New WDFW Director Named

[woodswalker]

Lets hope he LEARNED something after wolves slaughtered Idaho's deer and elk herds.  He did preside over that.

I'm going to reserve judgement,,,

[Special T]

From some of the reading I've done about him on wolves are not very positive. I think the fact he is a biologist has a lot to do with it. Like many bios he had the attitude of let's wait and see how it turns out and study it.

I don't share that outlook on wolves. I would be satisfied if he really upped the efforts on documenting packs from ANYONE who was willing to contribute. If the current leaders had done so they wouldn't have made so many enemies within the sportsmen community. I understand it is a complicated issue but the department damages itself when they alienate those who give them reason for being.

[DOUBLELUNG]

From some of the reading I've done about him on wolves are not very positive. I think the fact he is a biologist has a lot to do with it. Like many bios he had the attitude of let's wait and see how it turns out and study it.

I don't share that outlook on wolves. I would be satisfied if he really upped the efforts on documenting packs from ANYONE who was willing to contribute. If the current leaders had done so they wouldn't have made so many enemies within the sportsmen community. I understand it is a complicated issue but the department damages itself when they alienate those who give them reason for being.

I find this really odd, maybe because I was a biologist for Wyoming Game and Fish in the early 90s when the feds were preparing to introduce Canadian wolves.  All three states, Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, had wolves brought in from Canada by the federal government over their strident objections.  IDFG was so unwilling to cooperate with the feds, they contracted with the Nez Perce Tribe instead to monitor the introduced wolves. 

Following that tasty turd sandwich, all three states had zero ability or authority to manage wolves in any way until they developed a federally-approved state wolf management plan.  As wolves increased, and increased and increased.  It was a no-win situation for the three states, they had to capitulate in order to have any management authority.  Now that IDFG has it, they have over the counter wolf tags, with a 5-wolf hunting harvest limit; wolves in the bag for trapping, with an additional 5 wolf limit.  They are using aerial gunning to reduce wolves in area where they have documented wolf-caused declines in deer and elk below state management objectives.

Unsworth has been with IDFG through that entire 20+ years drama.  A practical person gets up from a bad turn of events, adapts and moves on.  Wolves are here to stay - we all get to take a bite of that reality.  Wolf-hating is easy from an armchair I guess, but when you are on the front lines of wolf management  being a wolf hater will get you unemployed.  Until all the hoops mandated by USFWS were jumped through, there was no choice but to wait and see.  Idaho did what they needed to do, as quickly as it could be done, and have the most realistic wolf management program anyone could ask for.  They could have stomped around, held their breath, and refused to cooperate, or they could complete the mandated plan, complete the required studies to implement management, and develop the required proof so they could implement the program.

It's easy to bash biologists I guess, but meeting the legal requirements set by your elected federal government to manage wolves in the present day USA is not an easy job.  That he's been there through the whole thing speaks volumes to me.  Getting Idaho wolf management to where it is today required a heck of a lot of hard work by a lot of hard-working biologists who didn't want wolves dumped in their state.  I don't think anyone could have done it any better. 

[jackelope]

Great post, B.

[wolfbait]

From some of the reading I've done about him on wolves are not very positive. I think the fact he is a biologist has a lot to do with it. Like many bios he had the attitude of let's wait and see how it turns out and study it.

I don't share that outlook on wolves. I would be satisfied if he really upped the efforts on documenting packs from ANYONE who was willing to contribute. If the current leaders had done so they wouldn't have made so many enemies within the sportsmen community. I understand it is a complicated issue but the department damages itself when they alienate those who give them reason for being.

I find this really odd, maybe because I was a biologist for Wyoming Game and Fish in the early 90s when the feds were preparing to introduce Canadian wolves.  All three states, Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, had wolves brought in from Canada by the federal government over their strident objections.  IDFG was so unwilling to cooperate with the feds, they contracted with the Nez Perce Tribe instead to monitor the introduced wolves. 

Following that tasty turd sandwich, all three states had zero ability or authority to manage wolves in any way until they developed a federally-approved state wolf management plan.  As wolves increased, and increased and increased.  It was a no-win situation for the three states, they had to capitulate in order to have any management authority.  Now that IDFG has it, they have over the counter wolf tags, with a 5-wolf hunting harvest limit; wolves in the bag for trapping, with an additional 5 wolf limit.  They are using aerial gunning to reduce wolves in area where they have documented wolf-caused declines in deer and elk below state management objectives.

Unsworth has been with IDFG through that entire 20+ years drama.  A practical person gets up from a bad turn of events, adapts and moves on.  Wolves are here to stay - we all get to take a bite of that reality.  Wolf-hating is easy from an armchair I guess, but when you are on the front lines of wolf management  being a wolf hater will get you unemployed.  Until all the hoops mandated by USFWS were jumped through, there was no choice but to wait and see.  Idaho did what they needed to do, as quickly as it could be done, and have the most realistic wolf management program anyone could ask for.  They could have stomped around, held their breath, and refused to cooperate, or they could complete the mandated plan, complete the required studies to implement management, and develop the required proof so they could implement the program.

It's easy to bash biologists I guess, but meeting the legal requirements set by your elected federal government to manage wolves in the present day USA is not an easy job.  That he's been there through the whole thing speaks volumes to me.  Getting Idaho wolf management to where it is today required a heck of a lot of hard work by a lot of hard-working biologists who didn't want wolves dumped in their state.  I don't think anyone could have done it any better.

That sounds pretty good Doublelung, but I think you probably ought to do a little more reading on IDFG, Scroll down the page until you hit:

Idaho and Montana F&G Continue to Refuse to Kill

Enough Wolves to Restore Healthy Elk and Deer

http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2048%20April%202012-Native%20wolves.pdf

As you can see the USFWS were not trying to hinder IDFG, they were trying to help save the Lolo herd, but IDFG had their own plans.

[idahohuntr]

Great post, B.

Well articulated. 

I think it is important to note how many folks are very supportive of what is happening in Idaho right now in terms of wolf management.  While the states of ID and WA are miles apart politically, I saw every single criticism being hurled at WDFW today, lobbed at IDFG about a decade ago.  All the usual...they are undercounting, they want the wolves to kill off everything, they are a bunch of tree huggers, they aren't delisting fast enough...bla bla bla.  Some on here have suggested that Idaho's wolf management plan didn't materialize until a whole bunch of people were fired.  The reality is, all of the important wildlife staff, including Unsworth and most of the commissioners were largely the same people throughout the saga of getting permanent state management in place...they kept their heads down and did their job in service of sportsmen and all citizens of Idaho even when everyone was attacking them...today...lots of praise...but when they needed the most support a lot of sportsmen abandoned them and joined the chorus of bandwagon folks who wanted to blame and throw cheap shots.

My observation is that biologists and wildlife staff in WDFW understand the political realities of this state and are trying very hard to get the agency into position to have the most flexibility in managing wolves as soon as possible.  While that may not provide much comfort to some...I think it is worth recognizing.  Much like I pleaded with folks in Idaho over a decade ago, WDFW is the biggest ally sportsmen have in this state when it comes to managing wolves.  I really don't know if they can achieve the kind of management Idaho has for wolves, but it does not serve sportsmen well to treat WDFW as the enemy.   

[HUNTINCOUPLE]

if folks don't start being nice to me I'm going to start tracking their comments and agreeing with xthem.

 

[bearpaw]

From some of the reading I've done about him on wolves are not very positive. I think the fact he is a biologist has a lot to do with it. Like many bios he had the attitude of let's wait and see how it turns out and study it.

I don't share that outlook on wolves. I would be satisfied if he really upped the efforts on documenting packs from ANYONE who was willing to contribute. If the current leaders had done so they wouldn't have made so many enemies within the sportsmen community. I understand it is a complicated issue but the department damages itself when they alienate those who give them reason for being.

I find this really odd, maybe because I was a biologist for Wyoming Game and Fish in the early 90s when the feds were preparing to introduce Canadian wolves.  All three states, Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, had wolves brought in from Canada by the federal government over their strident objections.  IDFG was so unwilling to cooperate with the feds, they contracted with the Nez Perce Tribe instead to monitor the introduced wolves. 

Following that tasty turd sandwich, all three states had zero ability or authority to manage wolves in any way until they developed a federally-approved state wolf management plan.  As wolves increased, and increased and increased.  It was a no-win situation for the three states, they had to capitulate in order to have any management authority.  Now that IDFG has it, they have over the counter wolf tags, with a 5-wolf hunting harvest limit; wolves in the bag for trapping, with an additional 5 wolf limit.  They are using aerial gunning to reduce wolves in area where they have documented wolf-caused declines in deer and elk below state management objectives.

Unsworth has been with IDFG through that entire 20+ years drama.  A practical person gets up from a bad turn of events, adapts and moves on.  Wolves are here to stay - we all get to take a bite of that reality.  Wolf-hating is easy from an armchair I guess, but when you are on the front lines of wolf management  being a wolf hater will get you unemployed.  Until all the hoops mandated by USFWS were jumped through, there was no choice but to wait and see.  Idaho did what they needed to do, as quickly as it could be done, and have the most realistic wolf management program anyone could ask for.  They could have stomped around, held their breath, and refused to cooperate, or they could complete the mandated plan, complete the required studies to implement management, and develop the required proof so they could implement the program.

It's easy to bash biologists I guess, but meeting the legal requirements set by your elected federal government to manage wolves in the present day USA is not an easy job.  That he's been there through the whole thing speaks volumes to me.  Getting Idaho wolf management to where it is today required a heck of a lot of hard work by a lot of hard-working biologists who didn't want wolves dumped in their state.  I don't think anyone could have done it any better.

I pretty much agree that this all went down as you say, although it is missing a few fairly important points of contention, this is for the most part well written and fairly well detailed, yet easy to understand, well done! 

[huntnphool]

From some of the reading I've done about him on wolves are not very positive. I think the fact he is a biologist has a lot to do with it. Like many bios he had the attitude of let's wait and see how it turns out and study it.

I don't share that outlook on wolves. I would be satisfied if he really upped the efforts on documenting packs from ANYONE who was willing to contribute. If the current leaders had done so they wouldn't have made so many enemies within the sportsmen community. I understand it is a complicated issue but the department damages itself when they alienate those who give them reason for being.

I find this really odd, maybe because I was a biologist for Wyoming Game and Fish in the early 90s when the feds were preparing to introduce Canadian wolves.  All three states, Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, had wolves brought in from Canada by the federal government over their strident objections.  IDFG was so unwilling to cooperate with the feds, they contracted with the Nez Perce Tribe instead to monitor the introduced wolves. 

Following that tasty turd sandwich, all three states had zero ability or authority to manage wolves in any way until they developed a federally-approved state wolf management plan.  As wolves increased, and increased and increased.  It was a no-win situation for the three states, they had to capitulate in order to have any management authority.  Now that IDFG has it, they have over the counter wolf tags, with a 5-wolf hunting harvest limit; wolves in the bag for trapping, with an additional 5 wolf limit.  They are using aerial gunning to reduce wolves in area where they have documented wolf-caused declines in deer and elk below state management objectives.

Unsworth has been with IDFG through that entire 20+ years drama.  A practical person gets up from a bad turn of events, adapts and moves on.  Wolves are here to stay - we all get to take a bite of that reality.  Wolf-hating is easy from an armchair I guess, but when you are on the front lines of wolf management  being a wolf hater will get you unemployed.  Until all the hoops mandated by USFWS were jumped through, there was no choice but to wait and see.  Idaho did what they needed to do, as quickly as it could be done, and have the most realistic wolf management program anyone could ask for.  They could have stomped around, held their breath, and refused to cooperate, or they could complete the mandated plan, complete the required studies to implement management, and develop the required proof so they could implement the program.

It's easy to bash biologists I guess, but meeting the legal requirements set by your elected federal government to manage wolves in the present day USA is not an easy job.  That he's been there through the whole thing speaks volumes to me.  Getting Idaho wolf management to where it is today required a heck of a lot of hard work by a lot of hard-working biologists who didn't want wolves dumped in their state.  I don't think anyone could have done it any better.

 

[Special T]

I guess there are 2 points that i consider different. I think Wa is saddled with a much more unrealistic plan than ID. That and I has appeared that anytime some one from the "Anti-Wolf" crowd has come forward to offer help they are turned down because the Department doesnt want to appear bias... Yet when ever an straight up Anti HUNTING group offers help, wants a seat and the discussion they are fully accommodated.

It is possible that the turd sandwich we have may not have been much different, but why does the WDFW push sportsmen away? The general Sniping of wolves in ID didn't seem to make much difference (lots of it happened in the panhandle), So why did it take them so long to let citizens defend their property?

Doublelung You have a unique point of view because you were a bio in WY I would Love to hear your thoughts on WY. From my view they have done a much better job of handling the problem both politically and problems on the ground.

BTW the "Slam" on being a bio comes from the natural curiosity and wanting to study the change. That is a Bio's job so I expect that. Since the new director's frame of reference is from a bio's I think that can tell us a lot... It shows the window that he looks at the world from. I think common sense would tell you that flags wont deter wolves from eating an easy meal, but at least it has been studied in ID. Hopefully our new director will use his new position to soften the blow of wolves instead of making it another opportunity to study. I will reserve my judgement on our new director and wait and see how he handles it....

[Eli346]

All bickering aside, I like the choice. A radio interview I heard with him has me cautiously optimistic that he's going to approach his job in an analytical manner from the outside looking in and try to leave the politics to others. Of course, he can't do that but he may be a refreshing option to a long list of directors who just seemed to be filling space in an office. I'm hoping his knowledge and interaction with the wolf problem in Idaho will give us in Washington a better perspective of how to handle wolf management.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Lets hope he LEARNED something after wolves slaughtered Idaho's deer and elk herds.  He did preside over that.

I'm going to reserve judgement,,,

He presided over that?

That is a very long stretch.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Doublelung You have a unique point of view because you were a bio in WY I would Love to hear your thoughts on WY. From my view they have done a much better job of handling the problem both politically and problems on the ground.

Yup, that's why the Feds have retracted their delisting in Wyoming and Wyoming is starting the process of making a plan all over again. Wolves are again on the endangered species list in Wyoming.

Idaho has far and away worked harder, than any other State, on putting together a reasonable and acceptable wolf management plan and implementing it. It will pay dividends for them down the road.

Having been through the process in Idaho, Unsworth should have a very good idea what works and what doesn't and I have confidence that he will get us through the process of of delisting and managing ur own wolves.

If you don't think Unsworth is the guy, then tell us who YOUR guy is? Who are the realistic alternatives in this State?

[DOUBLELUNG]

I guess there are 2 points that i consider different. I think Wa is saddled with a much more unrealistic plan than ID. That and I has appeared that anytime some one from the "Anti-Wolf" crowd has come forward to offer help they are turned down because the Department doesnt want to appear bias... Yet when ever an straight up Anti HUNTING group offers help, wants a seat and the discussion they are fully accommodated.

It is possible that the turd sandwich we have may not have been much different, but why does the WDFW push sportsmen away? The general Sniping of wolves in ID didn't seem to make much difference (lots of it happened in the panhandle), So why did it take them so long to let citizens defend their property?

Doublelung You have a unique point of view because you were a bio in WY I would Love to hear your thoughts on WY. From my view they have done a much better job of handling the problem both politically and problems on the ground.

BTW the "Slam" on being a bio comes from the natural curiosity and wanting to study the change. That is a Bio's job so I expect that. Since the new director's frame of reference is from a bio's I think that can tell us a lot... It shows the window that he looks at the world from. I think common sense would tell you that flags wont deter wolves from eating an easy meal, but at least it has been studied in ID. Hopefully our new director will use his new position to soften the blow of wolves instead of making it another opportunity to study. I will reserve my judgement on our new director and wait and see how he handles it....

I share some of your concerns about the state plan, I do think that the breeding pairs target is too high, relative to the state's population density of humans and the prey base of big game animals.  That is my biggest issue with it, I do have some other nits to pick.  What we have seen with wolf pack densities and conflicts in the northeast points to the problem with a state plan modeled with an assumption that wolves will naturally distribute in accordance with where prey populations are located - that is probably true in the longterm, but I think WDFW is learning the conflicts can be intolerable in localized areas while waiting for that to happen. 

WDFW has all the expertise and talent they need.  The problem is the agency is a part of Washington State Government, and that ultimately politics prevail, and that the state's politics are driven by the urban, liberal population of Pugetropolis.  Wildlife management in Washington is done by political clout and the threat of litigation, biology at best simply informs the discussion. 

Wyoming is a polar opposite biologically and politically.  They have fought a long, hard and just battle, which at its core comes from a philosophy of small government in service to people, a largely rural population, and the highest proportion of big game hunters in the world.  The Wyoming approach would be a train wreck in Washington politically - and that's all that matters unfortunately.  WDFW ranks among the lowest of all WA state agencies in employee morale, and in my opinion that derives from the nature of the big state government and an attitude that the primary function and highest priority of government is self-perpetuation, far above agency mission (any agency) and that the function of government is to control, not serve, the state's residents.   

I predict Unsworth will either be successful, or have a very short tenure.  I am sure with 33 or so years, he is eligible for a full retirement from Idaho.  That provides him an independence most directors don't have - if the knives in the back get too bothersome, he can give his notice and take his Idaho retirement.  I suspect he sees great opportunities for implementing efficiencies and improving fish and wildlife management, and his skin should be pretty tough.  I'm not expecting miracles, just hoping for improvements.

I get the remark about wanting to study the change.  I just think it's important to realize the change wasn't requested, but once it's a done deal you adapt to that reality.  I have my own ideas about how wolves will affect Washington, both game and people, and am curious to see what the future brings.  However, that doesn't mean I wouldn't do things differently now - if I had that ability.  I think that is probably true for a majority of the bios associated with game management in Washington too.

[Special T]

I think ID experience will be more similar to Wa than WY... My point is that there are wolves in WY, and there will always be wolves there. What i think is interesting is the fact that WY has not lost its sportsmen backing like all the other agencies have.

Some state like WA are addicted to federal ESA funds to "Study" the issues. I doubt that WY is that way. That is one of the reasons i would love to hear more from Doublelung.

Because of the politics i thing there is a BIG gap between what is right and what is legal/happening. If you look at the expereinces in ID, MT Wa and even AK and BC you will find that it is really hard to make a significant dent in Wolf populations... In many regards like are like coyotes.