Free: Contests & Raffles.
Meanwhile, Inslee got rid of Douvia and Perry is on the way out. Thinking Inslee will appoint two more huggers.
Interesting point denali. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is a "management by objectives" agency though, and I haven't seen anything in the plan that states or implies the management objective will be different than fifteen breeding pairs. The peer reviewers and critics of the plan assume fifteen breeding pairs is the objective. Just exactly what do you see in the plan, or any other document, that justifies your concern? The wolf management plan is a modest effort to meet the minimum objectives of endangered species legislation. Soon, we will have another game animal to hunt. In the management plan, the WDFW makes a pretty strong commitment to maintain game herds, suggesting wolves would have little to no impact. It will, however, require some money and due diligence. Seems to me hunters would be wise to reinforce that commitment and help insure the Department gets the resources needed to meet game management objectives, rather than facilitating a self fulfilling prophesy just so we can say "we told you so" if game numbers fall. It wouldn't kill us to work with groups like Defenders of Wildlife to minimize the adverse impacts of wolves on game herds.Additionally, hunting isn't a growth sport and wildlife watching is. We need help to move fish and wildlife habitat legislation. By continuously vilifying "bunny huggers" we make ourselves enemies of a rapidly growing social group that is educated and organized.
Interesting point denali. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is a "management by objectives" agency though, and I haven't seen anything in the plan that states or implies the management objective will be different than fifteen breeding pairs. The peer reviewers and critics of the plan assume fifteen breeding pairs is the objective. Just exactly what do you see in the plan, or any other document, that justifies your concern? After revision the plan calls for delisting after 18 BP if this number is reached regardless if quota is reached in all 3 zones.In ID and MT wolf counts were 20-30% under count, I see no reason to expect WA would be any different. The wolf management plan is a modest effort to meet the minimum objectives of endangered species legislation. Soon, we will have another game animal to hunt. Modest... really?... we have a 30-40% higher objective with 1/2 the prey base with 3-5 times the human population of NRM states.In the management plan, the WDFW makes a pretty strong commitment to maintain game herds, suggesting wolves would have little to no impact. It will, however, require some money and due diligence. Seems to me hunters would be wise to reinforce that commitment and help insure the Department gets the resources needed to meet game management objectives, rather than facilitating a self fulfilling prophesy just so we can say "we told you so" if game numbers fall. It wouldn't kill us to work with groups like Defenders of Wildlife to minimize the adverse impacts of wolves on game herds.defenders of wildlife....?? Additionally, hunting isn't a growth sport and wildlife watching is. We need help to move fish and wildlife habitat legislation. By continuously vilifying "bunny huggers" we make ourselves enemies of a rapidly growing social group that is educated and organized.wildlife watching is a great pastime, one of my favorites, however it provides little in direct revenue to to the WDFW
In the management plan, the WDFW makes a pretty strong commitment to maintain game herds, suggesting wolves would have little to no impact.
Quote from: 33 Winchester on April 29, 2013, 09:08:57 AMInteresting point denali. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is a "management by objectives" agency though, and I haven't seen anything in the plan that states or implies the management objective will be different than fifteen breeding pairs. The peer reviewers and critics of the plan assume fifteen breeding pairs is the objective. Just exactly what do you see in the plan, or any other document, that justifies your concern? The wolf management plan is a modest effort to meet the minimum objectives of endangered species legislation. Soon, we will have another game animal to hunt. In the management plan, the WDFW makes a pretty strong commitment to maintain game herds, suggesting wolves would have little to no impact. It will, however, require some money and due diligence. Seems to me hunters would be wise to reinforce that commitment and help insure the Department gets the resources needed to meet game management objectives, rather than facilitating a self fulfilling prophesy just so we can say "we told you so" if game numbers fall. It wouldn't kill us to work with groups like Defenders of Wildlife to minimize the adverse impacts of wolves on game herds.Additionally, hunting isn't a growth sport and wildlife watching is. We need help to move fish and wildlife habitat legislation. By continuously vilifying "bunny huggers" we make ourselves enemies of a rapidly growing social group that is educated and organized.And a group which pays little or nothing into wildlife management. This is a group of people most of whom, if they were required to pay what we pay to hunt, would find something else to do, altogether. They don't mind pushing for legislation to limit my hunting opportunities, but very few of them would pay the kind of money we do to keep conservation going. That includes not only the license/tag fees, but the huge amount of money coming from Pittman Robertson volunteer taxes on ammo, guns, and archery equipment. This is the problem I have with the bunny huggers - they have 0 in the game.
OK, everyone knows there are problems with the wolf management plan. Wolves are the new predators on the block. Native ungulates are no more used to them than cattle are. There have been problems and there will be more. So what? You either have a state plan or the feds are back in the game. A popular proposal in NE Washington to deal with the regional targets is, of course, to trap and transplant. That might not be such a popular proposal in the rest of the state.As I understand it, wolf recovery is part of a world wide conservation trend based on scientific data pointing to ecological and genetic advantages (such as enlargement of brain size) to having viable populations of top tier predators in the environment. So we see efforts to recover and integrate lions and tigers, crocodiles and alligators, sharks and orcas, bears and wolves and so on into the environment, to the extent feasible. I don’t know where this experiment is going but I am guessing the endangered species act isn’t going away and neither are the scientists doing conservation biology.When the smoke clears, we should have a modest number of wolves in the state. Numbers will be controlled largely by hunting There will be some local impacts which will not be as significant as winter kill, for instance; or the current inadequate elk numbers in NE Washington, far below what the habitat can support and too low to keep serious elk hunters in the state during elk season.When WDFW staff came to Colville to present the proposal to double the elk herd there was a good but largely passive crowd in attendance. Don Dashiell, County Commission Chairman, gave a short speech about the county policy being pro agriculture and he questioned whether increasing elk numbers was consistent with county policy. Mr. Dashiell is a rancher. The local paper reported the commission sought to use the Growth Management Act to limit increases in the elk herd but the Attorney General ruled that the Act did not apply to elk. Now the commissioners are attempting to burden WDFW with data collection and obligations they hope the agency doesn’t have money or time to get around to. Hunters, too apoplectic over wolves or absorbed in their hatred for anti-hunters, will ignore more important things like improving elk population targets, they hope. But this post is about Jennings, who I don’t know. But I do know Gary Douvia. Shortly after his appointment to the Commission I requested a meeting with him. We talked financial planning (Mr. Douvia’s profession), increasing elk numbers and the Kettle River. Mr. Douvia showed little interest in either fish or wildlife. Commissioner Douvia has been quoted several times in the local paper. I cannot recall a time when his interest was not driven by what local industry wanted. I have never heard him sound like an advocate for fish and wildlife. The Kettle River was listed as the most endangered river in British Columbia one recent year by the BC Outdoor Recreation Council, primarily due to legal and illegal existing and planned water withdrawals. Commissioner Douvia’s contribution to Kettle River conservation was a recommendation to suspend the selective gear rules for trout fishing, because that is what some local businesses wanted. Hunters and anglers provide significant financial contribution to fish and wildlife habitat. However, it is not possible to deal with natural resource conservation through user fees, licenses, targeted taxes and so on. In order to conserve natural resources a land ethic is needed, sound conservation legislation is required and adequate public funding to execute the legislation. Additionally, fees, permits, licenses and so on act as a perturbation, chilling outdoor recreation participation.Jennings I don’t know, but based on what I read I am guessing I could talk to him about Unit 117 and the four point rule; the Forest Service South End Motor Vehicle Recreation Plan (covering much of unit 117) prompted by the county commission wanting to focus on motorized recreation as a tourism strategy; the Colville Forest Plan to put a substantial portion of unit 117 into Restoration 3 land allocation with a road density target of an average of three miles per section on a watershed basis; the WDFW proposal to double the elk herd, with unit 117 being part of that proposal; and suggest there are some substantial conflicts between those objectives and the ability of the land to satisfy them and Mr. Jennings would get the point and try to do something about those contradictions to the advantage of wildlife. Yes or no?
When the smoke clears, we should have a modest number of wolves in the state. Numbers will be controlled largely by hunting
Hunting, as a tool to control wolf numbers, has been proven to be completely ineffective in these other states
In 80% of Wyoming wolves may be shot on sight, unprotected, no limit. Wyoming stood their ground and did it the right way.
Quote from: bearpaw on May 05, 2013, 12:12:14 PMIn 80% of Wyoming wolves may be shot on sight, unprotected, no limit. Wyoming stood their ground and did it the right way. I understand that, but I'm referencing the controlled hunt area, not the other 80% of the state.
Looks like it was effective here:http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/wyoming-game-and-fish-proposes-cutting-wolf-quotas-by-half/article_87e99bf8-0050-5dbc-935e-a30955ecb7bc.html
Wolves can be shot without a license during any time of the year in about 85 percent of the state. Thus far this year, hunters have killed 14 in that 85 percent, Nesvik said
