wolf management will cost $2.3 million in 2013

[denali]

Wow, I could be wrong but I don't recall this large of budget when the wolf plan was being discussed

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/2013/03/20/wa-wolf-bill-for-2013-estimated-at-2-3-million/

[puyallupaul]

Our tag fees at work providing opportunity.

[pianoman9701]

So, the costs will triple every year now? Looks like 2014, it will cost around $7 million. I sure wish some had tried to tell them their plan was faulty. Oh yeah, we did. Never mind. 

[villageidiot]

So, what do we get for this money spent?  Mutilated deer, elk, moose, pets, livestock and prosecution if you protect your animals.  Just searching for the good wolves do much like killer bees and contageous diseases we have eradicated.  Don't see much difference than wanting a Giant Tsunami to wash all the way up the the base of the Cascades.  We would just call it natural and it would reduce the population for a while.  Seems there is a lot of self centered, self righteous opinions being implemented.

[pianoman9701]

Hopefully, we'll reach our goals this year, so by 2016 when we get to start hunting, the bill will only be around $65 million.

[bobcat]

I would rather not have wolves in the state, and I agree it's money that could be better spent elsewhere. But the fact is, wolves have made a comeback, after being eradicated from the state a century ago. It only makes sense that wolves would eventually return to Washington, and repopulate any areas that still have the appropriate habitat and prey necessary to sustain a population of wolves.

I don't like it any more than anybody else, as I'd rather all the deer, elk, and moose be left for us humans to hunt, kill, and keep their numbers in balance. What I don't understand is all the anger I see directed mostly at the WDFW. So we don't agree 100% with the wolf plan. I get that. I think 15 breeding pairs is unnecessarily high. But other than that what's wrong with the plan?

Shouldn't we be happy that they're not wanting to transplant wolves into all areas of the state? I see the plan as being the WDFW's way of assuring that wolves are delisted by the Feds ASAP. Only then can the state take over management of wolves statewide.

As far as money being spent, isn't it to be expected? Again I don't like it but what's the alternative? Just no management at all? Just ignore the problem? Is that what they should be doing?

[Special T]

Why the WDFW hate? Well they COULD have started hunting /MGT  E of the columbia several years ago when the FEDS delisted the rockey mountain region. The WDFW COULD have gone the Wyoming route and pressed the feds. They COULD have done a lot of things BUT the WDFW has been less interested in sportmens dollars and more interested in Federal ESA grants. Hell they even said there is lots of $$$ attached to this issue... I can point to SEVERAL issues where the WDFW has NOT meet its mandate by using SCIENCE to make rules for "management" of state game. The WDFW has shown us over and over that they employ people who are NOT sportmen, and do not share our values. If you some how think i am ignorant on this issue please say so and i will LIST  more examples.

I liken the WDFW tro my 6 year old that seems to have a hard time doing as they are instructed. Since she does not want to cooperate and go to bed, I make sure she turnes her light off and puts her books away...  Sportsmen are tired of having to hold the WDFW's hand to do the job they are paid to do. If they cannot earn our trust through actions then we must treat them like a child.

I don't know about you BC but i can only think of a couple of things i have been able to publically praise about the WDFW on here. I give credit where it is due, but since there seems to be a lack of trust by me and many others they need to be doing MORE things that make sence. They also need MORE clarity and transparency.... Hell even thier name change from Department of Fish and Game to Department of Fish and Wildlife is a sign that they are LESS intested insportsmen except for thier $$$.

[duckmen1]

Under the state’s Wolf Conservation and Management Plan, wolves can be removed from the state’s endangered species list once 15 successful breeding pairs are documented for three consecutive years among three designated wolf-recovery regions. Four pairs are required in Eastern Washington, four pairs in the North Cascades, four pairs in South Cascades/Northwest Coast and three pairs in any recovery region.
This is from the wdfw website. They do want them all over the whole state according to the management plan.

[bobcat]

Special T- I agree with your post, but again I don't understand why its a surprise that the WDFW doesn't put 100% of their efforts into pleasing hunters and only doing what is most beneficial for hunters. It's just simply the world we live in. Hunters make up what, around 5% of the population? Or maybe less. It only makes sense that the WDFW focuses a lot of their attention on what the majority of the people want. Which is why you see an emphasis more on wildlife "watching" activities, rather than "harvesting."

[huntnphool]

They do want them all over the whole state according to the management plan.

I told Bobcat that more than a year ago.

[Special T]

It is the disconnect with where the $$$ comes from and where it goes that makes me  .

"What I don't understand is all the anger I see directed mostly at the WDFW" Bobcat.

Where should we direct our anger?

[bobcat]

Four pairs are required in Eastern Washington, four pairs in the North Cascades, four pairs in South Cascades/Northwest Coast and three pairs in any recovery region.
This is from the wdfw website. They do want them all over the whole state according to the management plan.

Not exactly. At least from the way I read it, there could be zero wolves on the Oly Peninsula and the Willapa Hills, and the state could still meet the 15 BP requirement.

[bobcat]

Where should we direct our anger?

I don't know. Nature? The wolves themselves?

Or, take a chill pill and don't get angry?   

[Special T]

If i take your $$$ to do something i SAY i'm gona do, and then give you the reasoning that i'm a schister so you should know your not really gona get what i promised, your gonna be happy? 

[eastsidemallard74]

I don't like to read, so this a lazy persons question,wouldn't it be cheaper/easier to just allow us to shoot them on site. Than the second question is why would it cost so much money.last time I bought a license,ammo,firearm I don't remember the GOV handing me their wallet, or saying ,hey heres a discount to shoot a predator. Just saying.......