WDFW Claims cow was not wolf kill

[mulehunter]

I believe that Wa Public land is 1/2 size smaller than all another three states public land and still all four states required 15 Bp.  Wolves are gonna wipe out our state animals quick than other states.      I may be wrong, WDFW better think harder!

[pianoman9701]

It's possible that within a year we'll see a legislative order for the WDFW to take action on delisting and management. This has gone way out of control and beyond the power of the department to do anything effective about it.

[huntnphool]

WDFW can initiate a status review prior to achieving the
3-year requirement for the recovery objectives. Review under the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) and public review are also required as part of the delisting process. Delisting is based only
on the biological status of the species in Washington. Information from the status review is then
presented to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission to make the final determination on
delisting. The Commission would not consider final action until after achieving the recovery
objectives.
If 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

This is right out of the wolf plan.

My personal belief is that wolves will be delisted in three years.  I certainly could be wrong.

Did you miss the "can" and "could" JLS?
Did you see that the Commission gets to make a final determination?
Do you think the Commission will actually vary from their own recommended wolf plan and approve a status review that the WDFW "can" initiate?

So what is your interpretation of delisting?  What does it mean to you, as it relates to the language of the wolf plan?  To me, it's just a step in the right direction with 2 more bigger steps to go, pending lawsuits and a public vote.

No, I didn't see any of that

Can and could are very different from shall and should.  No, the Commission will not vary from the plan and I never said they would.  It says very clearly that the Commish would not consider final action until after recovery objectives. 

Delisting to me is removing wolves from a status that guarantees them protection, i.e they are not still considered sensitive or threatened.  There are mountains of data that can support the biological basis for allowing wolf hunting.  I do not see that being the hurdle. 

We can argue until we're blue in the face.  Neither of us can "prove" our arguments, so it's pointless for me to continue.

In the interim, we can choose to do two things.  We can continue to wring our hands and spew forth the propoganda of Toby Bridges and Lobowatch, or we can speak to the scientific facts that clearly show that wolves can withstand a very high degree of hunting pressure without any significant danger to their population.

Who's scientific facts are going to be used though? How many agree with the science based opinion WDFW adopted for their cougar plan, suggesting that we are over harvesting cougars in this state?

[6x6in6]

I certainly hope that you are not thinking that I am some how aligned with the views of Toby and Lobo are you?

 

If I did, I wouldn't even be trying to discuss this with you.  It was a rather general shot across the bow to those that do espouse his rhetoric.

Thank goodness.  People have been banned for such types of alignment.