POLL: Wolf Groups Petition WDFW for Non-Lethal Wolf Control

[bearpaw]

Press Release:
Petition Filed to Require Nonlethal Steps to Control Washington Wolves

For Immediate Release, June 9, 2014

Contacts:
Amaroq Weiss, Center for Biological Diversity, (707) 779-9613
Josh Laughlin, Cascadia Wildlands, (541) 844-8182
Mike Petersen, The Lands Council, (509) 209-2406
John Mellgren, Western Environmental Law Center, (541) 525-5087

OLYMPIA, Wash.— Eight conservation groups filed a petition late Friday requesting that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife enact rules that sharply limit the use of lethal control of wolves to respond to livestock depredations. Most prominently the petition asks the state to require livestock producers to exhaust nonlethal measures to prevent depredations before any lethal action can be taken. In 2012 the Department killed seven wolves in the Wedge Pack despite the fact that the livestock producer who had lost livestock had taken little action to protect his stock.2019372475

“The killing of the Wedge Pack in 2012 was a tragic waste of life that highlights the need for clear rules to limit the killing of wolves, which remain an endangered species in the state,” said Amaroq Weiss, West Coast wolf organizer with the Center for Biological Diversity. “There are effective nonlethal measures proven to protect livestock that can, and should, be used before killing wolves is ever considered.”

The groups filed a similar petition last summer. They withdrew it based on a promise from the Department to negotiate rules — in an advisory committee established to help implement Washington’s Wolf Conservation and Management Plan — that would encourage the use of nonlethal measures by ranchers as well as produce standards for the Department to adhere to before itself resorting to lethal control of wolves. But livestock producer and sports-hunting groups on the committee refused to consider the petitioners’ proposals, and the Department has indicated it plans to move forward and introduce its own far-less-protective lethal wolf-control rule.

The groups also argue that rules are needed to ensure adherence to Washington’s wolf plan, which was crafted with input from a 17-member stakeholder group, more than 65,000 written comments from the public, and a peer review by 43 scientists and wolf managers. Despite the plan’s formal adoption by the Fish and Wildlife Commission in 2011 as official state policy, Department officials and the Commission have publicly stated they view the plan as merely advisory and key provisions of the plan were ignored when the Wedge Pack was killed. The Commission also adopted a rule last summer that allows wolves to be killed under circumstances the wolf plan does not permit, and the Department has proposed additional changes and definitions of terms to allow even more wolf killing.

“The return of wolves is a boon for Washington,” said Mike Petersen, executive director for The Lands Council. “Not only is it good for the forest and mountains of Washington that need the balance provided by top predators, but a fledgling tourist industry is developing around the viewing of this majestic creature.”

Wolves were driven to extinction in Washington in the early 1900s by a government-sponsored eradication program on behalf of the livestock industry. They began to return from neighboring Idaho and British Columbia in the early 2000s, and their population has grown to 52 wolves today. Yet Washington’s wolves are far from recovered and face ongoing threats. Last fall a wolf in Pasayten was killed by a deer hunter, and in April of this year, a reward was offered by state officials and conservation groups for information leading to the arrest and prosecution of those responsible for the illegal shooting of a wolf found dead in February in Stevens County.

The petition to increase protections for wolves was filed by groups representing tens of thousands of Washington residents, including the Center for Biological Diversity, Cascadia Wildlands, Western Environmental Law Center, Gifford Pinchot Task Force, The Lands Council, Wildlands Network, Kettle Range Conservation Group and the Washington State Chapter of the Sierra Club.

Today’s filing of the petition with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission starts the clock ticking on a 60-day statutory period within which the state must respond. If the petition is denied, groups intend to appeal for a final decision by Governor Inslee.

See more at: http://www.cascwild.org/press-release-petition-filed-to-require-nonlethal-steps-to-control-washington-wolves/#sthash.WJ7rJtxh.dpuf

[bearpaw]

Groups want to restrict lethal action against wolves
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2014/jun/10/groups-try-restrict-lethal-action-against-cow-killing-wolves/

Even though the state has take significant steps and statewide guidelines for preventing wolves from being attracted to livestock, the groups filed their petition late on Friday, asking the state to require ranchers to exhaust nonlethal options to prevent their livestock from being preyed on by wolves before killing the predators.

The Associated Press reports the groups are still hung up on the rare extreme action the state took in 2012 when Fish and Wildlife aerial gunners killed seven wolves in the Wedge Pack. The groups contend the northern Stevens County rancher didn't go far enough in taking nonlethal actions that might have prevented wolves from attacking his cattle. The rancher endured 17 attacks on his cattle on private and public land.

The groups say that ranchers and sports-hunting groups have refused to consider their proposals, and that the state is moving forward with less protective wolf-control rules.

[bearpaw]

ACT NOW
Copy and past the following message or send your own message to the Washington Wildlife Commission!


Email: commission@dfw.wa.gov
Subject: Please Support Lethal Control of Wolves

Director Anderson and Wildlife Commissioners,
I would like to express my strong support for WDFW to use lethal methods when needed to remove wolves that attack livestock. As a rural Washington resident I want to know that WDFW can protect the people from wolves that prey on livestock. Equally important is for WDFW to act swiftly to remove problem wolves before they teach other wolves in the area to prey on livestock. Knowing that the WDFW can act when needed provides some security to rural residents who live near wolves. Please stand strong in support of this important yet rarely used tool.

Best Regards,

[idahohuntr]

If the petition is denied, groups intend to appeal for a final decision by Governor Inslee.

I think we need to try and flood the Governor's office as well to pre-empt where this is headed...no doubt wdfw is going to be talking with the governor's office about this anyways.

I suggest something like this:
(https://fortress.wa.gov/es/governor/)

Governor Inslee:

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) should not be limited in the array of tools they need to successfully manage and conserve wildlife resources for all of Washington's citizens.  Special interest groups are attempting to limit WDFW's ability to manage wolves in a way that is not supported by the best available science.  Because wolves are such a polarizing topic it is important not to limit the tools WDFW will need to manage this species in a way that balances the interests of multiple outdoor user groups and rural citizens.  I urge you to reject petitions from these special interest groups and allow WDFW to continue to manage wildlife using sound science and all available tools so that they can be successful.

Sincerely,

[bearpaw]

yes good idea...I added the governor to the poll question... 

[Stein]

Those groups should just put their money where their mouth is, pay every rancher $3k for every dead cow.  Or, relocate the wolf to their neighborhood.  Or, they could pay for feeding stations out in the woods.  So many options other than beating of the gums.

[villageidiot]

If the ranchers were paid very well for every dead cow or calf and every suspected cow killed by wolves we would already have reached the goal they set for wolves.  WDFW and the Federal Fish and Game don't have a clue how many wolves have already been shot SSS.  They have created a huge, huge hatred in the ranching and hunting community by not compensating and by not taking swift action to kill problem wolves.  This could easily be proven but whoever took the agents around and shown them the wolf carcasses for proof would be prosecuted to the fullest extent.  Not sure why Fish and Game think they really have a handle on how many wolves have already been killed.  We have developed a criminal group by not admitting and trying to protect the livestock owners.  They will not sit and watch with folded hands their livestock and livelihood destroyed.
  Lethal control will be used whether the Agency uses it or not.

[Special T]

Done

[timberfaller]

" Center for Biological Diversity"

Wow who would have thought,  the biggest group doing everything possible to ban lead and hunting, involved with protecting wolves!!

You just might want to check out the other three groups!!

[sakoshooter]

Thanx for posting Dale. This definitely needs to be addressed.

[pianoman9701]

Thanks Dale and Done. Many including I have said that the WDFW made strange bedfellows with organizations like Conservation NW and that those associations would come to bite the DFW when it came time to manage wolves. That time is here and by the time we get through the court cases and legal fees, the state will have spent millions of dollars just to get the go ahead to kill these vermin. That's where the wildlife management money will go, guys - to fight people fighting wildlife management.

[stevemiller]

Maybe they need to be reminded of the fact that all animals are euthanized when they kill livestock or harm or attempt to harm people,Why should wolves be any differant?If a grizzly bear (and they are protected)attacks a person it is found and euthanized not moved,Why because they have decided long ago that once they attack they will continue this.Once a wolf starts killing cattle it will continue to do so no matter where they are moved to because its an easy meal.We dont allow feeding of bears why because they will become acustomed to the easy meal and become a problem.If these people get what they want out of this then the state might as well remove all of these other restrictions from the books because they would have to be admitting that the science behind the decisions to do these other restrictions was wrong.  Copied and pasted thanks Dale. 

[KFhunter]

Those groups should just put their money where their mouth is, pay every rancher $3k for every dead cow.  Or, relocate the wolf to their neighborhood.  Or, they could pay for feeding stations out in the woods.  So many options other than beating of the gums.

couple problems

1) there'd be a lot of dead cows all the sudden
2) very difficult to make a cause of death determination on a cow

By the time the carcass is found it's full of bird feces on top and been chewed on by more than one species of predator, if the carcass is even found.  Most are dead cattle are never found on range.  The window is pretty short for finding a carcass and then being able to make a determination of wolf depredation.

[mazama]

Good article in sunday times,from what I read it appears they are totally skirting issue of game animals being killed.

[CavemantheHunter]

Sent.

[Johnb317]

Tourist wildlife viewing of this majestic animal?
That statement alone shows how naive these people are.
No more elk, or deer to see to view, but we'll get to view packs of wolves frolicking in open meadows where they can be viewed from within the safety of an air conditioned tour bus!!

[finnman]

All of those groups suck rocks!
Especially Cascadia Wildlands, just watch all of the fun and discord that will be brought to your threads by Bob Ferris. Mark my words. He is the grand daddy of all trolls. He will try to wash you out with supposed scientific studies, then back it up by his outlandish education, then proceed with his lifetime of outdoor experiences only to mock others and downplay their efforts, wisdom and outdoor knowledge. I see him lasting here about as long as the freak that started his own web site....what was his name? Cascade Charlie???

[Hunter4Life]

The title is even deceptive.  It is not to require non-lethal methods be used, that is already in the wolf plan.  Non-lethal methods already have to be tried before lethal control actions will be taken.  The intent of this petition is to eliminate lethal control of any wolves.  If this passes, any time that control is the be attempted, the anti's will go to court to stop it.  I am the hunting community's representative on the Wolf Advisory Group, and I am one of those people that the antis were talking about that would not support their proposal.  I do not think we need to send messages for the governor.  He is behind this petition 100%.  We need to flood our legislative friends on this.  The battle on this will be in three parts.  Part one is now, whether or not WDFW agrees to the petition.   Part two is with the legislature.  Part three is in the courtroom if all else fails.  This is the worst proposal ever and is potentially the most damaging to our community.  It is the Center for Biological Diversity who first brought this forward.  If anyone a complete copy of the petition they presented, please let me know as I have it.

We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.
--Winston Churchill

We must fight this will all that we have.  I have written a letter to the friends of the hunting community in the legislature and attached a copy of the CBD proposal.  This is very, very bad stuff.

[KFhunter]

I'd like a copy

PM inc

[jaredwitman]

I would like a copy, PM me if you get a second.
THANKS

[WildBear]

Sent.

[iusmc2002]

I agree with those groups.  Non-lethal is almost always the best way to control animals like this.  Spaying and neutering doesn't kill them 

[Hunter4Life]

I can't seem to attach a file to a personal message, so I attached the file here.

[Hunter4Life]

Those groups should just put their money where their mouth is, pay every rancher $3k for every dead cow.  Or, relocate the wolf to their neighborhood.  Or, they could pay for feeding stations out in the woods.  So many options other than beating of the gums.

couple problems

1) there'd be a lot of dead cows all the sudden
2) very difficult to make a cause of death determination on a cow

By the time the carcass is found it's full of bird feces on top and been chewed on by more than one species of predator, if the carcass is even found.  Most are dead cattle are never found on range.  The window is pretty short for finding a carcass and then being able to make a determination of wolf depredation.

Spot on KF Hunter.   That is why 90% of predation is never paid.  There is not enough left to determine it was a wolf.  The biggest loss from wolves to ranchers is not from predation however.   It is from weight loss because of wolves.  Cattle are swiveling their heads in fear of wolves instead of eating.  There is loss in calf weight and because of stress, cows abort their calves.  Huge loss to ranchers.  This has never been paid back to ranchers.  Loss in cattle weight in wolf areas is a huge problem.

[wolfbait]

Expanding wolf packs are expensive

Mech pointed out that from 1988-1993 Minnesota wolves expanded by only 15 percent but the number killed annually by Wildlife Services (WS) because of increased livestock depredation jumped from 59 to 139. From fiscal 

year 1996 through FY 2002, the number of Minnesota wolves killed annually by WS has averaged 154.

None of the wolves were killed from aircraft and steel leghold traps and snares accounted for all of the 152 Minnesota wolves killed in FY 2002. Yet the cost totaled $262,657, an average of $1,728 per wolf.

Mech pointed out that neither non-lethal methods of control nor relocation of wolves work. Despite all of the optimistic reports, he said that guard dogs are not economical and only somewhat effective in small flocks (bands) of sheep.

Mech said that translocated wolves normally either return to the same area or commit similar depredations in their new location. He insists lethal control remains the only means of curbing wolf damage to livestock and pets.

DOW “Reimbursement”

The highly publicized program by Defenders of Wildlife (DOW) to compensate ranchers for confirmed livestock losses was simply bait used to get ranchers to accept living with wolves until wolf numbers increased. The necessity for discovering a carcass and having WS specialists examine it within 24 hours effectively prevents compensation in most cases.

Also, a joint cooperative study, involving the University of Idaho, Wildlife Services and the Nez Perce Tribe, on the impacts of wolf predation to cattle on summer grazing allotments in Lemhi County provided disturbing conclusions. The study indicated that for every calf killed by wolves and found by the rancher, as many as 5.7 additional wolf kills may have occurred without ever being detected.

Who Will Compensate?

DOW is already reneging on its commitment to compensate all ranchers for livestock losses by claiming that many substandard federal ranges allow cattle and sheep producers to exist where they could not otherwise make a profit. It is actively pursuing removal of some historical grazing allotments with FS and BLM and advising some ranchers they will not be compensated.

Mech‟s article points out that as wolf numbers continue to increase and expand their territory to include all rural farming and ranching areas, both environmental groups and government agencies are reluctant to pay for increasing losses to livestock. Increased killing of livestock and pets also increases public resistance to wolves and he predicted a return to the pre-wolf recovery era unless protection of wolves in agricultural/residential areas is removed when they are delisted.

http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%204%20June%202004%20Controlling%20predators.pdf

[Dave Workman]

Not sure why Fish and Game think they really have a handle on how many wolves have already been killed.

That's because they're not "Fish and Game," they're "Fish and Wildlife."