Washington wolf population continues to grow

[bearpaw]

It would never happen with our current governor, but I would personally support a position similar to what Idaho's Governor Otter took, preventing Idaho wardens from providing info to the USFWS to prosecute individuals for killing wolves. I would also fully support any sheriff or county commissioner candidate who promised to try and open his county up to responsible predator management!

So your position is that, law enforcement should ignore or abet illegal activity?

State of WA seems out of touch with hunters, ranchers, and rural residents. My personal position, I would strongly support any county that creates their own hunting regulations! Local control by local government! Exactly as I strongly supported Governor Otter. 

Yea - lets have each county set their own hunting regulations, sell their own licenses, run their own good-ol-boy clubs...that would be a disaster far more damaging to hunter opportunity in this state than any level of predators that will ever exist here.

Typical response I bet you love big government also

   It's obvious what the status quo WDFW has gotten us!

I agree that status quo WDFW hasn't gotten us the best possible result, but, Bearpaw, would you actually support county by county control??

Why not township by township?

Why not private land owner by private land owner?

I know our county commissioners and Sheriff, they are good people. The county commissioners have a county wildlife advisory board of which I am a member, I've sat in our meetings, I've seen the wisdom of our members. I know this advisory board would create much better management and hunting opportunities in Stevens County. The members of our advisory board have a vested interest in the outcome, it seems WDFW's interest is mostly monetary and pleasing the I-5 masses.

It's very much like education, do you think Washington DC makes better education policies for your local school or do you trust your local government and school board to make better decisions?

So your county would do a good job with it. Whose to say that all the other 38 counties in Washington would do a good job?

I don't know and I'm not concerned about all the other counties. Your county is your business, if you prefer to keep WDFW that is your business, I am advocating for my county. I would absolutely support Stevens County to opt out of state management!

If that happened in my county you would likely see deer more carefully managed, predators managed, trapping and hound hunting like there used to be!

I know that sounds insensitive to hunters in the pugetropolis counties and it's not meant to sound that way. I don't know what the answer is for hunters in highly populated western counties. Even if you could somehow escape WDFW management you will get the same or worse management from county government. But just because there is likely no possible good outcome for hunters in highly populated western WA counties does not mean it should be that way in every county of the state.

Seems odd to me that all you care about is the place your business is in.
What ever happened to Washington for Wildlife?

It would seem to me that the people in the NE are doing a better job of banding together because they have more in common with each other than we do on the west side. IMO there will be no real changes that benifit hunters until there is a republican,a dn hopefully a hunter in the Governors mansion. Everything else is wasted effort. 

I wouldn't disagree with that, but that doesn't make it right either.  For a guy that hunts all over the state as lots of hunters in this state do, how would this be of benefit to the average Washington state hunter?
Sure, if you live and hunt in the same area and never leave that part of the state, I can see how that would benefit you...but... that's not the case for lots of  hunters.

If there were more opportunities for land use such as possible riding atv's on established roads, logging and predator management that results in better quality deer and elk hunting, opportunities to hunt wolves, opportunities to hound hunt for bear and cougar, how is that a negative?

[bearpaw]

So I would assume we would then need county hunting/fishing licenses?? Oh damn I just crossed the county line, well I guess I need to buy a different license...

I guess each county would have to have their own county fish and wildlife officers, biologists, etc.. Where is the money for that going to come from? Let us not forget that just 28% of WDFWs funding comes from license/tag sales.

There is a reason why fish and wildlife is managed by the state in EVERY state.

I have no problem with counties wanting to become involved, similar to what I posted with how each county in California has a county fish and game board which are advisory boards to the CA Fish & Game Commission. But the overall management needs to be at the state. 

We've offered to share our wolves with the west side but the west side legislators want to keep wolves in eastern WA and out of their own backyards. Of course county management would probably never happen, but due to the lack of consideration of Eastern WA input by the state there are certainly people considering other management options.

I certainly would not be opposed meaningful input into reasonable management by the state in eastern WA, but I doubt that happens either!

[bigtex]

If there were more opportunities for land use such as possible riding atv's on established roads, logging and predator management that results in better quality deer and elk hunting, opportunities to hunt wolves, opportunities to hound hunt for bear and cougar, how is that a negative?

Your statement covers so many different topics then just fish and wildlife, at least as it is currently managed.

-ATVs not a WDFW area of responsibility. ATV laws are found in the traffic code, the only time WDFW is involved is the regulation of ATVs on WDFW lands. And actually WA law has changed over the past couple years allowing more paved county roads to be open to ATV use. But this is up to the county.

-Logging, again not WDFW. Logging is managed by the landowner whether it be DNR, USFS, or a private landowner. Unless your saying counties should take control of DNR lands??

-Hound hunting, first off the state law prohibiting hound hunting would have to be changed. WDFW has had a hard enough time getting legislative support for the pubic safety cougar removal program

-Wolf hunting. Let us not forget that the USFWS can come in at anytime and list wolves under the ESA again. Lets say your idea of county wildlife management happened. If after a couple years the wolf population in say Ferry and Stevens counties are decimated why would USFWS not come in and list the wolf under the ESA?? ESA listings can be statewide, or even as small as a county.

[bearpaw]

Next year, the year after, the year after that, and so forth, we should expect the wolf population to grow by roughly 30% each year.

According to our wolf plan, delisting cannot occur until WDFW has proven there are 15 breeding pairs with pups till the end of the year for three consecutive years, spread across all three wolf recovery zones, or 18 breeding pairs for at least three years. Then if WDFW does delist don't expect any meaningful management to reduce wolf populations for at least three years because WDFW will be afraid to manage. I doubt we see any attempt to delist for at least 6 to 10 years, and I doubt there will be any meaningful management for at lesat 9 to 13 years. WDFW simply is not efficient enough to expect results any sooner.

These minimum counts show at least 30% increase each year!
(there are probably many many more wolves than they have confirmed)

KNOWN WA COUNTS (showing at least 30% population increase annually)
2013......52 wolves, 13 packs, 5 breeding pairs
2014......68 wolves, 16 packs, 5 breeding pairs
2015......90 wolves, 18 packs, 8 breeding pairs

PROJECTED WA WOLF COUNTS (30% annual population increase)
2016......117 wolves, 23 packs, 10 breeding pairs
2017......152 wolves, 30 packs, 14 breeding pairs
2018......198 wolves, 40 packs, 18 breeding pairs
2019......257 wolves, 51 packs, 23 breeding pairs
2020......334 wolves, 66 packs, 30 breeding pairs
2021......434 wolves, 87 packs, 39 breeding pairs
2022......565 wolves, 113 packs, 50 breeding pairs
2023......734 wolves, 147 packs, 65 breeding pairs
2024......954 wolves, 191 packs, 85 breeding pairs
2025......1240 wolves, 248 packs, 110 breeding pairs

Graphs show historic wolf population growth in numerous states and in Yellowstone (YNP is only a small portion of Wyoming)

The average annual harvest of elk in WA is about 9,000, average anual harvest of deer is about 40,000.

A wolf needs 11 pounds of meet a day to sustain body weight. When we have 300 wolves in just a few years they will require 1,204,500 pounds of meat per year. If there is 400 pounds of edible flesh on an average elk or 125 pounds of edible flesh on an averge deer, that means it would take 3011 elk or 9,636 deer per year to feed 300 wolves.

If Washington has 900 wolves it will require 9,033 elk or 28,908 deer to feed them.

There are going to be impacts on big game herds and hunting opportunity unless wolves are managed.

[bearpaw]

If there were more opportunities for land use such as possible riding atv's on established roads, logging and predator management that results in better quality deer and elk hunting, opportunities to hunt wolves, opportunities to hound hunt for bear and cougar, how is that a negative?

Your statement covers so many different topics then just fish and wildlife, at least as it is currently managed.

-ATVs not a WDFW area of responsibility. ATV laws are found in the traffic code, the only time WDFW is involved is the regulation of ATVs on WDFW lands. And actually WA law has changed over the past couple years allowing more paved county roads to be open to ATV use. But this is up to the county.

-Logging, again not WDFW. Logging is managed by the landowner whether it be DNR, USFS, or a private landowner. Unless your saying counties should take control of DNR lands??

-Hound hunting, first off the state law prohibiting hound hunting would have to be changed. WDFW has had a hard enough time getting legislative support for the pubic safety cougar removal program

-Wolf hunting. Let us not forget that the USFWS can come in at anytime and list wolves under the ESA again. Lets say your idea of county wildlife management happened. If after a couple years the wolf population in say Ferry and Stevens counties are decimated why would USFWS not come in and list the wolf under the ESA?? ESA listings can be statewide, or even as small as a county.

   Why would a county want to wipe out wolves and have them relisted. You are not even offering a good discussion with that comment!

Of course I understand some of your other points, perhaps the best answer is for the eastside to separate from the westside?
I certainly realize that likely will never happen so I'm back to hoping there can be more local control somehow.

To set your minds to rest, I've made an offer on another Idaho property, I may be moving to a state that better represents my values. You guys won't have to worry that I might advocate for local management in NE WA. 

[Magnum_Willys]

I think your numbers for 9000 elk killed are high.  Studies show a wolf or cougar typically kill one animal a week for food or fun.
 52 weeks times 900 wolves = 46,800    ooops never mind.......... 

[bearpaw]

Studies vary!

http://www.yellowstonepark.com/gray-wolves-impact-elk/
Kill rates by wolves in winter are 22 ungulates per wolf per year – higher than the 12 ungulates per wolf rate predicted in the ESA.

22 elk x 900 wolves = 19,800 elk per year eaten

That is based on actual elk consumption in YNP.

[bearpaw]

Studies vary!

http://www.yellowstonepark.com/gray-wolves-impact-elk/
Kill rates by wolves in winter are 22 ungulates per wolf per year – higher than the 12 ungulates per wolf rate predicted in the ESA.

22 elk x 900 wolves = 19,800 elk per year eaten

That is based on actual elk consumption in YNP.

IMO we may never reach 900 wolves, there is a good chance herds and subsequently wolf populations will crash before WA gets to 900 wolves.

[Bob33]

Studies vary!

http://www.yellowstonepark.com/gray-wolves-impact-elk/
Kill rates by wolves in winter are 22 ungulates per wolf per year – higher than the 12 ungulates per wolf rate predicted in the ESA.

22 elk x 900 wolves = 19,800 elk per year eaten

That is based on actual elk consumption in YNP.

Not all 22 ungulates will be elk. I suspect that deer and livestock will make up a portion of their diets as well.

[Wingin it]

Wouldn't hurt if they dined on some wolf enthusiasts fluffy pets while there at it.

[Bango skank]

Studies vary!

http://www.yellowstonepark.com/gray-wolves-impact-elk/
Kill rates by wolves in winter are 22 ungulates per wolf per year – higher than the 12 ungulates per wolf rate predicted in the ESA.

22 elk x 900 wolves = 19,800 elk per year eaten

That is based on actual elk consumption in YNP.

Not all 22 ungulates will be elk. I suspect that deer and livestock will make up a portion of their diets as well.

And moose.  The profanity peak pack killed at least one moose recently that im aware of.  A bull.

[Ridgeratt]

Isn't it a fact that they only kill the sick and weak animals? I think that's what I have been told.

[Bango skank]

Isn't it a fact that they only kill the sick and weak animals? I think that's what I have been told.

       

[buglebrush]

Since Idaho started actively managing wolves, 5 per hunter and I think 3 per trapper, double cougar tags and double bear tags in many areas, wildlife is bouncing back fast in areras where wolves are being removed! All we expect is honest management in WA!

Exactly, and OTC spring bear,  bear baiting, hound hunting, etc...   Our little hunting group has personally accounted for 9 bears the last three springs.  They were all shot out of the same elk calving area.  Washington is managing for a future with no OTC hunting at all 

[buglebrush]

Isn't it a fact that they only kill the sick and weak animals? I think that's what I have been told.

You are being sarcastic.... Right?