The Great Lakes Wolf Decision Why Other States Should Be Alarmed

[huntnphool]

"The Great Lakes case was led by the Humane Society of the United States"

As I've said before, all that hate you guys have for WDFW would be better directed towards HSUS. The Michigan DNR has supported wolf hunting for a while now but their opinion has been pushed aside by HSUS over and over and they will do the same when WDFW is willing and able to support it as well.

 I sat and listened to the ignorance being spewed by WDFW during the meetings, my anger is directed right where it deserves to be!

They don't get it all right, and I don't know what you heard at meetings from them, but there is no bigger and more important ally to sportsmen in Washington State than WDFW when it comes to wolf management.  Being our biggest ally and being angry at them are not mutually exclusive. 

WDFW spit in the face of hunters, ranchers, and rural citizens ignoring impacts on game herds, livestock, and rural economies proven in other states and instead siding with wolf propaganda in their management plan and in meetings. It appeared they refused to listen to or consider any info or testimony except from wolf advocates.

I will give WDFW kudos when they have it coming, with this wolf fiasco about half of the WDFW management involved should be fired for gross mismanagement in the face of facts proven about wolves in other states. When the different options for wolf packs were considered for the wolf plan there were no real options, all options were for 15 BP's. It will take a long time for Washingtonians to forget this wolf fiasco. I see no allies regarding wolves in WDFW! Any WDFW allies we may have are afraid to say anything due to reprisal from upper management who are in control of wolf management. 

 Spot on right there!

[idahohuntr]

You have to consider the landscape WDFW is dealing with...huge urban liberal population that easily passes initiatives restricting hunting methods, wildlife management tools, gun rights etc.  Given the political constraints they must deal with it is my opinion senior WDFW wildlife staff are being very strategic in how they are pursuing wolf management.  I doubt any of us even see on a daily basis the stuff they are working to be successful in managing wolves in balance with prey species like deer and elk. 

That doesn't sound like management guided by science.  I thought you promised me sound science from WDFW.  I feel betrayed. Not sure I can find it in my heart to forgive you.

Wildlife Management is almost entirely social...the 15 bp's of wolves in 3 recovery regions in WA state is based on the risk tolerance of the public and population viability models of wolves.  The first part is social (how much risk are we willing to accept that wolves go extinct in the next 100 years in WA...1%, 5%, 50%???), the second part is science (how many bp's do we need to attain the level of risk the public desires?)  The vast majority of Washingtonians do not want to accept much risk of wolves going extinct and therefore the risk of extinction threshold is quite low, so WDFW uses science to determine what is a fairly low risk for de-listing and they come up with 15 bps in 3 regions.  This is just a classic example of management being guided by science, even if most of us don't like the low extinction thresholds for wolves.

A much better example of management not being guided by science would be proclaiming herbicides cause hoof rot and therefore we can solve hoof rot if we just stop spraying herbicides. 

[CementFinisher]

wolves go extinct? there's plenty in Canada and Alaska no worries about that. how about we manage them like the apex predator and prolific breeders they are 

[Coastal_native]

You have to consider the landscape WDFW is dealing with...huge urban liberal population that easily passes initiatives restricting hunting methods, wildlife management tools, gun rights etc.  Given the political constraints they must deal with it is my opinion senior WDFW wildlife staff are being very strategic in how they are pursuing wolf management.  I doubt any of us even see on a daily basis the stuff they are working to be successful in managing wolves in balance with prey species like deer and elk. 

That doesn't sound like management guided by science.  I thought you promised me sound science from WDFW.  I feel betrayed. Not sure I can find it in my heart to forgive you.

Wildlife Management is almost entirely social...the 15 bp's of wolves in 3 recovery regions in WA state is based on the risk tolerance of the public and population viability models of wolves.  The first part is social (how much risk are we willing to accept that wolves go extinct in the next 100 years in WA...1%, 5%, 50%???), the second part is science (how many bp's do we need to attain the level of risk the public desires?)  The vast majority of Washingtonians do not want to accept much risk of wolves going extinct and therefore the risk of extinction threshold is quite low, so WDFW uses science to determine what is a fairly low risk for de-listing and they come up with 15 bps in 3 regions.  This is just a classic example of management being guided by science, even if most of us don't like the low extinction thresholds for wolves.

A much better example of management not being guided by science would be proclaiming herbicides cause hoof rot and therefore we can solve hoof rot if we just stop spraying herbicides.

I think I understand it now.  Wildlife management is 99% social, 100% scientific, and 100% political...depending on whether you ask a concerned citizen, a scientist, or a politician.

Wait a second, you assured us that nothing is guiding the hoof rot work other than science, but when it comes to wolves we have to cut the department some slack because of the "political constraints they're dealing with."  I'm lost again.  Just razzing you. 

[Humptulips]

If HSUS parachutes in, pushes a ballot measure against wolf hunting and/or lethal force in protecting livestock from them, is it still WDFW's fault?

Michigan's DNR and the state's Natural Resource Council supported wolf hunting, but HSUS did successfully convince the voters of that state to pass an initiative against it. It had no teeth thanks to the legislature and the governor, but we have no such protections in Washington and if that vote happened today...

Some of the leadership at WDFW may or may not be a problem but changing any of that is really irrelevant once HSUS gets involved.

So far HSUS hasn't done a ballot measure in WA, so far the damage regarding wolves and the insane wolf plan has been done by WDFW supporting the agenda of wolf activists and ignoring rural Washington concerns and science from other states. 

I applaud MI and several other state F&G for attempting to manage wolves. There is nothing to applaud WDFW for regarding wolves! Thus the reason you see no lawsuits yet. If WDFW ever tries to manage wolves then perhaps HSUS will become an issue. But, thus far WDFW is the enemy in WA wolf management. The will not even hire people who are capable enough to find the wolves that are here. The only time wolves get confirmed is when ranchers lose livestock or when public proof of wolves becomes so great it can no longer be ignored.

Ahem, Who do you think brought us I-655 and I-713?

[idahohuntr]

You have to consider the landscape WDFW is dealing with...huge urban liberal population that easily passes initiatives restricting hunting methods, wildlife management tools, gun rights etc.  Given the political constraints they must deal with it is my opinion senior WDFW wildlife staff are being very strategic in how they are pursuing wolf management.  I doubt any of us even see on a daily basis the stuff they are working to be successful in managing wolves in balance with prey species like deer and elk. 

That doesn't sound like management guided by science.  I thought you promised me sound science from WDFW.  I feel betrayed. Not sure I can find it in my heart to forgive you.

Wildlife Management is almost entirely social...the 15 bp's of wolves in 3 recovery regions in WA state is based on the risk tolerance of the public and population viability models of wolves.  The first part is social (how much risk are we willing to accept that wolves go extinct in the next 100 years in WA...1%, 5%, 50%???), the second part is science (how many bp's do we need to attain the level of risk the public desires?)  The vast majority of Washingtonians do not want to accept much risk of wolves going extinct and therefore the risk of extinction threshold is quite low, so WDFW uses science to determine what is a fairly low risk for de-listing and they come up with 15 bps in 3 regions.  This is just a classic example of management being guided by science, even if most of us don't like the low extinction thresholds for wolves.

A much better example of management not being guided by science would be proclaiming herbicides cause hoof rot and therefore we can solve hoof rot if we just stop spraying herbicides.

I think I understand it now.  Wildlife management is 99% social, 100% scientific, and 100% political...depending on whether you ask a concerned citizen, a scientist, or a politician.

Wait a second, you assured us that nothing is guiding the hoof rot work other than science, but when it comes to wolves we have to cut the department some slack because of the "political constraints they're dealing with."  I'm lost again.  Just razzing you.

Identifying the cause of hoof rot is not social, it is not political, it is 100% science.  Identify the cause using sound scientific principles...that is what WDFW is doing.  It is not a debatable matter...there are no social values to consider.  Is the cause toxicity? Is it Treponeme spp. bacteria? Is it Leptispirosis??  It doesn't matter what politicians or the public WANTS it to be...or thinks it might be...WDFW will use data and scientific process to identify the cause.

Now, when you get into wolves (or the management objectives of any wildlife species for that matter) a big part of the equation is identifying public desires like risk extinction tolerance, how much crop damage the public will tolerate, how harvest should be managed (trophy v. quantity) etc..  In all of these instances, yes, it is absolutely critical for successful management that wildlife staff are attune to the political landscape which in a democracy is dependent upon the people who make up said democracy.  This all seems pretty basic and easy to follow to me...but maybe I'm not explaining it well.   

Bottom line...things like the cause of hoof rot or a population estimate of the number of deer in a particular GMU...those are not debatable, social, political whatever issues....there is one right answer.  Not saying WDFW always gets that answer right, but there is a right answer (sometimes it can be a complex one though!)
 
Science does not give you a "right" answer for things like...should we manage bull harvest for quantity or quality? Should we have low or high risk tolerance for the extinction of a particular species?  Those are social/political issues...once/if those are decided then we go back to science to implement them...population modeling to determine risk of extinction or the impact to a population of elk under different harvest strategies.

Anyways, long answer...but overall your insinuations are not at all accurate.  I hope this makes it more clear why I would say WDFW is using science to solve the cause of hoof rot but that they must navigate a difficult political landscape when it comes to wolf management...its because the wolf management issues are largely social...extinction risk, depredations, human interactions....what is acceptable to the public?  Cause of hoof rot...not the least bit political...it is what it is.  If it were herbicides then it could get political...how much herbicide application and hoof rot is acceptable to the public? Some, none, a lot??? 

[bearpaw]

If HSUS parachutes in, pushes a ballot measure against wolf hunting and/or lethal force in protecting livestock from them, is it still WDFW's fault?

Michigan's DNR and the state's Natural Resource Council supported wolf hunting, but HSUS did successfully convince the voters of that state to pass an initiative against it. It had no teeth thanks to the legislature and the governor, but we have no such protections in Washington and if that vote happened today...

Some of the leadership at WDFW may or may not be a problem but changing any of that is really irrelevant once HSUS gets involved.

So far HSUS hasn't done a ballot measure in WA, so far the damage regarding wolves and the insane wolf plan has been done by WDFW supporting the agenda of wolf activists and ignoring rural Washington concerns and science from other states. 

I applaud MI and several other state F&G for attempting to manage wolves. There is nothing to applaud WDFW for regarding wolves! Thus the reason you see no lawsuits yet. If WDFW ever tries to manage wolves then perhaps HSUS will become an issue. But, thus far WDFW is the enemy in WA wolf management. The will not even hire people who are capable enough to find the wolves that are here. The only time wolves get confirmed is when ranchers lose livestock or when public proof of wolves becomes so great it can no longer be ignored.

Ahem, Who do you think brought us I-655 and I-713?

Agreed but those are not the issue now with wolves, so far WDFW has pretty much appeased the wolf groups. This will not matter when WDFW decides wolves need managed, the wolf groups will turn on them. By trying to appease the wolf groups it has only strengthened the wolf groups position with a more liberal wolf plan than any other western state.

[huntnphool]

You have to consider the landscape WDFW is dealing with...huge urban liberal population that easily passes initiatives restricting hunting methods, wildlife management tools, gun rights etc.  Given the political constraints they must deal with it is my opinion senior WDFW wildlife staff are being very strategic in how they are pursuing wolf management.  I doubt any of us even see on a daily basis the stuff they are working to be successful in managing wolves in balance with prey species like deer and elk. 

That doesn't sound like management guided by science.  I thought you promised me sound science from WDFW.  I feel betrayed. Not sure I can find it in my heart to forgive you.

Wildlife Management is almost entirely social...the 15 bp's of wolves in 3 recovery regions in WA state is based on the risk tolerance of the public and population viability models of wolves.  The first part is social (how much risk are we willing to accept that wolves go extinct in the next 100 years in WA...1%, 5%, 50%???), the second part is science (how many bp's do we need to attain the level of risk the public desires?)  The vast majority of Washingtonians do not want to accept much risk of wolves going extinct and therefore the risk of extinction threshold is quite low, so WDFW uses science to determine what is a fairly low risk for de-listing and they come up with 15 bps in 3 regions.  This is just a classic example of management being guided by science, even if most of us don't like the low extinction thresholds for wolves.

A much better example of management not being guided by science would be proclaiming herbicides cause hoof rot and therefore we can solve hoof rot if we just stop spraying herbicides.

I think I understand it now.  Wildlife management is 99% social, 100% scientific, and 100% political...depending on whether you ask a concerned citizen, a scientist, or a politician.

Wait a second, you assured us that nothing is guiding the hoof rot work other than science, but when it comes to wolves we have to cut the department some slack because of the "political constraints they're dealing with."  I'm lost again.  Just razzing you.

Identifying the cause of hoof rot is not social, it is not political, it is 100% science.  Identify the cause using sound scientific principles...that is what WDFW is doing.  It is not a debatable matter...there are no social values to consider.  Is the cause toxicity? Is it Treponeme spp. bacteria? Is it Leptispirosis??  It doesn't matter what politicians or the public WANTS it to be...or thinks it might be...WDFW will use data and scientific process to identify the cause.

Now, when you get into wolves (or the management objectives of any wildlife species for that matter) a big part of the equation is identifying public desires like risk extinction tolerance, how much crop damage the public will tolerate, how harvest should be managed (trophy v. quantity) etc..  In all of these instances, yes, it is absolutely critical for successful management that wildlife staff are attune to the political landscape which in a democracy is dependent upon the people who make up said democracy.  This all seems pretty basic and easy to follow to me...but maybe I'm not explaining it well.   

Bottom line...things like the cause of hoof rot or a population estimate of the number of deer in a particular GMU...those are not debatable, social, political whatever issues....there is one right answer.  Not saying WDFW always gets that answer right, but there is a right answer (sometimes it can be a complex one though!)
 
Science does not give you a "right" answer for things like...should we manage bull harvest for quantity or quality? Should we have low or high risk tolerance for the extinction of a particular species?  Those are social/political issues...once/if those are decided then we go back to science to implement them...population modeling to determine risk of extinction or the impact to a population of elk under different harvest strategies.

Anyways, long answer...but overall your insinuations are not at all accurate.  I hope this makes it more clear why I would say WDFW is using science to solve the cause of hoof rot but that they must navigate a difficult political landscape when it comes to wolf management...its because the wolf management issues are largely social...extinction risk, depredations, human interactions....what is acceptable to the public?  Cause of hoof rot...not the least bit political...it is what it is.  If it were herbicides then it could get political...how much herbicide application and hoof rot is acceptable to the public? Some, none, a lot??? 

 Blah blah blah, "science" is relative to the intended agenda of the scientific body, or the financier.......PERIOD!