Free: Contests & Raffles.
An at-risk population would also include any ungulate population which falls 25% below its population objective for two consecutive years and/or if the harvest decreases by 25% below the 10-year average harvest rate for two consecutive years.
Quote from: bearpaw on March 28, 2013, 02:11:13 PMWDFW spent a good portion of their time basically telling local residents all the reasons and excuses they will not control wolf numbers upon a 25% reduction in ungulate populations. In so many words WDFW made it very clear that they do not intend to control wolves when ungulate populations drop by 25%. They made it very clear they plan on taking years to study why an ungulate population is dropping. Not trying to plagiarize your post Dale!!! I do 110% support you and your efforts in this battle for all of us now and in the future. But and unfortunately, it looks like the WDFW is following pretty close to the wolf plan on the above subject.Below is a copy and paste from the wolf plan.Chapter 5 - Section F on page 115. Link for those who do not have the wolf plan: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00001/wdfw00001.pdfDuring recovery stages, while wolves are listed in Washington, it is unlikely that they will have a significant negative effect on ungulate populations in the state. However, if WDFW determined that wolf predation was a primary limiting factor for an “at-risk” ungulate population, and the wolf population in that wolf recovery region was at least 4 successful breeding pairs, WDFW could consider reducing wolf abundance in the localized area occupied by the ungulate population before state delisting occurs. For the purposes of this plan, an at-risk ungulate population is any federal or state listed ungulate population (e.g., Selkirk Mountain woodland caribou, Columbian white-tailed deer). An at-risk population would also include any ungulate population which falls 25% below its population objective for two consecutive years and/or if the harvest decreases by 25% below the 10-year average harvest rate for two consecutive years. In ungulate populations without numeric estimates and/or without management objectives, the Department will rely on other factors of information to assess a decline, such as harvest trends, hunter effort trends, sex and age ratios, and others. This just absolutely sucks!!!
WDFW spent a good portion of their time basically telling local residents all the reasons and excuses they will not control wolf numbers upon a 25% reduction in ungulate populations. In so many words WDFW made it very clear that they do not intend to control wolves when ungulate populations drop by 25%. They made it very clear they plan on taking years to study why an ungulate population is dropping.
Doesnt make alot of sense that the Feds can see to list only a portion of this state, but the state refuses to fragment the management. Poor policy makers abound in this state.
Quote from: buckfvr on March 29, 2013, 10:02:05 AMDoesnt make alot of sense that the Feds can see to list only a portion of this state, but the state refuses to fragment the management. Poor policy makers abound in this state.The wolf plan is full of poor policy by it's makers. I'm relatively certain you have buckfvr, as has many many of the HW members have too, but take the time and do a refresher read in the wolf plan as I did over the last couple evenings.IT IS EVEN MORE PATHETIC after another reading.
WDFW is following the same path as Idaho and Montana .... Quote from: 6x6in6 on March 29, 2013, 09:56:15 AMQuote from: bearpaw on March 28, 2013, 02:11:13 PMWDFW spent a good portion of their time basically telling local residents all the reasons and excuses they will not control wolf numbers upon a 25% reduction in ungulate populations. In so many words WDFW made it very clear that they do not intend to control wolves when ungulate populations drop by 25%. They made it very clear they plan on taking years to study why an ungulate population is dropping. Not trying to plagiarize your post Dale!!! I do 110% support you and your efforts in this battle for all of us now and in the future. But and unfortunately, it looks like the WDFW is following pretty close to the wolf plan on the above subject.Below is a copy and paste from the wolf plan.Chapter 5 - Section F on page 115. Link for those who do not have the wolf plan: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00001/wdfw00001.pdfDuring recovery stages, while wolves are listed in Washington, it is unlikely that they will have a significant negative effect on ungulate populations in the state. However, if WDFW determined that wolf predation was a primary limiting factor for an “at-risk” ungulate population, and the wolf population in that wolf recovery region was at least 4 successful breeding pairs, WDFW could consider reducing wolf abundance in the localized area occupied by the ungulate population before state delisting occurs. For the purposes of this plan, an at-risk ungulate population is any federal or state listed ungulate population (e.g., Selkirk Mountain woodland caribou, Columbian white-tailed deer). An at-risk population would also include any ungulate population which falls 25% below its population objective for two consecutive years and/or if the harvest decreases by 25% below the 10-year average harvest rate for two consecutive years. In ungulate populations without numeric estimates and/or without management objectives, the Department will rely on other factors of information to assess a decline, such as harvest trends, hunter effort trends, sex and age ratios, and others. This just absolutely sucks!!! At the meeting it sounded to me like they intend to drag out confirming impacts as long as they could. The wolf plan was based on so many issues which have proven to be inaccurate, I honestly think the WDFW needs to be forced to scrap or revise the wolf plan.
Quote from: 6x6in6 on March 29, 2013, 10:07:58 AMQuote from: buckfvr on March 29, 2013, 10:02:05 AMDoesnt make alot of sense that the Feds can see to list only a portion of this state, but the state refuses to fragment the management. Poor policy makers abound in this state.The wolf plan is full of poor policy by it's makers. I'm relatively certain you have buckfvr, as has many many of the HW members have too, but take the time and do a refresher read in the wolf plan as I did over the last couple evenings.IT IS EVEN MORE PATHETIC after another reading. I have gone through it numerous times as well, it seems that now that its been forced upon us WDFW are going to sit back and choose which parts of it they are actually going to adhere to and which parts they are going to ignore...........sound familiar?Seems there is a Washington on both sides of the country issuing "executive orders"
Quote from: huntnphool on March 29, 2013, 10:14:16 AMQuote from: 6x6in6 on March 29, 2013, 10:07:58 AMQuote from: buckfvr on March 29, 2013, 10:02:05 AMDoesnt make alot of sense that the Feds can see to list only a portion of this state, but the state refuses to fragment the management. Poor policy makers abound in this state.The wolf plan is full of poor policy by it's makers. I'm relatively certain you have buckfvr, as has many many of the HW members have too, but take the time and do a refresher read in the wolf plan as I did over the last couple evenings.IT IS EVEN MORE PATHETIC after another reading. I have gone through it numerous times as well, it seems that now that its been forced upon us WDFW are going to sit back and choose which parts of it they are actually going to adhere to and which parts they are going to ignore...........sound familiar?Seems there is a Washington on both sides of the country issuing "executive orders"Well said, know-it-all.
No one in this state will see any type of wolf management plan until the west side goals have been reached!! The faster they are met the sooner you will have any chance of a plan.
If you have followed any of my post's I have maintained that until they get Breeding packs on the west side the east side is doomed!! I know their isn't a division
We just went over this today in the other thread. No wolves are required on the west side of the state.
Quote from: bobcat on March 29, 2013, 07:25:14 PMWe just went over this today in the other thread. No wolves are required on the west side of the state.Perhaps not by requirement!! But I will take the line that it is what will happen!! So Bobcat sit back and watch your gonna get some!!!I'll still donate to get them to ya!! Just tell me who gets the funds.
