herds of cows. Of course, they were on private land, which, when he got out of the business, was suitable only for dozing and putting in a gas station.
 @Louise Maybe you should go visit the area, I don't think there's a large risk of polluting anything. Its not overpopulated and ruined like people in our green city of Seattle have done with their land, its wild open country, plenty of room for multiple herds of cattle and people. Without the cattle there wouldn't be a need for the existing gas stations up there. Unless you're counting on wolf tourism it is going to be a challenge for residents and wolves to coexist up there (suggesting that there wont be much left to keep a local economy going).Â
Â
Why do you assume they're overgrazing and polluting streams? Just because an animal lives in a natural environment does not mean this is occurring.
Â
*I dont care where you grew up and it wont stop my criticism
Why not trap and relocate them, or anything but killing them?
Â
I get hunting deer ,elk, etc and hunt myself- but knowing that the animal will provide meat and treating both my hunt and my fallen prey with the utmost respect, ensuring I use as much of the animal as possible. I only hunt bow and arrow; there's no fair sport in a rifle that can shoot from a great distance (this is strictly my personal opinion of guns, and I don't care if others use them.)
Â
I don't see how killing wolves is any kind of legitimate sport or hunt, but I give an exception to a cattlemen or shepherd who's losing his flock to them- but only if they get out and hunt themselves, no hiring of others like this!
Â
Shouldn't those rich cattlemen that did all the crying pay for it?
 @DDG Rich cattlemen eh? Why is it I always here of these fabled "Rich cattlemen" but know of only a very few that fit this description. If you want to use labels etc ok but at least be honest about it. Most ranchers are scraping by like the rest of us.
 @SeattleJoe  @DDG 'Most ranchers are scraping by like the rest of us.' Really? you're saying they wouldn't make it if they weren't propped up with our tax dollars?
 @tufa23  @DDG No I said the bs being propagated here that ranchers are rich is, well, bs. If they weren't propped up, and this goes for much of agriculture, then all the food prices would necessarily have to go up considerably.Â
You know like J.R. oh thast oil. you know like Ben Cartwright and them brokeback mountain boys. LOL