WDFW Claims cow was not wolf kill

[AspenBud]

I'll say it again, the least of our worries is in the courtroom.  The lawsuits would be won easily.  What you should fear is the ballot box and citizen's initiatives.

Here's what should really bother everyone. If a citizen initiative supporting wolf reintroduction had come up for vote before wolves came back to this state, how many can say they think it would have failed with a straight face?

My bet is if a hunting season happens, the next day an initiative against it will be up for vote and I won't at all be surprised it passes if more isn't done to educate the public about them.

Too much focus on WDFW and not enough on getting the word out smartly to the voters of this state.

[bobcat]

We need a new law that says voters have no say in wildlife management decisions.

[AspenBud]

We need a new law that says voters have no say in wildlife management decisions.

I absolutely agree.

[Curly]

 

It is also a shame that WDFW is not supposed to give their opinion on initiatives.  Bigtex has mentioned before about the baiting and hound initiatives that the reason we didn't see WDFW speaking out against them is because they aren't allowed.

[huntnphool]

Those of you that have faith in this process......just wait for how long it will take to actually delist.  I'm talking about once the requirement has been made and they are actually delisted.

I have faith the process will work similar to the way it worked in other states. When they first try to delist wolves there will be lawsuits by the wolf lovers. The state will spend millions of dollars fighting those lawsuits. Then maybe, after many years, they will be delisted. And who knows how many more years after that before there will be a hunting season for wolves. By that time there will be very few deer and elk left to hunt in this state, and hunting will be by draw only.

I think we will delist a little sooner, but it really won't make any difference because WA will be so stuffed with wolves that they will be impossible to control in time to save the decimation of our wildlife.

And then there is the lawsuits that will be filed.  The legal battle and barrage of lawsuits will make ID and MT's battles seem puny.

I'll say it again, the least of our worries is in the courtroom.

Really? Have you not been paying attention to our fiscal problems JLS? How much are these courtroom battles going to cost....and who do you think is going to have to pay for them?

In the grand scheme of government spending its not a piss drop in the bucket ill give you that, but it all continues to add up, and up, and up.

The fact that we have to worry at all about the courts is ridiculous in its own right, "the least of our worries" should be wolves in the first place.

[Wenatcheejay]

Wolves are 100% POLITICAL. Science is outcome based. That was the plan before the plan was adopted. It was the plan when adopted. It will be the plan for years and years to come. Write, complain, "talk with government." They have the guns, the law, the power. They do not care what anyone who is not a willing player in their plan. They will take and we will pay for it. We will whine and do nothing while they, "fundamentally change the landscape forever." I hate them.

[JLS]

Really? Have you not been paying attention to our fiscal problems JLS? How much are these courtroom battles going to cost....and who do you think is going to have to pay for them?

In the grand scheme of government spending its not a piss drop in the bucket ill give you that, but it all continues to add up, and up, and up.

The fact that we have to worry at all about the courts is ridiculous in its own right, "the least of our worries" should be wolves in the first place.
[/quote]

Of course I've been paying attention to our fiscal problems.  That's irrelevant, because the likelihood of an injunction and/or lawsuit being granted is very low unless there is a direct violation of the WDFW wolf plan.  Whether you like the plan or not, it's been scientifically accepted and peer reviewed, so it is a highly defensible document in court. 

Any lawsuit filed has to show that the wolf population would be jeopardized by the act of hunting or the wolf plan was not being followed.  Given that wolf populations in MT and ID have withstood a high degree of hunting and trapping, there is very little danger of that.

Honestly, I think there is a very real chance that when wolves are delisted from the state ESA and reclassified as a game animal there will be zero lawsuits.  There is a very real chance it will show up in the first election.

How many lawsuits were filed when the Wedge pack was being shot? 

[6x6in6]

All this talk about delisting, lawsuits, votes......

We all know we have to get to the breeding pair head count and that head count has to do the successful tango for 3 years.
Did you know that then, and only then, the WDFW will BEGIN the process of delisting?  Sure, there is language that gives them there "can" and could" do so earlier but nothing rigid like "will".  So how long do you think that will take, the delisting process? 
Go read the wolf plan and page 68 Delisting.  Probably should also read the referenced WAC on page 68 of the plan.  Yep, you got it.  The Commission gets to ultimately say delist or not to delist.  Isn't that just a nice warm fuzzy right there!
Now, fast forward to page 70 of the wolf plan beginning with Section C. Management after Delisting
So, the WDFW finally got around to doing what they had to do on page 68, with the blessing of the Commission.
Low and behold, now they don't have to call them a game animal after they have been delisted.
Guess what?  No game animal = no hunting season.
That language on page 70 is their for a reason.  So the WDFW can do what they see fit.  Nothing more.
Go look at the last sentence on page 70 and Section C.  Potentially another plan for managing wolves after delisting?  And there goes the anchor out again, slowing down the process some more.  You don't think they won't use this one also to slow the process down?  Right..............

Folks, mark my words, the wolf will not be managed as a game animal in this state anytime soon (this present decade).  Sure, they may be delisted.  Big deal.  Can't hunt them until that management plan is done, delisted or not.

Here, wolf plan..........  http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00001/wdfw00001.pdf
And the WAC referenced on page 68........  http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-297

I made it simple for ya.   
Essentially, the meat and potatoes to get to hunting of wolves is contained on pages 68-71.  If you read nothing else, familiarize yourself with these 4 pages. 

[huntnphool]

All this talk about delisting, lawsuits, votes......

We all know we have to get to the breeding pair head count and that head count has to do the successful tango for 3 years.
Did you know that then, and only then, the WDFW will BEGIN the process of delisting?  Sure, there is language that gives them there "can" and could" do so earlier but nothing rigid like "will".  So how long do you think that will take, the delisting process? 
Go read the wolf plan and page 68 Delisting.  Probably should also read the referenced WAC on page 68 of the plan.  Yep, you got it.  The Commission gets to ultimately say delist or not to delist.  Isn't that just a nice warm fuzzy right there!
Now, fast forward to page 70 of the wolf plan beginning with Section C. Management after Delisting
So, the WDFW finally got around to doing what they had to do on page 68, with the blessing of the Commission.
Low and behold, now they don't have to call them a game animal after they have been delisted.
Guess what?  No game animal = no hunting season.
That language on page 70 is their for a reason.  So the WDFW can do what they see fit.  Nothing more.
Go look at the last sentence on page 70 and Section C.  Potentially another plan for managing wolves after delisting?  And there goes the anchor out again, slowing down the process some more.  You don't think they won't use this one also to slow the process down?  Right..............

Folks, mark my words, the wolf will not be managed as a game animal in this state anytime soon (this present decade).  Sure, they may be delisted.  Big deal.  Can't hunt them until that management plan is done, delisted or not.

Here, wolf plan..........  http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00001/wdfw00001.pdf
And the WAC referenced on page 68........  http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-297

I made it simple for ya.   
Essentially, the meat and potatoes to get to hunting of wolves is contained on pages 68-71.  If you read nothing else, familiarize yourself with these 4 pages.

Exactly what I have been saying. All these guys that believe we will be hunting them "in the next few years" or "in 5-10 years" are delusional, and even if hunting starts, its already been proven that hunting doesn't work for controlling their numbers.

[JLS]

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.

Edit:  And, I will stand behind my prediction of no lawsuits filed.  Why the heck would PETA or whoever file a lawsuit when they can go right to the ballot box?

[6x6in6]

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.

[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.

Edit:  And, I will stand behind my prediction of no lawsuits filed.  Why the heck would PETA or whoever file a lawsuit when they can go right to the ballot box?

We will see

[JLS]

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.

[6x6in6]

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

[JLS]

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.