8th pack confirmed in Wa.

[HUNTINCOUPLE]

 

[bearpaw]

Don't forget, wildlife commissioner Douvia managed to get it in the wolf plan that once 18 packs are confirmed management can begin regardless of which regions the packs are in. 

There is no doubt enough packs in Washington to totally delist, it's important for us to keep the pressure on WDFW by posting every wolf sighting and especially pictures of tracks or wolves here on H-W and report it to the state.

The state will use the wolf reports to determine new areas to confirm wolves. By also posting on H-W we can keep the WDFW accountable for all the sightings and wolf pack locations.

[Northway]

after we reach 15 breeding pairs{confirmed}could be 20 breeding pairs at least I'm sure.But then the battle will start.money will pour in to halt a hunt,or delisting for yrs..as we seen elsewhere.The state will blow more money on this battle in court....Hoping we have some folks in office by then,a stretch, I know, to put the kibosh on it..

That is my concern. It's frustrating that even if hunting/non-consumptive pro-wolf groups here in the state could come to an understanding on how to jointly lobby for delisting/alterations to the wolf management plan, some group like HSUS, DFW, or the CBD could come over the top and lobby/file lawsuits to derail things. In my opinion, things elevated to a new level of ugliness in the NRM when Molloy ruled in favor of pro-wolf groups who contended that it was a violation of the ESA to delist in Montana & Idaho, but not in Wyoming, which ended the wolf hunts until the delisting rider was attached to a bill.

Most of the large environmental groups are poorly led, lack real vision, and have little concept of effective strategies at the local level. They do send out nice donation letters with pictures of wolf puppies and polar bears though......

[Huntbear]

Don't forget, wildlife commissioner Douvia managed to get it in the wolf plan that once 18 packs are confirmed management can begin regardless of which regions the packs are in. 

There is no doubt enough packs in Washington to totally delist, it's important for us to keep the pressure on WDFW by posting every wolf sighting and especially pictures of tracks or wolves here on H-W and report it to the state.

The state will use the wolf reports to determine new areas to confirm wolves. By also posting on H-W we can keep the WDFW accountable for all the sightings and wolf pack locations.

Bearpaw, that is not how they presented it at the meeting in Eburg... What they presented is there has to be 15 confirmed packs with every region having their quota (breeding pairs raising pups) for 3 consecutive years, before delisting/hunting/the legal battles begin...  including the Olympic Peninsula and SW Washington to include the Klickitat... 

If that is just dis information from the WDFW, then that is just more lies we need to nail them to the wall for..

[Northway]

Here's what I pulled from page 69 of the Final Draft Wolf Management Plan:

"If, during the 3-year period, a year occurred where there were 18 successful breeding pairs of wolves
and the distribution criteria for delisting were met, then WDFW could begin the process to write a
status review to prepare a delisting recommendation at that time, rather than wait for the 3-year
period to conclude. However, wolves would not be proposed for delisting until they had achieved
the delisting objectives for 3 consecutive years."

[baldopepper]

Northway-you underestimate these groups-they have very good leadership for what they want to accomplish, and they have no intention of trying to be effective on a local level (they know that "local level" is always trumped by the Federal level).  If we as hunting groups can't  band together on a national level we are nothing more than a flea on their rear end.  Those "cute" pictures they send out rake in literally millons of dollars a year, much of it from people whose encounters with wildlife are confined to occasional visits to the local zoo.  I don't pretend to have any quick answers to the wolf controversy, but I would not for a minute underestimate those groups that are "pro wolf".  They've been pretty damn effective at getting their way thus far.

[Special T]

Which is why i was so disapointed that National Orgs like RMEF, Muledeer foundation, etc didn't pipe up on the issue sooner. I make me think they would rather use wolves as a recruiting tool than be proactive about an issue. 

[Northway]

Northway-you underestimate these groups-they have very good leadership for what they want to accomplish, and they have no intention of trying to be effective on a local level (they know that "local level" is always trumped by the Federal level).  If we as hunting groups can't  band together on a national level we are nothing more than a flea on their rear end.  Those "cute" pictures they send out rake in literally millons of dollars a year, much of it from people whose encounters with wildlife are confined to occasional visits to the local zoo.  I don't pretend to have any quick answers to the wolf controversy, but I would not for a minute underestimate those groups that are "pro wolf".  They've been pretty damn effective at getting their way thus far.

As a disclaimer, environmental issues (especially at the local level) have been important me for most of my life. My perspective isn't that of a true hunter, because I've only recently taken an interest in hunting.  In trying to determine where I stand personally, over the last few years I've followed a number of groups at the national and local level that are represented mostly either by consumptive or non-consumptive outdoor recreationists.

I guess it boils down to what you consider an effective environmental non-profit. If the benchmark is lots of donations and lobbying power, then I agree with you that they are well-led. From a perspective of accomplishing constructive and long-lasting conservation goals however, how can one claim that WDFW, CBD, or HSUS is well led when they bungled the NRM wolf issue so badly? Not only did they get wolves relisted when it was completely unecessary, at the last minute they tried to withdraw from the lawsuit when they saw the writing on the wall - effectively emboldening their opponents. Arguably, there are many other issues national environmental organizations are currently dropping the ball on besides wolves.

We'll see if they learn anything from the past when it comes to how they react to the inevitable delisting in Washington State. I'm not overly optimistic about it at this point.......

[Huntbear]

Here's what I pulled from page 69 of the Final Draft Wolf Management Plan:

"If, during the 3-year period, a year occurred where there were 18 successful breeding pairs of wolves
and the distribution criteria for delisting were met, then WDFW could begin the process to write a
status review to prepare a delisting recommendation at that time, rather than wait for the 3-year
period to conclude. However, wolves would not be proposed for delisting until they had achieved
the delisting objectives for 3 consecutive years."

The way I read this,,

There still has to have been met the Criteria for the Wolf plan... so verified breeding packs in every region they want them in.. HOWEVER, if 18 confirmed packs are found, then they MIGHT waive the 3 consecutive years...   So we are still screwed until SW Washington and the Olympic peninsula have verified packs...

[Northway]

From page 60-61 of the Final Wolf Draft Management Plan:

"Although wolves historically occurred throughout Washington, they do not need to reoccupy all of
their former range to meet the recovery objectives of this plan. The northern and southern Cascade
Mountains contain much of the “significant portion of the historical range” that would ensure the
long-term survival of the population. However, despite the presence of considerable high quality habitat for wolves on the Olympic Peninsula and in southwestern Washington (Figure 10), wolves
would not need to occupy these areas to achieve recovery if they were present in both halves of the
Cascades and eastern Washington in sufficient numbers to satisfy the recovery objectives for each of
the three recovery regions. Eastern Washington is currently being recolonized from adjacent
populations in neighboring states and British Columbia, whereas the Olympic Peninsula and
southwestern Washington are distant from colonizing sources and separated by additional potential
barriers inhibiting natural dispersal. Recovery is therefore likely to happen more quickly through the
reoccupation of eastern Washington than waiting for wolves to reach far western Washington."

I think any pack south of I-90 will help fill the quota of the Sourthern Cascades and Northwest Coast zone, regardless of how they are dispersed. I'm not completely clear on what the definite meaning of the paragraph on delisting in the event of 18 confirmed packs is........

[Special T]

Northway-you underestimate these groups-they have very good leadership for what they want to accomplish, and they have no intention of trying to be effective on a local level (they know that "local level" is always trumped by the Federal level).  If we as hunting groups can't  band together on a national level we are nothing more than a flea on their rear end.  Those "cute" pictures they send out rake in literally millons of dollars a year, much of it from people whose encounters with wildlife are confined to occasional visits to the local zoo.  I don't pretend to have any quick answers to the wolf controversy, but I would not for a minute underestimate those groups that are "pro wolf".  They've been pretty damn effective at getting their way thus far.

As a disclaimer, environmental issues (especially at the local level) have been important me for most of my life. My perspective isn't that of a true hunter, because I've only recently taken an interest in hunting.  In trying to determine where I stand personally, over the last few years I've followed a number of groups at the national and local level that are represented mostly either by consumptive or non-consumptive outdoor recreationists.

I guess it boils down to what you consider an effective environmental non-profit. If the benchmark is lots of donations and lobbying power, then I agree with you that they are well-led. From a perspective of accomplishing constructive and long-lasting conservation goals however, how can one claim that WDFW, CBD, or HSUS is well led when they bungled the NRM wolf issue so badly? Not only did they get wolves relisted when it was completely unecessary, at the last minute they tried to withdraw from the lawsuit when they saw the writing on the wall - effectively emboldening their opponents. Arguably, there are many other issues national environmental organizations are currently dropping the ball on besides wolves.

We'll see if they learn anything from the past when it comes to how they react to the inevitable delisting in Washington State. I'm not overly optimistic about it at this point.......

Hunters and anglers have raised more $$$ than ANY other group by self inflicting a tax on sporting gear.  Unfortunatly these funds are being raided by our suposed managers the WDFW and Us Fish and Wildlife. Mainly by being sued by NGO's like the ones you mentioned and by not pushing for the maximization of opportunites that they are mandated to do...

[baldopepper]

Northway-I don't mean to bend this thread, but what you are facing is the clash of idealism and reality that is the one of the real issues here.  Environmental groups do a very good job of playing to the idealism that nature is fuzzy wolf pups, white baby seals and polar bear cubs playing in the snow.  Hunting groups play to the idealism that we are all true sportsman who consistently play by the rules, hunt only to manage the species and live by the "fair play" credo.  As we all know, somewhere in between is the truth.  The wolf issue is very similar to the "Save the Whale" issue that was the soup de jour of environmentalists a few years back ( still is to a point).  The sad truth is that these issues stay alive partly because there are those involved who make a living by keeping the issue alive and baiting those of us who are idealistically pursuing what we beleive is correct. (on both sides of the issue) Non profit does not mean that directors and employees of these organizations are not paid.  I took an opposite path from you, was born into a hunting family and grew up beleiving that to go into the woods without a gun was a waste of time.  I've mellowed somewhat and lost the "blood lust"- still love to hunt, but can appreciate nature from, as you put it, a non-cosumptive point of view.  Not really sure where I actually stand on the wolf issue to be honest, but I do beleive that as hunters we do need better national representation.  Ducks Unlimited, RMEf, etc. are specific in their goals  and , quite frankly appeal to non hunters as well as hunters-hence the reluctance to jump into something like the wolf issue. It's to bad that the reality is that raising money and hiring lobbyists and lawyers is necesaary to acheive our goals-but again another clash of reality and idealism. I admire your tenacity in pursuing this issue, good to see a few idealists still standing up for what they believe. 

[Northway]

Northway-I don't mean to bend this thread, but what you are facing is the clash of idealism and reality that is the one of the real issues here.  Environmental groups do a very good job of playing to the idealism that nature is fuzzy wolf pups, white baby seals and polar bear cubs playing in the snow.  Hunting groups play to the idealism that we are all true sportsman who consistently play by the rules, hunt only to manage the species and live by the "fair play" credo.  As we all know, somewhere in between is the truth.  The wolf issue is very similar to the "Save the Whale" issue that was the soup de jour of environmentalists a few years back ( still is to a point).  The sad truth is that these issues stay alive partly because there are those involved who make a living by keeping the issue alive and baiting those of us who are idealistically pursuing what we beleive is correct. (on both sides of the issue) Non profit does not mean that directors and employees of these organizations are not paid.  I took an opposite path from you, was born into a hunting family and grew up beleiving that to go into the woods without a gun was a waste of time.  I've mellowed somewhat and lost the "blood lust"- still love to hunt, but can appreciate nature from, as you put it, a non-cosumptive point of view.  Not really sure where I actually stand on the wolf issue to be honest, but I do beleive that as hunters we do need better national representation.  Ducks Unlimited, RMEf, etc. are specific in their goals  and , quite frankly appeal to non hunters as well as hunters-hence the reluctance to jump into something like the wolf issue. It's to bad that the reality is that raising money and hiring lobbyists and lawyers is necesaary to acheive our goals-but again another clash of reality and idealism. I admire your tenacity in pursuing this issue, good to see a few idealists still standing up for what they believe.

You make a lot of good points. I get what you mean about bending the thread and will limit my response to the subjet of the RMEF: I think it's foolish for any non-consumptive conservationist to turn their nose up to the RMEF. I'm well aware that they have protected or impacted 6 million acres of habitat and counting. With the projected population growth in western states, I think that habitat preservation will be the most important issue facing conservationists of any kind over the next 30 years.

[bearpaw]

No doubt, wolf groups will try to stop delisting, but it will have to happen, Eastern Washington will not put up with unregulated wolves forever, I think delisting will be a battle but it is inevitable. 

[boneaddict]

75Johndeer, is that Idaho or Montana?   I'll go back and read the article, but pretty sure they said introduce trapping them.