wolf management will cost $2.3 million in 2013

[bobcat]

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? 

  What exactly did the WDFW promise you when you gave them your money?

[Special T]

Management by the use of science... at leat that is what thier Gov mandate is.

[huntnphool]

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.......

They are still listed and can not be "hunted" yet. Besides that fact, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming already presented their first hand numbers to WDFW showing that "hunting" is ineffective in controlling wolf numbers. The high costs come from helicopter time.

[asl20bball]

...and the 2.3million does not even factor in the lost revenue from hunting licenses/fees when hunters move out of state or stop buying tags for 1 of the following 2 reasons:  1) the tags becoming more expensive and/or 2) hunters see the decrease in quality hunting of ungulates.
Both of the above are due primary to the wolves -increase fees to pay for WDFW costs and decrease hunter opportunity due to predation.

On a side note I'm also surpried there's not been more talk about upping the cougar allotment via hound hunting to ease some of the effects of wolf depredation (maybe there has but I've missed it??)

[Curly]

Anger should definitely be directed toward WDFW.  They should have come up with a more reasonable wolf plan.  If the Feds rejected the plan the first time, then it would be time to argue the case with the Feds.  Not simply create a wolf plan that is so slanted toward the pro-wolf crowd.  Sportsmen have been footing the bill for wildlife management in the state for a long, long time.........and this wolf plan is the thanks we get??? I don't have one good thing to say about WDFW......... 

[bobcat]

Management by the use of science... at least that is what thier Gov mandate is.

And that is what they are doing. They are managing wolves in a way to recover the wolf population statewide. We as hunters may not like that, because we prefer less wolves and more deer and elk for us to eat, rather than the wolves. But the fact that the state isn't managing the wolves in a way to provide the most benefit to YOU, doesn't mean they aren't using science.

[huntnphool]

Management by the use of science... at least that is what thier Gov mandate is.

And that is what they are doing. They are managing wolves in a way to recover the wolf population statewide. We as hunters may not like that, because we prefer less wolves and more deer and elk for us to eat, rather than the wolves. But the fact that the state isn't managing the wolves in a way to provide the most benefit to YOU, doesn't mean they aren't using science.

Sorry Bob, you were not at those meetings that I attended and there was no science involved, they were basing their plan on speculation and estimates.

[JLS]

Management by the use of science... at least that is what thier Gov mandate is.

And that is what they are doing. They are managing wolves in a way to recover the wolf population statewide. We as hunters may not like that, because we prefer less wolves and more deer and elk for us to eat, rather than the wolves. But the fact that the state isn't managing the wolves in a way to provide the most benefit to YOU, doesn't mean they aren't using science.

Sorry Bob, you were not at those meetings that I attended and there was no science involved, they were basing their plan on speculation and estimates.

Isn't the purpose of a peer review to ensure the science is sound and valid?  A lot of wildlife management is based on modeling (computerized speculation) and estimates.  It's actually quite accurate.  How the exponential growth in wolf numbers caught the biologists by surprise is beyond me though.

[MR5x5]

I like the last wolf plan best.  Eradicate them!

You know Polio and Tuberculous were all but eradicated in this country, but you know, with globalization and everything it was only a matter of time before it "naturally" came back.  Oh well... But don't worry to much about it.  It is mostly in other parts of country...  I think as long as we keep it to 1 million cases a year that should be be a good goal...

Just because it's "natural" doesn't automatically mean it's good.

These wolves are not endangered, so why do we act like they are?

[snowpack]

Management by the use of science... at least that is what thier Gov mandate is.

And that is what they are doing. They are managing wolves in a way to recover the wolf population statewide. We as hunters may not like that, because we prefer less wolves and more deer and elk for us to eat, rather than the wolves. But the fact that the state isn't managing the wolves in a way to provide the most benefit to YOU, doesn't mean they aren't using science.

They've been using a bit of flawed science and assumptions, eventhough they have been given updated data from Wyoming, Montana and Idaho.  Examples: they assume wolves will kill 13 elk/wolf/year but the bios in those other states claim it is closer to 22-23 elk/wolf/year (are WA elk twice the size of other elk?).  They also claim wolves will shy away and stay in wilderness areas, rarely to be seen by humans.  Their assumptions in the wolf plan estimate that WA has more habitat for wolves than ID and MT combined.  When they do things like that, it questions how valid their science is.

[huntnphool]

Management by the use of science... at least that is what thier Gov mandate is.

And that is what they are doing. They are managing wolves in a way to recover the wolf population statewide. We as hunters may not like that, because we prefer less wolves and more deer and elk for us to eat, rather than the wolves. But the fact that the state isn't managing the wolves in a way to provide the most benefit to YOU, doesn't mean they aren't using science.

Sorry Bob, you were not at those meetings that I attended and there was no science involved, they were basing their plan on speculation and estimates.

Isn't the purpose of a peer review to ensure the science is sound and valid?  A lot of wildlife management is based on modeling (computerized speculation) and estimates.  It's actually quite accurate.  How the exponential growth in wolf numbers caught the biologists by surprise is beyond me though.

And with people that had personally witnessed their effect in other states telling WDFW that their "estimates" were way low, and even asking them why they thought it would be any different here.

[MR5x5]

I don't question their science, I'm sure it is crap.  Show me where they have got it right?  I'm might be willing to entertain that they are actually, really trying to do an honest job, but I suspect not.  Bought and paid for.  Just like the rest of them.

[huntnphool]

I don't question their science, I'm sure it is crap.  Show me where they have got it right?  I'm might be willing to entertain that they are actually, really trying to do an honest job, but I suspect not.  Bought and paid for.  Just like the rest of them.

Especially when theso called "wolf expert" has recently come out and admitted that some of his "science" may not have been correct in the long run.

[buckfvr]

The biologists werent the least bit surprised.....for that matter, no one in wdfw was surprised.  That was just their go to approach.   Every last one of them knew/knows better.  Add this to the long list of deceptive tactics used by state politicians using wdfw as their vehicle. 

[Special T]

Management by the use of science... at least that is what thier Gov mandate is.

And that is what they are doing. They are managing wolves in a way to recover the wolf population statewide. We as hunters may not like that, because we prefer less wolves and more deer and elk for us to eat, rather than the wolves. But the fact that the state isn't managing the wolves in a way to provide the most benefit to YOU, doesn't mean they aren't using science.

If you think they are using GOOD science and taking acceptable actions on behalf of Wa state Citizens as well as hunters then we have nothing in common on this issue.

I like it when people play devils advocate, however the list is long as to faulty science used on this issue.
-Wrong subspecies of wolves
-We have less potential environment than other state but required 15BP All across the state.
- Feds said wolves were recovered in rocky mt region, yet we did not delist there despite enough wolves
-Used wrong elk/deer numbers for consumption/food as uptdated by other states
-belived that non leathal use of force works but other states have proven it only works temporary.
-No concern/discussion of  hydatid disease or echinococcal disease
-Refusal to take help from concerned parties, IE hunters and ranchers, YET accept help from wolf promoters like Dow. No show of scientific bias there.

History is a great teacher. ID and MT both followed versions of the paln we have, only WY has taken a different route, and not suffered the problems that the other states have. To ignor what is goingon in those state is POOR science.

Do I need go on?