Wolf relocation bill dead, cattle leader says

[denali]

disappointed, but not surprised 



By MATTHEW WEAVER

Capital Press

An Eastern Washington lawmaker's bill to relocate wolves near supporters on the west side of the state has died in committee, a cattle industry leader says.

But Washington Cattlemen's Association Executive Vice President Jack Field said the industry will remain vigilant on other proposals as they go before state House of Representatives and Senate committees.

Wauconda, Wash., Rep. Joel Kretz's bill was pulled by House leadership because it was "unfavorable," Field said. But he said the bill was the subject of much conversation on both sides of the issue.

Other bills in the state legislature include:

* House Bill 1191 relates to protection of livestock against predator attacks, requiring the state Department of Fish and Wildlife to establish rules authorizing livestock owners or managers to kill a predator.

* House Bill 1219 gives big game status to wolves and corrects livestock depredation compensations.

* House Bill 1337, another bill by Kretz, prohibits the state from giving a different level of wildlife protection than the federal government.

* House Bill 1500 focuses on funding mechanisms and creating an account for preventative and compensation measures.

"Any one of those House bills could pass and we'd could all say we did something good for the (state's) wolf plan," Field said.

Senate Bill 5300, by Sen. Kevin Ranker, D-Orcas Island, would mandate any operator on public lands to obtain a cooperative agreement with the state on handling wolves. Ranker has criticized the department for killing wolves in the Wedge Wolf Pack after the wolves had preyed on livestock.

"The problem is that it totally takes the voluntary spirit of an agreement and flushes it out the window if it says you have to do this," Field said. "(Ranker) wants to see more done in terms of the livestock community and grazing on public lands to ensure we're doing everything possible non-lethally to prevent wolf impacts or mitigate conflict."

Field said bills allowing proactive lethal take of wolves are not likely to move out of committee.

Field and other industry members provided an update on the wolf impact to livestock producers at the Spokane Ag Expo and Pacific Northwest Farm Forum.

Rancher Jeff Dawson said the state paid roughly $22,000 to fund a pilot range rider program for seven months on his operation, working out to about $17.75 per head on his ranch.

Dawson said he paid about $6,000 toward the program.

The program increased weaning rates back to the point they were before wolves started preying on his cattle, Dawson said.

Dawson said he would not be able to afford the total cost of the program.

"I don't feel the burden should fall on the livestock producer to pay that," he said.

Field said the pilot program is good because it gives the public the opportunity to share the economic burden of endangered species recovery.

"Right now you've got an undue economic hardship being felt on stakeholders directly impacted," Field said. "Everybody making a living off the land is having a direct negative impact."

Dawson encouraged farmers to maintain good documentation on everything, and maintain the paperwork with partnering agencies in case the need arises to defend it in court.

He said wolf supporters are hiring people this summer to assess allotments where wolves were removed to try to find other problems.

"Their assessment is going to be based on water quality, forage analysis," Dawson said. "Everything you think of in the book is going to be thrown at that assessment. It's going to be seeing if you have met the standards you are mandated to meet."

[buck man]

Bummer! I hoped it would have gained some traction. I think all the coasties need a lovable "lobo" running wild on whidby island! 

The elk on the peninsula need thinned too

[Scottystyle]

Not in my back yard says the granola eatin nut huggin bunny lovers . Funny how that works. 

[bobcat]

Heck no! That's right, we don't want them in our back yard. It's really astounding to think that any hunter would want the state to spend money on increasing the range of wolves in this state. If they're going to be here on the westside, they can come on their own, just as they did in the rest of the state. I sure don't want the WDFW taking the money I spent on my hunting license and tags, and spend it to decrease my deer and elk hunting opportunities.

[bearpaw]

Not in my back yard says the granola eatin nut huggin bunny lovers . Funny how that works. 

  yet they won't let us manage them.... 

[bearpaw]

Heck no! That's right, we don't want them in our back yard. It's really astounding to think that any hunter would want the state to spend money on increasing the range of wolves in this state. If they're going to be here on the westside, they can come on their own, just as they did in the rest of the state. I sure don't want the WDFW taking the money I spent on my hunting license and tags, and spend it to decrease my deer and elk hunting opportunities.

I would feel the same as you, keep in mind this bill more than anything proved the hypocrisy of the wolf lovers.

[villageidiot]

    We suspected this totally.  Hypocryts all the way.   They are willing to inflict the East Side with Polio because "It's Natural" but don't want any themselves.   How can they stand in front of anybody with any credibility?  Totally self centered, self rightous.  Inflict pain on us peasants is their goal and they have now shown their cards.

[washelkhunter]

I'm shootin every wolf i should happen to see.