HB 1676: Understanding the effects of predation on wild ungulate populations

[Bob33]

"The University of Washington, through the predator ecology lab in the school of environmental and forest sciences, must conduct an independent, scientific, blind peer-reviewed study assessing the health of Washington's wild ungulate population in game management units that have experienced a change in predator population dynamics due to the recovery of gray wolves."

Here's your study group members: http://www.predatorecology.com/current-lab-members.html

They are led by Aaron Wirsing. http://coenv.washington.edu/faculty/aaron-wirsing/

"Aaron Wirsing is an ecologist who studies the ways that large carnivores can change the lives of their prey beyond simply killing and eating them. Using a combination of fieldwork and modeling techniques, and working in both terrestrial and aquatic systems, he looks at the ways that top predators, such as grey wolves and tiger sharks, can shape their communities and ecosystems through their presence alone. His suite of projects shows the benefits of what he calls an “ecology without borders” approach. By comparing the mechanisms that drive predator effects in both aquatic and terrestrial environments, he aims to show underlying similarities between two seemingly disparate systems. "

[wolfbait]

HB 1676 is a good bill.

This is really getting comical now...the bill was modified a while ago and I did not realize it.  Now it is going to be the University of Washington, Predator Ecology Lab in the School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, conducting a 4 year study on wolves and ungulates.  It will now cost well into the 6 figures to fund. 

Here is my really favorite part for all of you like huntrights proclaiming this is a "good bill" for hunters...UW Predator Ecology Lab was proud to announce their joining the Pacific Wolf Coalition in a recent panel (Oct 2014)- And if you go to the Pacific Wolf Coalition website (http://pacificwolves.org/) you will see they are an organization pleased to be bringing wolves home to the west.   

So...all you "Yes" voters like huntrights that support this bill against my advice that no good could come from politicians directing research...may I ask why you think a group of Seattle academics who partner with wolf advocacy organizations advising and informing the state on how to manage predators and ungulates in Eastern Washington is a good idea? 

NO GOOD WILL COME OF POLITICIANS DIRECTING RESEARCH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN SUCH A DIRECT MANNER.  To those handful of folks who voted no...

If this is true I would not be in favor of the bill now. The herd counts/study needs to be done by WDFW.
The WSU cougar study resulted in the current cougar quota mismanagement. If true about WSU, this is a turn for the bad with this bill.

I commented before investigating, I just got off the phone with a friend in Olympia regarding Substitute Bill 1676.

I misread the post by Idahohntr and assumed Wielgus would somehow be involved at WSU. I was wrong, the amendment will fund a study by Aaron Wirsing at UW. Wirsing may have a different perspective on predators than Wielgus.

I didn't get a chance to talk to our legislators Short and Kretz, but I was told Short favors the amended bill. I wouldn't think that she would support the amendment if she thought we would get a bogus study.

The one thing I am certain of is that we need to know the impacts of predators on ungulate populations, especially wolf impacts, which is what this bill addresses. Since this study doesn't involve Wielgus it will hopefully be an unbiased study of wolf impacts.

 

[huntrights]

Here is my really favorite part for all of you like huntrights proclaiming this is a "good bill" for hunters...UW Predator Ecology Lab was proud to announce their joining the Pacific Wolf Coalition in a recent panel (Oct 2014)- And if you go to the Pacific Wolf Coalition website (http://pacificwolves.org/) you will see they are an organization pleased to be bringing wolves home to the west.   

It's good to see folks doing some research; however, to make sure there is no confusion.

Here is the paragraph out of the blog that is being referred to:

http://www.predatorecology.com/blog/archives/10-2014
Welcome to the Predator Ecology Lab blog!
10/22/2014

"As a first bit of news, we just joined the Pacific Wolf Coalition and Dr. John Marzluff (professor and leader of the Wildlife Science group in the School of Environmental and Forest Sciences) to host a highly successful panel on gray wolf management in the Pacific Northwest. We will post a full video of the meeting as soon as it becomes available." [Bold emphasis added]

They did not "Join" the Pacific Wolf Coalition; it appears they worked together with that organization and Dr. John Marzluff to host a panel on gray wolf management in the Pacific Northwest.  If anyone attended that event, please share your thoughts.  They said there will be a full video of the meeting at some time in the future.

 
The whole emphasis should be to pursue sound and unbiased science regardless of who does the work.  If researchers have shown through past projects that they tend to be biased, then they should not be given funding for further research.

[Hunter4Life]

SCIF is helping fund part of Wirsing's work.  He is doing a similar study to HB 1676 with the Colville Nation.  https://firstforwildlife.wordpress.com/2013/12/12/sci-foundation-sponsors-washington-wolf-project/  Do you think SCI would be funding Wirsing if he was in bed with the antis?  He is doing a project with the Colville Nation that body of work is amazing.  Not only will the study take into effect the direct effects on wolves on ungulate populations, but fawn and calf recruitment, and the effect of stress on cows and does because of the presence of wolves.  I have a copy of the Colville Study that SCIF is funding, I have read it, and it is really good.  HB 1676 is an extension of Wirsing's work with the Colvilles.  If Wielgus at WSU was involved in any way, it would be hell no. 

If anyone thinks that we can trigger the section of the wolf plan to reduce wolf populations because of ungulate declines based on hunter harvest, you have another thing coming.  It would never pass the anti's lawsuit.  The antis will claim less people hunting using declining license sales to back their case, habitat destruction, lack of forage, hard winters, etc.  The antis would win their case in a heartbeat.  The only way we can ever trigger that section of the wolf plan is by the effects of predators on fawn and calf recruitment.  Hunter harvest data is too late anyway.  You are locking the door after the horse has been stolen.  The damage by predators has been done.  This study would take fawn and calf recruitment into account, pregnancy rates, and abortions due stress from wolves, so you are going further than just the killing of fawns and calves, but pre-birth killings also.  The Makah Nation did a wonderful study on fawn mortality in blacktail deer.

[Hunter4Life]

If you think WDFW is going to be so much better than an outside study on HB 1676, you better read the CCAA on sage grouse produced by WFDFW Diversity Division.  This document is scary.  It goes far further than USFWS goes in protecting sage grouse.  USFWS says noise has minimal effect on sage grouse nesting, the WDFW CCAA says noise is a major effect on sage grouse nesting.   

[bearpaw]

Thanks for the clarification Hunter4Life! 

[wolfbait]

Thanks for the clarification Hunter4Life! 

X2,

[huntrights]

Thanks for the clarification Hunter4Life! 

x3 

[idahohuntr]

Thanks for the clarification Hunter4Life! 

X2,

Thanks for the clarification Hunter4Life! 

x3 

I am glad to see you all support Dr. Wirsing doing this research and will accept him as an unbiased researcher.  The more I think about it I do see 2 really good things about him doing this work.  1- It does not waste wdfw staff time which could be better spent collecting wildlife data and managing wildlife for hunters and 2 - Being a tenure track faculty he will be largely insulated from state politics trying to interfere with normal scientific process.

On another very intriguing note...Dr. Wirsing and I share many things and have worked with a number of the exact same people.  He and I have even received the exact same award from the same institution...I am happy to see he will be doing the work.  Small world.

Anyways, I look forward to his report and again, I'm really happy that you guys respect him and will support him as an unbiased researcher.

[mfswallace]

Thanks for the clarification Hunter4Life! 

X2,

Thanks for the clarification Hunter4Life! 

x3 

I am glad to see you all support Dr. Wirsing doing this research and will accept him as an unbiased researcher.  The more I think about it I do see 2 really good things about him doing this work.  1- It does not waste wdfw staff time which could be better spent collecting wildlife data and managing wildlife for hunters and 2 - Being a tenure track faculty he will be largely insulated from state politics trying to interfere with normal scientific process.

On another very intriguing note...Dr. Wirsing and I share many things and have worked with a number of the exact same people.  He and I have even received the exact same award from the same institution...I am happy to see he will be doing the work.  Small world.

Anyways, I look forward to his report and again, I'm really happy that you guys respect him and will support him as an unbiased researcher.

Lets just hope he doesn't think its all habitat or weather or anything other than wolves like yourself 
I still can't believe you aren't for this type of legislation even if wdfw funding were used, how can we manage wolves and ungulates without knowing how many there are What would you rather see funding do?

[idahohuntr]

Thanks for the clarification Hunter4Life! 

X2,

Thanks for the clarification Hunter4Life! 

x3 

I am glad to see you all support Dr. Wirsing doing this research and will accept him as an unbiased researcher.  The more I think about it I do see 2 really good things about him doing this work.  1- It does not waste wdfw staff time which could be better spent collecting wildlife data and managing wildlife for hunters and 2 - Being a tenure track faculty he will be largely insulated from state politics trying to interfere with normal scientific process.

On another very intriguing note...Dr. Wirsing and I share many things and have worked with a number of the exact same people.  He and I have even received the exact same award from the same institution...I am happy to see he will be doing the work.  Small world.

Anyways, I look forward to his report and again, I'm really happy that you guys respect him and will support him as an unbiased researcher.

Lets just hope he doesn't think its all habitat or weather or anything other than wolves like yourself 
I still can't believe you aren't for this type of legislation even if wdfw funding were used, how can we manage wolves and ungulates without knowing how many there are What would you rather see funding do?

I don't disagree with the premise of evaluating wolf/ungulate impacts.  I loathe the idea of politicians trying to meddle with/design/direct in a very detailed manner the research to be conducted.  As I've stated, those of you who prefer ballot box wildlife management...that is your prerogative.  Its what led us to hound and bait bans.

 

[huntrights]

 

Perhaps the Initiative process needs to have some guidelines imposed to prevent abuse.  Recently, we saw what happens when billionaires pursued their anti-gun ideologies/agendas via funding emotionally-based propaganda and diatribe to mislead the voters regarding I-594: The Anti-gun Initiative.  We now have an unenforceable, and likely unconstitutional law on the books because of an initiative that was approved by misled and confused voters.  Did something similar happen in 1996 when Initiative I-655 was approved by the voters of Washington?  I-655 was the initiative that prohibited the use of dogs and bait to hunt bear and cougar with some exceptions.

Initiatives to the People – 1996
http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/people.aspx?y=1996

INITIATIVE 655
AN ACT Relating to methods of taking wildlife; adding a new section to chapter 77.16 RCW; and prescribing penalties.
http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i655.pdf

Activists Pushing Initiative 655
Associated Press The Spokesman-Review
November 3, 1996 - Updated: July 16, 7:41 p.m.
http://m.spokesman.com/stories/1996/nov/03/activists-pushing-initiative-655/

Animal-rights, anti-hunting, and anti-gun zealots are turning to the initiative process to force their agendas and ideologies into law.  They can fund emotionally-based propaganda and diatribe to mislead the public in order to obtain the votes they need to pass their Initiatives.  They also tend to abuse the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Equal Access to Justice Act by filing, or threatening to file lawsuits against government agencies that are tasked with managing our wildlife resources and public lands.

HB 1676 did not come about due to misguided, emotionally-driven initiatives like I-594 and I-655.  We need sound and unbiased science to understand the effects of predation on wild ungulate populations.  We also need to understand that ecosystems in which large apex predators are being reintroduced and protected in the lower 48 states are not isolated wilderness areas with little or no human influence like those that may exist in remote regions of Canada and Alaska.  The ecosystems that are considered “suitable habitats” in the lower 48 states for these large apex predators are multiple-use ecosystems with human influence everywhere, even in designated wilderness areas.  Ranching, farming, outdoor recreation activities, roads, trails, urban and rural human settlements are intertwined or in relative close proximity to these so-called “suitable habitats”.  To believe that large apex predators can be reintroduced into their historic ranges that existed in the lower 48 states hundreds or thousands of years ago without significant impact is ludicrous.  Predators and prey do not recognize boundaries that humans draw on maps; they simply live and move to where they can survive.

This is an article worth reading:
The Future of North American Wolves, Interview with Dr. Valerius Geist
http://www.outdoorhub.com/opinions/2013/08/14/the-future-of-north-american-wolves-interview-with-dr-valerius-geist/

We also need to be vigilant in protecting The North American Wildlife Conservation Model, the most successful in the world.
http://www.rmef.org/Conservation/HuntingIsConservation/NorthAmericanWildlifeConservationModel.aspx

 

[wolfbait]

Thanks for the clarification Hunter4Life! 

X2,

Thanks for the clarification Hunter4Life! 

x3 

I am glad to see you all support Dr. Wirsing doing this research and will accept him as an unbiased researcher.  The more I think about it I do see 2 really good things about him doing this work.  1- It does not waste wdfw staff time which could be better spent collecting wildlife data and managing wildlife for hunters and 2 - Being a tenure track faculty he will be largely insulated from state politics trying to interfere with normal scientific process.

On another very intriguing note...Dr. Wirsing and I share many things and have worked with a number of the exact same people.  He and I have even received the exact same award from the same institution...I am happy to see he will be doing the work.  Small world.

Anyways, I look forward to his report and again, I'm really happy that you guys respect him and will support him as an unbiased researcher.

Lets just hope he doesn't think its all habitat or weather or anything other than wolves like yourself 
I still can't believe you aren't for this type of legislation even if wdfw funding were used, how can we manage wolves and ungulates without knowing how many there are What would you rather see funding do?

That's the question that needs answer first, and probably the one WDFW don't want answers to.

[Hunter4Life]

Thanks for the clarification Hunter4Life! 

X2,

Thanks for the clarification Hunter4Life! 

x3 

I am glad to see you all support Dr. Wirsing doing this research and will accept him as an unbiased researcher.  The more I think about it I do see 2 really good things about him doing this work.  1- It does not waste wdfw staff time which could be better spent collecting wildlife data and managing wildlife for hunters and 2 - Being a tenure track faculty he will be largely insulated from state politics trying to interfere with normal scientific process.

On another very intriguing note...Dr. Wirsing and I share many things and have worked with a number of the exact same people.  He and I have even received the exact same award from the same institution...I am happy to see he will be doing the work.  Small world.

Anyways, I look forward to his report and again, I'm really happy that you guys respect him and will support him as an unbiased researcher.

Lets just hope he doesn't think its all habitat or weather or anything other than wolves like yourself 
I still can't believe you aren't for this type of legislation even if wdfw funding were used, how can we manage wolves and ungulates without knowing how many there are What would you rather see funding do?

Mfswallace, I agree 100%  I agree with everything you said, but the bigger question is, why hasn't this already study been started?  With the introduction of a new apex predator, why hasn't the effects of wolves on ungulates been started to be studied at the latest right after the wolf plan was adopted?  I agree in principle with what idahohuntr said about the legislature managing wildlife, but there comes a time when the legislature has to step in.  Managing wildlife legislatively normally is not a good thing, but in this case, how long do we wait for the Department to take action, especially when this should have been started long ago? 

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.

In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.  There is no longer any room for hope.  If we wish to be free - if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending - if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained - we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak - unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of Hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? 


Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.

How long should we have waited for WDFW to take action on this issue?  In this case the legislature did what needed to be done.  It is great that huntrights made a comment about I-655.  Compare what WDFW has done after wolves were reintroduced to what the Colville Nation did on reservation lands after I-655 passed.   Joe Peone was the tribal biologist at that time, and not only was he a great biologist, he was a fine man, and a voice of reason.  The Colville science was so solid and their counts so good, they knew exactly what the effects of I-655 had on their ungulate populations because of increased numbers of cougars and they solved the problem.  They reduced cougar numbers.  With great counts, the Colvilles knew exactly what had to be done to save ungulate populations.  And they followed through on what had to be done. 

Now back to WDFW and the Commission.  This is RCW 77.04.012, their mandate:

RCW 77.04.012

Mandate of department and commission.
 

Wildlife, fish, and shellfish are the property of the state. The commission, director, and the department shall preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish in state waters and offshore waters.

     The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource. In a manner consistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state. The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing in this state.

     The commission may authorize the taking of wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish only at times or places, or in manners or quantities, as in the judgment of the commission does not impair the supply of these resources.

     The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.

     Recognizing that the management of our state wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources depends heavily on the assistance of volunteers, the department shall work cooperatively with volunteer groups and individuals to achieve the goals of this title to the greatest extent possible.

     Nothing in this title shall be construed to infringe on the right of a private property owner to control the owner's private property.

Do you really believe the Commission has accomplished the statement below from the mandate?

The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.

If they did, bills like HB 1676 would not be necessary.  It is a crime this hasn't already been started.  WDFW based their cougar management on the so-called "science" of that idiot Rob Wielgus at WSU, the Grand Imperial Poohbah of the Animal Rights community.

[Hunter4Life]

Perhaps the Initiative process needs to have some guidelines imposed to prevent abuse.  Recently, we saw what happens when billionaires pursued their anti-gun ideologies/agendas via funding emotionally-based propaganda and diatribe to mislead the voters regarding I-594: The Anti-gun Initiative.  We now have an unenforceable, and likely unconstitutional law on the books because of an initiative that was approved by misled and confused voters.  Did something similar happen in 1996 when Initiative I-655 was approved by the voters of Washington?  I-655 was the initiative that prohibited the use of dogs and bait to hunt bear and cougar with some exceptions.

Initiatives to the People – 1996
http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/people.aspx?y=1996

INITIATIVE 655
AN ACT Relating to methods of taking wildlife; adding a new section to chapter 77.16 RCW; and prescribing penalties.
http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i655.pdf

Activists Pushing Initiative 655
Associated Press The Spokesman-Review
November 3, 1996 - Updated: July 16, 7:41 p.m.
http://m.spokesman.com/stories/1996/nov/03/activists-pushing-initiative-655/

Animal-rights, anti-hunting, and anti-gun zealots are turning to the initiative process to force their agendas and ideologies into law.  They can fund emotionally-based propaganda and diatribe to mislead the public in order to obtain the votes they need to pass their Initiatives.  They also tend to abuse the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Equal Access to Justice Act by filing, or threatening to file lawsuits against government agencies that are tasked with managing our wildlife resources and public lands.

HB 1676 did not come about due to misguided, emotionally-driven initiatives like I-594 and I-655.  We need sound and unbiased science to understand the effects of predation on wild ungulate populations.  We also need to understand that ecosystems in which large apex predators are being reintroduced and protected in the lower 48 states are not isolated wilderness areas with little or no human influence like those that may exist in remote regions of Canada and Alaska.  The ecosystems that are considered “suitable habitats” in the lower 48 states for these large apex predators are multiple-use ecosystems with human influence everywhere, even in designated wilderness areas.  Ranching, farming, outdoor recreation activities, roads, trails, urban and rural human settlements are intertwined or in relative close proximity to these so-called “suitable habitats”.  To believe that large apex predators can be reintroduced into their historic ranges that existed in the lower 48 states hundreds or thousands of years ago without significant impact is ludicrous.  Predators and prey do not recognize boundaries that humans draw on maps; they simply live and move to where they can survive.

This is an article worth reading:
The Future of North American Wolves, Interview with Dr. Valerius Geist
http://www.outdoorhub.com/opinions/2013/08/14/the-future-of-north-american-wolves-interview-with-dr-valerius-geist/

We also need to be vigilant in protecting The North American Wildlife Conservation Model, the most successful in the world.
http://www.rmef.org/Conservation/HuntingIsConservation/NorthAmericanWildlifeConservationModel.aspx

 

Reform of the initiative process will be difficult at best.  The state constitution strongly protects the initiative process, and we have the most wide-open initiative process in the United States.  When the state constitution was adopted, this made sense.  At that time, the state's population was spread all about, and it was hard for citizens to contact their elected officials.  A liberal initiative process was put in place so that citizens could have a second way to influence government.  This process worked well for a little more than a hundred years.  Now the initiative process is a business.  It is not a citizens' process.  It is a big money game.  You can't get an initiative on the ballot without paid signature gatherers.  It has been over 20 years since a citizens' campaign, a campaign with volunteer signature gatherers gathering signatures, without the help of a professional initiative company, successfully got an initiative on the ballot.  To see how big a business the initiative process has become, you can look no further than the two gun initiatives of 2014.  The same signature gathering services were gathering signatures with I-594 on one side of the cardboard, and I-549 on the other.  This is not the fault of either campaign, both were doing what was necessary to get on the ballot.

How do we reform the process?  Legislative reform will be very tough.  Historically, the state supreme court has almost always defended the initiative process.  So any law too restrictive will have to beat a court challenge.  There are precedents that make it near impossible to limit the amounts one can give to initiatives.  I guess to me, the better question is, how do we get better at the initiative game?

On I-594, there is no way we had a prayer of winning.  You can't defeat $12 million donated to several organizations.  You can't compete with that kind of money.  There is still something to be learned here however.  I heard so many people say that the NRA should have done more to beat I-594.  What a joke that comment is.  The NRA donated almost $800,000 to fight I-594.  They have 50 states to battle in.  There is only so much they can do and they don't have unlimited funds.

The old saying is true, "We have met the enemy and it is us."  The number of small donors ($25 and under) that gave to fight I-594 was tiny compared to the small donors who supported I-594.  We can't depend on national organizations like USSA, SCI, NSSF to come in and fight our battles or give us assistance.  They don't know our issues or our demographics like we do.  Washington battles involving hunting need to be fought by Washington hunters.  If national organizations want to help, we would welcome it, we would love to have it, but we have to be able to help ourselves.  National organizations will only come in if they feel they can make a difference.  They come in like PACs do to a candidate. A PAC won't donate unless a candidate has a viable organization to win, the PAC wouldn't help you get that organization.  A better question would be, what alliances can we make within our state?  A great solution is an article from Sports Afield titled, "Beating the antis at their own game."  You can read it below.