New WDFW Director Named

[Special T]

Thank you for your insight. I am always thankful when those with "inside" information take the time to share what they know about how things work. I  also understand  that the WDFW is in a bad situation but if all they can do is Slow Down the slide, and science be damned than Im not sure they are all that deserving of extra support.

[ipkus]

Like many of you I am both hopeful and reserving judgment until he's had some time on the job.

I will only add this;  he was picked for the position by the same WDFW Commission that backed and approved our state wolf management plan, which was blatantly crafted to make sure our state is completely overrun with wolves before we can actually manage them.  If they approved of him, his stance on wolves (at least during the interview process) had to be somewhat similar to theirs.

We will see!

[Bob33]

Like many of you I am both hopeful and reserving judgment until he's had some time on the job.

I will only add this;  he was picked for the position by the same WDFW Commission that backed and approved our state wolf management plan, which was blatantly crafted to make sure our state is completely overrun with wolves before we can actually manage them.  If they approved of him, his stance on wolves (at least during the interview process) had to be somewhat similar to theirs.

We will see!

It is not the same commission. Only three members on the current commission were commission members in 2011.

[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.

"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." 

Reading the below info. it seems that IDFG wanted wolves, and their promotion and protection of wolves over the game herds doesn't give IDFG a flattering review.

#38 Idaho F&G Director Warns F&G Commission Not to Show Controversial Wolf Documents to Public
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Outdoorsman-38.html

WDFW and their wolf push of the 1980's and 90's

In Washington, Feds Opt For Wolf Introduction Over Recovery
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/
 

[wolfbait]

Reading the article that Mitchell wrote it would appear that MT, and Idaho had some involvement with the USFWS releasing wolves in their states.

With the information of WA's wolf push of the 1980's and 90's, it would appear that WDFW were also involved in the USFWS wolf releases.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Reading the below info. it seems that IDFG wanted wolves, and their promotion and protection of wolves over the game herds doesn't give IDFG a flattering review.

#38 Idaho F&G Director Warns F&G Commission Not to Show Controversial Wolf Documents to Public
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Outdoorsman-38.html

WDFW and their wolf push of the 1980's and 90's

In Washington, Feds Opt For Wolf Introduction Over Recovery
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/

Wolfie, reading your links is just like reading the National Enquirer. The Idaho for Wildlife article isn't even worth commenting on.

As for the Skinny Moose link, this quote is whack.

"Yesterday we learned there were 6 packs of wolves living in Washington’s Cascade area prior to 1991 and that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife fails to inform Washington citizens of this fact while debating the recent plans for wolf management.

Apparently, this common knowledge of the existence of wolves in at least the Cascades and Olympic Peninsula, had been swept under the rug all as part of an effort to promote introduction of gray wolves from Canada rather than spend what little money was available on recovery efforts."

Please tell us about all those wolves on the Olympic Peninsula? And if there were 6 packs living in the Cascades before 1991, why haven't they proliferated and wiped out all the game there like you always tell us they do? Heck, by your theories on wolves, we should have more than enough wolf packs by now to delist. It's 25 years later now........

[wolfbait]

Reading the below info. it seems that IDFG wanted wolves, and their promotion and protection of wolves over the game herds doesn't give IDFG a flattering review.

#38 Idaho F&G Director Warns F&G Commission Not to Show Controversial Wolf Documents to Public
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Outdoorsman-38.html

WDFW and their wolf push of the 1980's and 90's

In Washington, Feds Opt For Wolf Introduction Over Recovery
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/

Wolfie, reading your links is just like reading the National Enquirer. The Idaho for Wildlife article isn't even worth commenting on.

As for the Skinny Moose link, this quote is whack.

"Yesterday we learned there were 6 packs of wolves living in Washington’s Cascade area prior to 1991 and that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife fails to inform Washington citizens of this fact while debating the recent plans for wolf management.

Apparently, this common knowledge of the existence of wolves in at least the Cascades and Olympic Peninsula, had been swept under the rug all as part of an effort to promote introduction of gray wolves from Canada rather than spend what little money was available on recovery efforts."

Please tell us about all those wolves on the Olympic Peninsula? And if there were 6 packs living in the Cascades before 1991, why haven't they proliferated and wiped out all the game there like you always tell us they do? Heck, by your theories on wolves, we should have more than enough wolf packs by now to delist. It's 25 years later now........

First the name calling and then comes the falling down.

Pro-wolf people don't like too much wolf history, especially when it contradicts their wolf push.

[CAMPMEAT]

The people in Idaho I know, don't like Unsworth at all. He's a wolf lover, enviro supporter they say....

[ipkus]

It is not the same commission. Only three members on the current commission were commission members in 2011. 

I haven't heard a peep out any Commissioner since the wolf plan was approved that shows that any one of them is displeased in any way with how wolf repopulation is going.  Not a single word.  Have you?

Until I do, I have no choice but to assume they don't see a problem.  Maybe when Inslee fills the 2 vacant eastside seats we'll hear a dissenting voice, but based on how the appointment process usually works I'm not holding my breath. 

[idahohuntr]

Wolfie, reading your links is just like reading the National Enquirer. The Idaho for Wildlife article isn't even worth commenting on.

 

Please tell us about all those wolves on the Olympic Peninsula? And if there were 6 packs living in the Cascades before 1991, why haven't they proliferated and wiped out all the game there like you always tell us they do? Heck, by your theories on wolves, we should have more than enough wolf packs by now to delist. It's 25 years later now........

Hmmm...very good point Sitka. What say you wolfbait??? Is the 6 packs in 1991 a lie or is it a lie that wolves will proliferate exponentially?

[CAMPMEAT]

I know ranchers here, that have seen wolves 35 years ago around these parts.

[idahohuntr]

The people in Idaho I know, don't like Unsworth at all. He's a wolf lover, enviro supporter they say....

Then I would say those people don't really know Unsworth.  He is not a wolf lover...I think that is pretty clear. 

[stevemiller]

when does Unsworth take over the dept.?

[wolfbait]

Reading the below info. it seems that IDFG wanted wolves, and their promotion and protection of wolves over the game herds doesn't give IDFG a flattering review.

#38 Idaho F&G Director Warns F&G Commission Not to Show Controversial Wolf Documents to Public
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Outdoorsman-38.html

WDFW and their wolf push of the 1980's and 90's

In Washington, Feds Opt For Wolf Introduction Over Recovery
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/

Wolfie, reading your links is just like reading the National Enquirer. The Idaho for Wildlife article isn't even worth commenting on.

As for the Skinny Moose link, this quote is whack.

"Yesterday we learned there were 6 packs of wolves living in Washington’s Cascade area prior to 1991 and that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife fails to inform Washington citizens of this fact while debating the recent plans for wolf management.

Apparently, this common knowledge of the existence of wolves in at least the Cascades and Olympic Peninsula, had been swept under the rug all as part of an effort to promote introduction of gray wolves from Canada rather than spend what little money was available on recovery efforts."

Please tell us about all those wolves on the Olympic Peninsula? And if there were 6 packs living in the Cascades before 1991, why haven't they proliferated and wiped out all the game there like you always tell us they do? Heck, by your theories on wolves, we should have more than enough wolf packs by now to delist. It's 25 years later now........

First the name calling and then comes the falling down.

Pro-wolf people don't like too much wolf history, especially when it contradicts their wolf push.

Why did WDFW lie about the Lookout pack of 2008 being the first wolf pack in 70 years?

As The Wolves Reappear, So Do Old Range Conflicts
Sunday, September 8, 1991
Confirmed populations of gray wolves also exist in northern Washington and small packs are documented in Wisconsin. Although wolves generally prefer to prey upon elk and deer, and although attacks on humans almost never happen, livestock owners contend that they prey indiscriminately. But Fish and Wildlife Service figures indicate that domestic livestock are rarely killed by wolves.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19910908&slug=1304367

Endangered Gray Wolf Trapped Near Mt. Baker
Wednesday, February 5, 1992

In 1990 biologists discovered two dens - the first time wolves had been sighted in the state since 1975. There's evidence the animals are breeding as far south as the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area just north of Stevens Pass, Pierce added.Pierce said Almack and Fitkin are participating in a long-range study of the gray wolf's relationship with its environment in Washington, including diet, movement and range.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920205&slug=1473981
Gray Wolves' Return Subject Of Monday Meeting
Friday, April 17, 1992
State wildlife agents already have identified six packs of wolves in Washington's Cascades, and more are expected to "migrate" from Canada to the state's protected forests.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920417&slug=1486887

Wolves Coming Back To Cascades
Sunday, December 6, 1992
In the Okanogan, one or more wolves have been spotted in five separate areas since 1989.

The plan is to let the wolves - moving into old haunts south of Canada after hunting stopped there in the 1970s - reproduce themselves, said Jon Almak, a state Department of Wildlife biologist.

Federal agencies have spent $3.3 million on wolf research in the Rockies since 1987.
Efforts in Washington, such as howling to find members of the endangered species, began two years ago.

Almak, chairman of a biological research subcommittee, said guidelines are being written to ensure that management, habitat and prey-base goals are met and hunters and the general public are educated.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19921206&slug=1528536

Conservation groups want U.S. to restore gray wolves in state
Friday, November 1, 2002
Defenders of Wildlife and the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance said yesterday they have sent a petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, requesting that the agency restore and protect gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20021101&slug=graywolves01m

Mitch is a conservation biologist who founded Conservation Northwest (formerly Northwest Ecosystem Alliance) in 1989. He is founding board member of The Wildlands Project and American Lands Alliance. http://climatesolutions.org/nbi-advisory-committee/mitch-friedman

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is the primary agency responsible for the recovery and conservation of endangered species in the U.S., including the gray wolf. Recovery of wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains requires that ten breeding pairs of wolves (about 100 wolves), become established in each of three recovery areas (northwest Montana, central Idaho, and the area in and near Yellowstone National Park) for three consecutive years. After that has occurred wolves would be removed from the list of threatened and endangered species and managed solely by the respective states and tribes in areas outside of national parks and national wildlife refuges. Currently, as a result of natural dispersal of wolves from Canada over the past 15 years, about five wolf pack (65 wolves) live in northwest Montana. While lone wolves are occasionally seen or killed in the Yellowstone or central Idaho areas, wolf packs still do not exist in these areas. In 1991, congress directed the FWS to prepare a DEIS on wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National park and central Idaho and required that it cover a broad range of alternatives. In 1992, congress directed the FWS to complete the EIS by January 1994 and stated that it expected the preferred alternative to conform to existing law.

Beginning in October 1994, 30 wild wolves would be captured in Canada and released in the experimental population areas, until a wild wolf population was established in each area (estimated 3-5 years). Breeding adults and their pups (15/year) wold be held 6-8 weeks at three sites in Yellowstone National Park and released in December. Yearlings and non-breeding adults (15/year) would be immediately released in central Idaho to simulate natural dispersal and pack formation. Reintroduced wolves would be monitored with radio telemetry and moved as necessary to enhance wolf population recovery.

-  Designate all wolves in the experimental areas as experimental animals once wolves were released.

Read More @ http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/eis_1994.pdf

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Still waiting for you to document those Olympic peninsula wolves for me.