Why most probably don't see wolves as much of a public safety problem

[idahohuntr]

I think the most generous statement you could make is that the WDFW is neutral on the issue. At BEST the WDFW is playing defense. They do what they can to not piss off CNW & DoW, and attempt to keep happy sportsmen. Playing defense is reactive not proactive. Proactive = Advocate

I think this is where you fail to recognize the politics of this very liberal state.  I believe from my personal interaction with WDFW admin that they are "playing" the best hand they can in the interest of sportsmen.  You want WDFW to advocate more for sportsmen on wolves...and if this were Idaho they could.  Its not.  Do you think they would let the current WDFW director pack his office up before they tossed him to the curb if he just came out and said he wanted to reduce wolves 50% or something in this state??   

Many times in WA it is best not to get politicians or the public riled up about hunting issues...particularly when we are the minority.  Think hound and bait initiatives x 1000.  Its why I am a huge advocate of communicating effectively and intelligently about wildlife management issues (e.g., not perpetuating garbage conspiracies) and supporting WDFW as best we can, which does include telling them when they are wrong on an issue.  They know the political game, they have management authority (most of the time), and they have competent professional wildlife management staff for the most part...again, they are our biggest ally in successfully managing wildlife in this state.  We gain nothing by alienating them or just constantly disparaging them.  If they are doing something poorly, figure out how you can help them do it better     

[bobcat]

Great post Idahohunter. 

[wolfbait]

I think the most generous statement you could make is that the WDFW is neutral on the issue. At BEST the WDFW is playing defense. They do what they can to not piss off CNW & DoW, and attempt to keep happy sportsmen. Playing defense is reactive not proactive. Proactive = Advocate

I think this is where you fail to recognize the politics of this very liberal state.  I believe from my personal interaction with WDFW admin that they are "playing" the best hand they can in the interest of sportsmen.  You want WDFW to advocate more for sportsmen on wolves...and if this were Idaho they could.  Its not.  Do you think they would let the current WDFW director pack his office up before they tossed him to the curb if he just came out and said he wanted to reduce wolves 50% or something in this state??   

Many times in WA it is best not to get politicians or the public riled up about hunting issues...particularly when we are the minority.  Think hound and bait initiatives x 1000.  Its why I am a huge advocate of communicating effectively and intelligently about wildlife management issues (e.g., not perpetuating garbage conspiracies) and supporting WDFW as best we can, which does include telling them when they are wrong on an issue.  They know the political game, they have management authority (most of the time), and they have competent professional wildlife management staff for the most part...again, they are our biggest ally in successfully managing wildlife in this state.  We gain nothing by alienating them or just constantly disparaging them.  If they are doing something poorly, figure out how you can help them do it better     

"Many times in WA it is best not to get politicians or the public riled up about hunting issues...particularly when we are the minority.  Think hound and bait initiatives x 1000"

I would have to disagree with you, if more people would have gotten "riled" over the bogus wolf plan we might not have ended up with what we have today.

 How much worse will hunting get with WDFW protecting predators instead of controlling them? How many years will it take for the WDFW to admit the impact uncontrolled predators are having on the game herds?

If WDFW were managing the game herds they would have liberal hunting seasons on cougars/bears and they would surely be in favor of confirming wolf packs, confirming livestock kills, and wolf packs. But that doesn't seem to be happening does it?

 "If they are doing something poorly, figure out how you can help them do it better"

Many people have>SS

[VarmintVentilator]

WDFW's hands are somewhat tied (not completely but somewhat).  The organizations with the most money play a big role in everything these days.  Who knows, someday our main course for a Thanksgiving dinner may be lettuce. 

[wolfbait]

Idahohntr

So why did you gloss over RMEF's CEO David Allens stance on wolves??

“Wolf reintroduction is the worst ecological disaster since the decimation of bison herds,” Allen said recently, as he claimed that wolves are “decimating” and “annihilating” elk herds. “To keep wolf populations controlled, states will have to hold hunts, shoot wolves from the air and gas their dens,” he said.

Seems like this is in opposition to everything you and JLS have said on HW.

Do you have more context for this quote? When was it provided and where is it printed? Where is the rest of the story?

If what you have pasted is the entirety of the quote and context then I do not agree with him.  Wolves have not been the worst "ecological disaster" because state based management is working quite well.  If the quote came from 2008/2009 when there was still a lot of back and forth between feds vs. state managing wolves in ID/MT I understand completely why he would have said that.  If its real recent, then I disagree.

When he says wolves are annihilating and decimating elk herds is he talking specific herds (which I agree) or all elk herds in ID and MT (I would disagree)?

On his statements about the need for states to control wolf populations and hunt them...completely agree.  His statement about gassing their dens...not appropriate...if he did say that I will bet you PR staff had a long chat with him afterwards.

Again, I don't let perfect be the enemy of good.  RMEF has conserved and enhanced 6+ million acres of wildlife habitat.  They have increased focus on finding ways to increase access to hunting land for diy guys lately.  They support state based wolf management - meaning they support WDFW!, IDFG, MTFWP, WYGF...Habitat, Access, and supporting state wolf management...yep looks like I'm still lock step with RMEF views on what is important.

Oh, and as even further evidence of how aligned I am with that organization...a while back Allen wrote an open letter basically requesting that conservation organizations not fleece sportsmen and steal public resources.  It was basically a big shot at that fraud group Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (SFW)...its a great read and I'm glad Allen called out those scumbags

A once-proud conservation group has lost its way

Recently, the family of Olaus J. Murie demanded that the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation cancel the organization’s Olaus J. Murie Award. The surprising reason? The foundation’s “all-out war against wolves is anathema to the entire Murie family.”

I sympathize with the family’s position for several reasons. In 1999, while working for the Elk Foundation, I created the Olaus J. Murie Award, with the coordination and the approval of the Murie family. The award recognized scientists working on behalf of elk and elk habitat and was given in the name of Olaus J. Murie because he is widely considered the “father” of modern elk research.

Murie, who did groundbreaking work at the National Elk Refuge in Jackson Hole, Wyo., in the 1940s, also wrote Elk of North America, the first comprehensive and scientific treatise on elk and elk management.

During most of its 28-history, the Elk Foundation and its more than 185,000 members, who are primarily hunters, avoided controversy. Instead, the group focused on its mission: “To ensure the future of elk, other wildlife and their habitat.” Most of the foundation’s leaders had solid backgrounds in wildlife biology, ecology and wildlife management, and they resisted the occasional pressure from hunters to get involved in issues such as gun rights or wolf reintroduction.

“We are not a hunting organization supporting conservation; we are a conservation organization supported by hunters,” former foundation director Gary Wolfe used to say.

But starting in 2000, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation’s board of directors changed, many staff members were fired, and the nonprofit group went through a string of short-term directors. Then in 2007, the foundation board hired David Allen, a former marketer for NASCAR and the Pro Rodeo Cowboys Association, as its director.  At first, it seemed that Allen would follow a path similar to former leaders.

“We are not a hunting club. We don’t intend to be a hunting club. We are a membership organization that has an overwhelming number of hunters … but we’re not doing wildlife conservation to improve our hunting,” Allen said when he took on the job. That approach did not last long.

“Wolf reintroduction is the worst ecological disaster since the decimation of bison herds,” Allen said recently, as he claimed that wolves are “decimating” and “annihilating” elk herds.  "To keep wolf populations controlled, states will have to hold hunts, shoot wolves from the air and gas their dens,” he said.

When asked about the utility of predator-prey relationships, Allen explained, “Natural balance is a Walt Disney movie. It isn’t real.”  Under his leadership, the Elk Foundation recently offered the state of Montana $50,000 to contract with the federal Wildlife Services agency to “aggressively” kill more wolves. “And the next step is the grizzly bear,” he said. “We’ve got bear issues with elk calves in the spring -- both grizzly and black bear. We can’t have all these predators with little aggressive management and expect to have ample game herds, and sell hunting tags and generate revenue.”

This approach has not gone over well with some conservationists. Ralph Maughan, director of the Western Watersheds Project and the Wolf Recovery  Foundation, said that foundation director “Allen has not only taken a strongly anti-wolf position, but he has done it taking an ‘in your face’ way to traditional conservation organizations such as those supported by Olaus Murie, which he now calls ‘extremist.’” “Allen has also expressed contempt for many of the concepts of ecology, as he seems to be moving the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation toward a single species, single value of elk (hunting) approach.”

There has been a lot of good, solid research on elk and wolf interactions, some of it funded by the Elk Foundation in years past. Most of it that shows that when wolves are restored to an ecosystem, both habitat and elk herds improve. Allen’s claims are not backed by science.

“Mr. Allen and his anti-wolf rhetoric has alienated him and his organization from many of the very organizations that have helped the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation — in subtle and profound ways — garner the successes it has over the years,” said Bob Ferris, a 30-year wildlife researcher who was involved in bringing wolves back to the Yellowstone ecosystem.

The family of Olaus J. Murie, the “father” of modern elk research and management, agrees with these criticisms. A foundation that once understood the complex relationship between elk and wolves has succumbed to the pressures of hunters who don’t like wolves.

http://www.hcn.org/wotr/a-once-proud-conservation-group-has-lost-its-way

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

But starting in 2000, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation’s board of directors changed, many staff members were fired>WDFW needs an overhaul.


Murie Family Cautions Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Over Anti-Wolf Rhetoric

http://www.mexicanwolves.org/index.php/news/735/51/Press-Release-Murie-Family-Cautions-Rocky-Mountain-Elk-Foundation-Over-Anti-Wolf-Rhetoric/d,News2

[wolfbait]

Wolf controversy polarizes
POSTED: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2010 12:00 AM
By Cory Hatch, Jackson Hole, Wyo. | 0 comments

The controversy over wolf management in Greater Yellowstone is polarizing conservation groups that might normally work together to protect the region’s wildlife.
The rift recently manifested itself in a series of letters and statements in which the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation expressed frustration with Defenders of Wildlife and the Western Wildlife Conservancy, and vice versa. In the letters, the groups accuse each other of misrepresenting elk population data to serve their own political ends.

The groups further accuse each other of using the wolf controversy to spur donations from supporters.
The hard-line approach comes as outfitters in Wyoming continue to organize rallies that call for wolf hunts because, they say, the predators have killed too many elk and moose in the state.
Conservation groups and outfitters say the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, in particular, has moved toward tougher language against wolves in recent years.
“The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, they’re getting some pressure from their members big-time,” said B.J. Hill, a Kelly outfitter who has helped organize some of the wolf rallies. “It’s definitely coming from people like me. They’re also looking at the data. It’s starting to show ... that these populations are falling. We outfitters are pro-wildlife. We like some predators. It’s about management. [The environmental groups] have got to quit suing and help us out.”
Clark Allan, the Wyoming Game and Fish Commissioner from Jackson, used to donate one of the eight licenses he gets as a commissioner to the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. The licenses, granted to commissioners by state statute, are typically auctioned by the receiving wildlife group for as much as $10,000.
After donations to the Elk Foundation in 2007 and 2008, Allan withheld the licenses in 2009 and 2010. Instead, he increased the number of licences he donated to Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, a group that has taken a harder stance against wolves in recent years.
When Allan was asked if he withheld the donations from the foundation because of his concerns about its stance on wolves, he said, “I’m very confident that Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation’s position has nothing to do with what I think.”
“I send the tags where I think they’ll be of greatest benefit,” Allan said. “I think the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is doing a good job and stepping up to the plate. That’s a change, of course, from what they were doing before. I am impressed with the stance that the elk foundation is taking. Their change in position has been coming about for a long time.”
Allan said he has not yet decided which groups will receive his commissioner’s licenses next year.
A stronger stance on wolves
David Allen, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation president and CEO, acknowledged that his group has adopted a stronger stance on wolves by emphasizing their impacts on elk herds and advocating for management through hunting.
“The overwhelming majority of the membership of the Elk Foundation has always had a position that wolves need to be seriously managed like other predators,” he said. “We had a small group of senior [managers] who choose not to take any position, which has been perceived as taking a softer position.”
“I wasn’t here then,” Allen continued. “[The senior managers] were trying to be neutral, I guess. The results that we have now are from people trying to be neutral. The pro-wolf people have moved the goal line. It’s been intellectually dishonest. That’s why, for this organization, I try to take a firmer stance. Let’s start managing wildlife the way it’s supposed to be managed. We’re not proposing an annihilation of wolves, but we’re not going to sit by and watch a serious annihilation of elk either.”
Craig Kenworthy, conservation director of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, said the organization has worked with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation in the past and hopes to continue working with it in the future, despite differences on some issues such as wolves and elk feedgrounds.
“It’s a situation where they do a lot of good work on habitat,” he said. “Where we have a common agenda of wildlife management, we want to do that.”
Kenworthy said the coalition often works with groups on specific issues, even when they disagree on other topics “or even opposite sides of litigation.”
Kenworthy acknowledged that the coalition has also modified its stance on wolves. When wolves were temporarily first delisted in 2008, the group opted not to litigate and said it would work with the states on managing the predator. However, when wolves were delisted a second time last year, but only in Montana and Idaho, the group joined a lawsuit against delisting.
“What made the difference for us was splitting Wyoming off,” he said. “We think that sets a dangerous precedent for us. They’re an ecosystem population, and they need to be managed that way.”
Delisting the wolf in Wyoming, and therefore the lawsuit itself, hinges on state legislation that mandates a predator zone that encompasses all but the northwest corner of the state. In the predator zone, wolves could be killed at any time without a license. While the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service previously approved a Wyoming wolf management plan with such a predator zone, the agency has since said Wyoming’s plan must be modified to consider wolves as trophy game in the entire state.
Wyoming outfitters and ranchers say the predator zone is needed to protect the state’s big game and wildlife.
The recent round of letters started when Defenders of Wildlife and the Western Wildlife Conservancy used text from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Web site to make the case that elk populations in Greater Yellowstone are healthy. In late February, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation officials blasted Defenders of Wildlife and the Western Wildlife Conservancy for “their disingenuous use of data on wolves and elk.”
http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news/environmental/wolf-controversy-polarizes/article_e7c8afed-b6dc-5e8a-8fd1-85d8842115ff.html

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

[Special T]

I think the most generous statement you could make is that the WDFW is neutral on the issue. At BEST the WDFW is playing defense. They do what they can to not piss off CNW & DoW, and attempt to keep happy sportsmen. Playing defense is reactive not proactive. Proactive = Advocate

I think this is where you fail to recognize the politics of this very liberal state.  I believe from my personal interaction with WDFW admin that they are "playing" the best hand they can in the interest of sportsmen.  You want WDFW to advocate more for sportsmen on wolves...and if this were Idaho they could.  Its not.  Do you think they would let the current WDFW director pack his office up before they tossed him to the curb if he just came out and said he wanted to reduce wolves 50% or something in this state??   

Many times in WA it is best not to get politicians or the public riled up about hunting issues...particularly when we are the minority.  Think hound and bait initiatives x 1000.  Its why I am a huge advocate of communicating effectively and intelligently about wildlife management issues (e.g., not perpetuating garbage conspiracies) and supporting WDFW as best we can, which does include telling them when they are wrong on an issue.  They know the political game, they have management authority (most of the time), and they have competent professional wildlife management staff for the most part...again, they are our biggest ally in successfully managing wildlife in this state.  We gain nothing by alienating them or just constantly disparaging them.  If they are doing something poorly, figure out how you can help them do it better     

I'm not so ignorant to think that the WDFW Director could make that statement, And your condescension about my knowledge of this states politics is noted. I'm a Westsider and my family has likely been here as long as yours has been in ID. I make factual statements and point out the discrepancies as i see them.

WDFW is MANDATED to use good science to fulfill its mission. If you think that stating the FACTS equals antagonizing groups like CNW or DoW then the WDFW cannot be effective. WDFW has gone out of its way NOT to make comments  that are backed by scientific MGT that refute Anti-hunting nonsence. Hound hunting and Baiting ARE better hunting methods for MGT, yet the Department remains silent. There are other examples as well.

We agree that WDFW has challenges, but if they do not even attempt to correct false assumptions based on fact how can we consider them our Alley or Champion? The answer is we CANNOT!

I have asked the question several times WHAT has the WDFW done (actions) to show they are a, supporter, advocate, friend of sportsmen? All I have heard are Crickets, or the excuse that there are politics involved. Perhaps many of you are content with a Department that only plays defense to slow the demise of our hunting  in this state. I am not one of those people.

The solution is to speak the truth, and use the scientific FACTS that the WDFW is supposed to be following to support hunters. That does not mean they need to pick fights, insult people or be antagonistic. What is does mean is they cannot hide in the shadows hoping what they do and say will go unnoticed by BOTH sides.

[idahohuntr]

I think the most generous statement you could make is that the WDFW is neutral on the issue. At BEST the WDFW is playing defense. They do what they can to not piss off CNW & DoW, and attempt to keep happy sportsmen. Playing defense is reactive not proactive. Proactive = Advocate

I think this is where you fail to recognize the politics of this very liberal state.  I believe from my personal interaction with WDFW admin that they are "playing" the best hand they can in the interest of sportsmen.  You want WDFW to advocate more for sportsmen on wolves...and if this were Idaho they could.  Its not.  Do you think they would let the current WDFW director pack his office up before they tossed him to the curb if he just came out and said he wanted to reduce wolves 50% or something in this state??   

Many times in WA it is best not to get politicians or the public riled up about hunting issues...particularly when we are the minority.  Think hound and bait initiatives x 1000.  Its why I am a huge advocate of communicating effectively and intelligently about wildlife management issues (e.g., not perpetuating garbage conspiracies) and supporting WDFW as best we can, which does include telling them when they are wrong on an issue.  They know the political game, they have management authority (most of the time), and they have competent professional wildlife management staff for the most part...again, they are our biggest ally in successfully managing wildlife in this state.  We gain nothing by alienating them or just constantly disparaging them.  If they are doing something poorly, figure out how you can help them do it better     

I'm not so ignorant to think that the WDFW Director could make that statement, And your condescension about my knowledge of this states politics is noted. I'm a Westsider and my family has likely been here as long as yours has been in ID. I make factual statements and point out the discrepancies as i see them.

WDFW is MANDATED to use good science to fulfill its mission. If you think that stating the FACTS equals antagonizing groups like CNW or DoW then the WDFW cannot be effective. WDFW has gone out of its way NOT to make comments  that are backed by scientific MGT that refute Anti-hunting nonsence. Hound hunting and Baiting ARE better hunting methods for MGT, yet the Department remains silent. There are other examples as well.

We agree that WDFW has challenges, but if they do not even attempt to correct false assumptions based on fact how can we consider them our Alley or Champion? The answer is we CANNOT!

I have asked the question several times WHAT has the WDFW done (actions) to show they are a, supporter, advocate, friend of sportsmen? All I have heard are Crickets, or the excuse that there are politics involved. Perhaps many of you are content with a Department that only plays defense to slow the demise of our hunting  in this state. I am not one of those people.

The solution is to speak the truth, and use the scientific FACTS that the WDFW is supposed to be following to support hunters. That does not mean they need to pick fights, insult people or be antagonistic. What is does mean is they cannot hide in the shadows hoping what they do and say will go unnoticed by BOTH sides.

Well, if you are familiar with WA politics then it should be obvious why WDFW can't manage wolves like Idaho.  I don't know how much simpler I can make that point for you.

Now, WDFW does manage using best available science to conserve all species as they are mandated to do.  The things you are discussing...how many wolves should we manage for...are SOCIAL issues.  DO NOT CONFUSE SOCIAL ISSUES WITH SCIENTIFIC ISSUES    This is where WDFW gets pressure from hunters (less wolves) and bunny huggers (more wolves) and then the legislature also provides input and then the governors office and on and on...and all of these people have a "voice" when it comes to the social aspects of wolf management and they all try to say they are using "the best science" but really these are social issues that are basically being decided like most things in a democracy. 

On the hound/bait issue...I think WDFW was legally required to remain silent on the issue.  Someone on here could explain that I'm sure.

Now, to your question on what WDFW has done for sportsmen?
-They manage our wildlife resources so that one of the most populated states in the West has OTC deer, elk, bear, and turkey hunting
-They provide hatchery fish for sport anglers nearly statewide
-They manage a private lands access program that is critical in a state that only has 50% public lands
-They have created and managed some of the highest quality bull elk hunts in the West
-They offer Hunters Education programs so that thousands of new hunters cans can learn to hunt safely
-They enforce hunting and fishing laws so that we have resources available to hunt and fish for
-They manage a depredation program to minimize impacts of wildlife on private lands
-They stock pheasants for hunters

This is what I could come up with in 30 seconds...this probably barely scratches the surface of what they do for sportsmen.  A Hell of a lot more than any other organization in WA, because obviously they are funded to do so and it is their primary mission.

Let me ask you then, if not WDFW...what organization is an ally to hunters? RMEF? DU? PF? ??

[wolfbait]

I think the most generous statement you could make is that the WDFW is neutral on the issue. At BEST the WDFW is playing defense. They do what they can to not piss off CNW & DoW, and attempt to keep happy sportsmen. Playing defense is reactive not proactive. Proactive = Advocate

I think this is where you fail to recognize the politics of this very liberal state.  I believe from my personal interaction with WDFW admin that they are "playing" the best hand they can in the interest of sportsmen.  You want WDFW to advocate more for sportsmen on wolves...and if this were Idaho they could.  Its not.  Do you think they would let the current WDFW director pack his office up before they tossed him to the curb if he just came out and said he wanted to reduce wolves 50% or something in this state??   

Many times in WA it is best not to get politicians or the public riled up about hunting issues...particularly when we are the minority.  Think hound and bait initiatives x 1000.  Its why I am a huge advocate of communicating effectively and intelligently about wildlife management issues (e.g., not perpetuating garbage conspiracies) and supporting WDFW as best we can, which does include telling them when they are wrong on an issue.  They know the political game, they have management authority (most of the time), and they have competent professional wildlife management staff for the most part...again, they are our biggest ally in successfully managing wildlife in this state.  We gain nothing by alienating them or just constantly disparaging them.  If they are doing something poorly, figure out how you can help them do it better     

I'm not so ignorant to think that the WDFW Director could make that statement, And your condescension about my knowledge of this states politics is noted. I'm a Westsider and my family has likely been here as long as yours has been in ID. I make factual statements and point out the discrepancies as i see them.

WDFW is MANDATED to use good science to fulfill its mission. If you think that stating the FACTS equals antagonizing groups like CNW or DoW then the WDFW cannot be effective. WDFW has gone out of its way NOT to make comments  that are backed by scientific MGT that refute Anti-hunting nonsence. Hound hunting and Baiting ARE better hunting methods for MGT, yet the Department remains silent. There are other examples as well.

We agree that WDFW has challenges, but if they do not even attempt to correct false assumptions based on fact how can we consider them our Alley or Champion? The answer is we CANNOT!

I have asked the question several times WHAT has the WDFW done (actions) to show they are a, supporter, advocate, friend of sportsmen? All I have heard are Crickets, or the excuse that there are politics involved. Perhaps many of you are content with a Department that only plays defense to slow the demise of our hunting  in this state. I am not one of those people.

The solution is to speak the truth, and use the scientific FACTS that the WDFW is supposed to be following to support hunters. That does not mean they need to pick fights, insult people or be antagonistic. What is does mean is they cannot hide in the shadows hoping what they do and say will go unnoticed by BOTH sides.

Well, if you are familiar with WA politics then it should be obvious why WDFW can't manage wolves like Idaho.  I don't know how much simpler I can make that point for you.

Now, WDFW does manage using best available science to conserve all species as they are mandated to do.  The things you are discussing...how many wolves should we manage for...are SOCIAL issues.  DO NOT CONFUSE SOCIAL ISSUES WITH SCIENTIFIC ISSUES    This is where WDFW gets pressure from hunters (less wolves) and bunny huggers (more wolves) and then the legislature also provides input and then the governors office and on and on...and all of these people have a "voice" when it comes to the social aspects of wolf management and they all try to say they are using "the best science" but really these are social issues that are basically being decided like most things in a democracy. 

On the hound/bait issue...I think WDFW was legally required to remain silent on the issue.  Someone on here could explain that I'm sure.

Now, to your question on what WDFW has done for sportsmen?
-They manage our wildlife resources so that one of the most populated states in the West has OTC deer, elk, bear, and turkey hunting
-They provide hatchery fish for sport anglers nearly statewide
-They manage a private lands access program that is critical in a state that only has 50% public lands
-They have created and managed some of the highest quality bull elk hunts in the West
-They offer Hunters Education programs so that thousands of new hunters cans can learn to hunt safely
-They enforce hunting and fishing laws so that we have resources available to hunt and fish for
-They manage a depredation program to minimize impacts of wildlife on private lands
-They stock pheasants for hunters

This is what I could come up with in 30 seconds...this probably barely scratches the surface of what they do for sportsmen.  A Hell of a lot more than any other organization in WA, because obviously they are funded to do so and it is their primary mission.

Let me ask you then, if not WDFW...what organization is an ally to hunters? RMEF? DU? PF? ??

"Let me ask you then, if not WDFW...what organization is an ally to hunters? RMEF? DU? PF? ??"

At this stage in the game I would vote for the RMEF, at least they aren't lying about what the wolves have done and will do, can't say the same for WDFW.

You say that WDFW is managing cougars and bears with the best available science? Who's science, and where do facts start to have a play in management?

You say that managing the number of wolves is a social issue, what happened to honesty? Wouldn't managing wolves consist of not lying about wolf killed livestock, wolf sightings and the impact wolves are having on the game herds. If WDFW are switching from "science" to lying issues, how can WDFW be doing their job? After all confirming livestock killed by wolves generally entitles confirming a new wolf pack.

I think what most hunters, ranchers and rural folks want is some wolf control, and as we have seen in ID, MT, and Wyoming over the years, that took a long time coming. The fact that WDFW doesn't seem concerned about the impacts that cougars and bears are having on the game herds is bad enough, but when they say they have no clue as to the percentage of wolves that WA now has, and refuse to confirm livestock killed by wolves, confirm wolf packs or sightings that does not make them look too good in anyones eyes, except the environmental groups.

It seems "Environmentalists science"  equals $$$$$ in lawsuits from one "endangered" critter to the next, and I think most people now realize that introducing the Canadian wolves had nothing to do with them being endangered.

'Now, to your question on what WDFW has done for sportsmen?"
-They manage our wildlife resources so that one of the most populated states in the West has OTC deer, elk, bear, and turkey hunting--Soon to be history do to poor predator control
-They provide hatchery fish for sport anglers nearly statewide
-They manage a private lands access program that is critical in a state that only has 50% public lands
-They have created and managed some of the highest quality bull elk hunts in the West--Wolves love elk, scratch the elk
-They offer Hunters Education programs so that thousands of new hunters cans can learn to hunt safely----No hunting left, shut down because of WDFW's socially managed predators
-They enforce hunting and fishing laws so that we have resources available to hunt and fish for--LEO's will be mostly checking on fishermen, and wolf poachers
-They manage a depredation program to minimize impacts of wildlife on private lands----Just another WDFW joke, where the ranchers aren't laughing
-They stock pheasants for hunters----Predators love pheasant

[timberfaller]

"Now, WDFW does manage using best available science to conserve all species as they are mandated to do."

I'll attempt to make this statement reflect the department present state.

Now, WDFW does manage using only "biologist opinion", people who are in the field day in and day out are "ignored" their opinions are of no value because they don't have the "title" of Biologist! 

Not my words, but what was told to me by a local WDFW enforcement officer.

[bearpaw]

Here's the bottom line. WDFW engineered this loser of a wolf plan that is the most liberal wolf plan in the west. They could just as easily have formed a more reasonable wolf plan similar to ID/MT/WY.

INSTEAD, WDFW CHOSE TO FORCE MORE WOLVES INTO A SMALLER STATE WITH MANY TIMES MORE PEOPLE AND SMALLER HERDS TO SUPPORT THE LARGER WOLF POPULATION.

Draw your own conclusion from those facts!

[Dave Workman]

WDFW's hands are somewhat tied (not completely but somewhat).  The organizations with the most money play a big role in everything these days.  Who knows, someday our main course for a Thanksgiving dinner may be lettuce.

I might suggest they supplied the rope.
They could have done more when the hound hunting ban initiative was on the ballot, and did not.
They could have decided not to have 15 breeding pairs as the benchmark, but did so anyway.
Bearpaw is correct. WDFW engineered this loser of a wolf plan, the most liberal in the west.

Hunters are something of a necessary evil, it would seem, for this bunch. They need our license money in order to qualify for more federal money through USFWS and the Pittman-Robertson fund.

We coould have all the things we had 40 years ago, but it would require a change in administrations in Olympia, a change in management philosophy and a full set of gonads.


 

[idahohuntr]

WDFW's hands are somewhat tied (not completely but somewhat).  The organizations with the most money play a big role in everything these days.  Who knows, someday our main course for a Thanksgiving dinner may be lettuce.

I might suggest they supplied the rope.
They could have done more when the hound hunting ban initiative was on the ballot, and did not.
They could have decided not to have 15 breeding pairs as the benchmark, but did so anyway.
Bearpaw is correct. WDFW engineered this loser of a wolf plan, the most liberal in the west.

Hunters are something of a necessary evil, it would seem, for this bunch. They need our license money in order to qualify for more federal money through USFWS and the Pittman-Robertson fund.

We coould have all the things we had 40 years ago, but it would require a change in administrations in Olympia, a change in management philosophy and a full set of gonads.

There were about 2.9 million people in WA 40 years ago...there are now over 7 million.  It is extremely misleading to suggest we could have all the things we had 40 years ago with more than double the population.  I don't care who you have running Olympia or what your management philosophy is. 

Its also this same 7 million people that have some say in how wildlife are managed and drive why WA has a 15 bp minimum in the wolf plan.  Again, a big reason I oppose state f&w agencies getting money from the general fund.

[bobcat]

I agree that 15 pair may be too many, but really what difference does it make? It's not like they're going to open season on wolves as soon as the 15 pair minimum is met. And even if they were taken off the endangered species list eventually, and a hunting season opened on wolves, how many will actually get killed by hunters? I would think very few, not enough to even make a noticeable dent in the population.

[wolfbait]

I agree that 15 pair may be too many, but really what difference does it make? It's not like they're going to open season on wolves as soon as the 15 pair minimum is met. And even if they were taken off the endangered species list eventually, and a hunting season opened on wolves, how many will actually get killed by hunters? I would think very few, not enough to even make a noticeable dent in the population.

The sooner we are delisted, the sooner we can protect our livestock etc. I think that makes one hell of a difference. With WDFW's wolf plan they can drag delisting out for a long time, as we are seeing.