Washington lawmaker proposes moving wolves

[AspenBud]

On the other hand it could backfire, they could be relocated, nothing could change, and then the argument of "easy for people without skin in the game" argument dies.

Careful what you wish for.

   Where do some of these guys get their logic, what gamble? When wolves move in livestock/pets get eaten!

You're betting that people will run to the hills demanding an all out season over night once some wolves get relocated. Good luck with that.

Northeast Washington has howled about cougars since the hound ban and to date this state has not voted to lift it...and cougars are on boths sides of the mountains so the "skin in the game" argument holds little weight with people.

I just think you guys underestimate peoples' tolerance for predators this side of the mountains.

Your argument is faulty, cougar are being hunted throughout Washington by boot hunting and by dogs in certain problem areas, you are comparing apples with oranges since wolf numbers are not being controlled in any way.

Nothing faulty about it at all, this state has not repealed the hound ban on cougars despite some quite loud yelling from northeastern Washington. It is a fact that before wolves it was cougars that were the boogie man for people in NE Washington post ban and despite kitties and dogs and other animals being taken out by mountain lions west of the mountains no one has voted to have that ban lifted.

To think turning loose a flock of wolves west of the mountains is somehow going to make west siders want them gone as bad as people in the NE is more than wishful thinking and it could actually make the argument that "only people who don't have to live with them want them" ineffective. I still have my doubts about how wolves will fair in an area with more people than Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and eastern Washington combined, and it's a much smaller land area at that, but fundamentally I could see relatively few attitudes changing even if they were turned loose here. More likely you'd have hippy tourist groups going to "nature watch" wolves. Hunting isn't that popular and livestock does not make up the majority of jobs or money here. Someone's cow or dog getting killed by a wolf pack here isn't going to impact jobs at Boeing or Microsoft or Amazon and so forth and if wolves were to somehow make a living in a suburb, well, for one more power to them and for another the state would likely remove them and thereby no one would call for their eradication.

The lawmaker proposing this bill really doesn't understand the other half of the state.

[pianoman9701]

It's not about making westsiders hate the wolves wolves. It's about making management happen ASAP.

[wolfbait]

 Having wolves in every part of WA where they are required to delist isn't a problem, the problem is getting WDFW to confirm these wolves.

We could have delisted in 2010 with wolves to spare, if WDFW were honestly concerned, they aren't. Unless WDFW are forced to confirm wolf packs/BPs the wolf delisting will drag out for a very long time.

At some point there needs to be some accountability, WDFW can only BS their way through an over population of wolves for so long. Remember the Lolo elk herd and the habitat lie?

[pianoman9701]

Having wolves in every part of WA where they are required to delist isn't a problem, the problem is getting WDFW to confirm these wolves.

We could have delisted in 2010 with wolves to spare, if WDFW were honestly concerned, they aren't. Unless WDFW are forced to confirm wolf packs/BPs the wolf delisting will drag out for a very long time.

At some point there needs to be some accountability, WDFW can only BS their way through an over population of wolves for so long. Remember the Lolo elk herd and the habitat lie?

Really? They seem to be doing fine BS-ing all they want. Even the response to this guy was that they'd have to do environmental impact studies which would,...blah blah blah. They have the support of the lousy governor, his Wildlife Commission, and all the dread-locked and ignorant King Co. wolf lovers. The could lie straight-faced to a reporter and there'd be no consequence.

[wolfbait]

Having wolves in every part of WA where they are required to delist isn't a problem, the problem is getting WDFW to confirm these wolves.

We could have delisted in 2010 with wolves to spare, if WDFW were honestly concerned, they aren't. Unless WDFW are forced to confirm wolf packs/BPs the wolf delisting will drag out for a very long time.

At some point there needs to be some accountability, WDFW can only BS their way through an over population of wolves for so long. Remember the Lolo elk herd and the habitat lie?

Really? They seem to be doing fine BS-ing all they want. Even the response to this guy was that they'd have to do environmental impact studies which would,...blah blah blah. They have the support of the lousy governor, his Wildlife Commission, and all the dread-locked and ignorant King Co. wolf lovers. The could lie straight-faced to a reporter and there'd be no consequence.

I know for a fact there are already wolf packs on the westside, and just like on the east side WDFW will not confirm any packs/bps unless they are forced into it.

It's interesting to see the folks that don't want them in their backyard, and the reasoning for No relocation of wolves

It took IDFG 10 years to finally come out and say, yes it was wolves that had been and are decimating the elk herds etc.. WDFW are pretending they have a different wolf, it's a new wolf story, with the same old wolf and the same outcome no matter how they try to spin it.

Maybe this push will some how force WDFW to start confirming wolf packs and BP's. At any rate it sure does show how the other side thinks.

[idahohuntr]

I agree with you Aspen.  Wolves over on the westside are not going to be a driving force of any kind because the presence of wolves will still affect a very small number of (mostly rural) people. 

Also, the scope of the impact of wolves is being exaggerated in some instances.  I would swear there is not a child, pet, cow, or deer to be found in the entire NE corner of WA the way some folks talk because the wolves have "saurated" the area and killed everything. 

[pianoman9701]

Bearpaw?

[jasnt]

I agree with you Aspen.  Wolves over on the westside are not going to be a driving force of any kind because the presence of wolves will still affect a very small number of (mostly rural) people. 

Also, the scope of the impact of wolves is being exaggerated in some instances.  I would swear there is not a child, pet, cow, or deer to be found in the entire NE corner of WA the way some folks talk because the wolves have "saurated" the area and killed everything. 

wolves can be a driving force on the west side. We need numbers in the right spots. Tack a few breeding pairs and move them to where it's needed. They are still a document BP even if they have been moved threw soft release. All moved wolves would be callord and tracked. There is no need to wait for confirmation they are already a pair.

No one has said there is no game left   If so it's cause they don't want anyone hunting there grounds. But it has declined!  Even 2010 and 2012 was better than 2014.

[AspenBud]

I agree with you Aspen.  Wolves over on the westside are not going to be a driving force of any kind because the presence of wolves will still affect a very small number of (mostly rural) people. 

Also, the scope of the impact of wolves is being exaggerated in some instances.  I would swear there is not a child, pet, cow, or deer to be found in the entire NE corner of WA the way some folks talk because the wolves have "saurated" the area and killed everything.

Again, there are more people on this side of the mountains than there are in all of Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and eastern Washington combined and everyone is packed into much less land. That's a lot of cars, parvo, people with guns, industrial poisons, etc etc etc etc that will kill a lot of wolves fast. Faster than people in any of the states I mentioned can do. This is hostile territory for wolves by virtue of human numbers and the hazards that come with that for wild animals, numbers that far in away exceed anywhere else that they exist in the lower 48. They won't be much of a threat to most people here...because they'll be dying, a lot, due to modern life. People will probably be more concerned that so many cars accidentally kill them which may actually lead to more protections.

[JimmyHoffa]

I agree with you Aspen.  Wolves over on the westside are not going to be a driving force of any kind because the presence of wolves will still affect a very small number of (mostly rural) people. 

Also, the scope of the impact of wolves is being exaggerated in some instances.  I would swear there is not a child, pet, cow, or deer to be found in the entire NE corner of WA the way some folks talk because the wolves have "saurated" the area and killed everything.

Again, there are more people on this side of the mountains than there are in all of Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and eastern Washington combined and everyone is packed into much less land. That's a lot of cars, parvo, people with guns, industrial poisons, etc etc etc etc that will kill a lot of wolves fast. Faster than people in any of the states I mentioned can do. This is hostile territory for wolves by virtue of human numbers and the hazards that come with that for wild animals, numbers that far in away exceed anywhere else that they exist in the lower 48.

And like you mention about the population, the Puget Sound region of four counties (Snohomish, King, Pierce, Kitsap) are projected to grow by another 1.7 million in the next 15 years.

[AspenBud]

I agree with you Aspen.  Wolves over on the westside are not going to be a driving force of any kind because the presence of wolves will still affect a very small number of (mostly rural) people. 

Also, the scope of the impact of wolves is being exaggerated in some instances.  I would swear there is not a child, pet, cow, or deer to be found in the entire NE corner of WA the way some folks talk because the wolves have "saurated" the area and killed everything.

Again, there are more people on this side of the mountains than there are in all of Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and eastern Washington combined and everyone is packed into much less land. That's a lot of cars, parvo, people with guns, industrial poisons, etc etc etc etc that will kill a lot of wolves fast. Faster than people in any of the states I mentioned can do. This is hostile territory for wolves by virtue of human numbers and the hazards that come with that for wild animals, numbers that far in away exceed anywhere else that they exist in the lower 48.

And like you mention about the population, the Puget Sound region of four counties (Snohomish, King, Pierce, Kitsap) are projected to grow by another 1.7 million in the next 15 years.

Wolves on the west side = road pizza

[KFhunter]

Wolves on the west side = road pizza

I'm fine with that, better that then eating a hole in the arse of an elk and dragging it's guts out while it's alive.

[AspenBud]

Wolves on the west side = road pizza

I'm fine with that, better that then eating a hole in the arse of an elk and dragging it's guts out while it's alive.

Wild animals doing what wild animals do. People will worry more about cars hitting wolves. You wait.

[JimmyHoffa]

Or wolves chasing deer/elk out into traffic.

[pianoman9701]

I agree with you Aspen.  Wolves over on the westside are not going to be a driving force of any kind because the presence of wolves will still affect a very small number of (mostly rural) people. 

Also, the scope of the impact of wolves is being exaggerated in some instances.  I would swear there is not a child, pet, cow, or deer to be found in the entire NE corner of WA the way some folks talk because the wolves have "saurated" the area and killed everything.

Again, there are more people on this side of the mountains than there are in all of Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and eastern Washington combined and everyone is packed into much less land. That's a lot of cars, parvo, people with guns, industrial poisons, etc etc etc etc that will kill a lot of wolves fast. Faster than people in any of the states I mentioned can do. This is hostile territory for wolves by virtue of human numbers and the hazards that come with that for wild animals, numbers that far in away exceed anywhere else that they exist in the lower 48. They won't be much of a threat to most people here...because they'll be dying, a lot, due to modern life. People will probably be more concerned that so many cars accidentally kill them which may actually lead to more protections.

Your reasoning is why the outrageous wolf plan should be changed, yet the WDFW refuses to look at that. This is an excerpt from the plan:

"Three recovery regions were delineated for the state: (1) Eastern Washington, (2) Northern Cascades, and (3) Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast. Target numbers and distribution for downlisting and delisting within the three recovery regions are:

•To reclassify from state endangered to state threatened status: 6 successful breeding pairs present for 3 consecutive years, with 2 successful breeding pairs in each of the three recovery regions.
•To reclassify from state threatened to state sensitive status: 12 successful breeding pairs present for 3 consecutive years, with 4 successful breeding pairs in each of the three recovery regions.
•To delist from state sensitive status: 15 successful breeding pairs present for 3 consecutive years, with 4 successful breeding pairs in each of the three recovery regions and 3 successful breeding pairs anywhere in the state.

•In addition to the delisting objective of 15 successful breeding pairs distributed in the three geographic regions for 3 consecutive years, an alternative delisting objective is also established whereby the gray wolf will be considered for delisting when 18 successful breeding pairs are present, with 4 successful breeding pairs in the Eastern Washington region, 4 successful breeding pairs in the Northern Cascades region, 4 successful breeding pairs distributed in the Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast region, and 6 anywhere in the state."

So the wolf plan requires wolves in the west side, where all the people and cars are, before delisting can happen. They're not moving here to the west side in the numbers that are needed, probably for all the reasons you've mentioned. And, without any changes to the plan, the state and we will be unable to control their numbers. It's only when conflict with ranchers do they kill them. So, without either changing the plan OR transplanting wolves into the west side of the state, their numbers will continue to increase unabated. This is different from any of the other states. If you don't think this will have a negative effect on ungulate herds in the areas where they DO thrive, you're being completely naïve.