Seattle Times - Opinion Stiffer penalties needed for poaching wolves

[JDHasty]

http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/stiffer-penalties-needed-for-poaching-wolves/



In order to meet wolf-recovery goals agreed upon under the Washington Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (Wolf Plan), and for the long term viability of the species in our state, it’s important that wolves recolonize the high-quality habitat in the Olympic Peninsula and Washington’s South Cascades.

How about we also include Greenlake Park? 

[bigtex]

"Our state’s elected leaders, justice system and the Department of Fish and Wildlife should implement stiffer penalties and increased enforcement to safeguard the comeback of Washington’s wolves."

Several years go as part of a larger wolf bill WDFW asked the legislature to include wolves in the criminal wildlife penalty assessment which is the mandatory civil fine for the illegal take of big game animals, some protected birds, wild salmon/steelhead, and sturgeon. The legislature did not pass the bill.

[WAPatriot]

Seattle times and Wdfw = anti hunting liberal organizations

[pianoman9701]

Me

"Your organization is looking for a solution without a problem and you knew it when you wrote this misinformation hack piece. The penalties for poaching a wolf are very strict. There is no evidence that wolf poaching is a rampant problem in the N. Cascades. The problem  is that the outrageous wolf plan, with your organization's help, was purposely designed to take a very long time to meet delisting criteria, if at all. The geographical requirements in at least two areas will be all but impossible to meet. This was done by design by CNW, the DOW, Cascadia Wildlands, and other so-called environmental groups in hopes that these eaters would never be delisted. Now that your plan is working, you're creating a non-existing problem and stirring up trouble among people who don't know any better and are uneducated about what has actually happened in wolf recovery. Could you be any more disingenuous? Likely, you'll find a way."

[idahohuntr]

  For an opinion piece in the Seattle Times - I expected much worse.  Several reasonable statements that acknowledge multiple user groups, distinguishes poachers from hunters, support for monitoring impacts of predation, and the author self-identifies as a hunter.  Not saying I agree with everything he says by any means...but this is not some inflammatory rhetoric from eco-Nazis either.  This is an effective way to communicate on controversial topics 

It doesn’t matter whether it’s a bull elk or a wolf, poaching is never acceptable.

We know that some are looking forward to the day when wolf-recovery goals are met and more flexible wolf management is allowed. Illegal poaching does nothing but delay that day and cast a shadow on the otherwise responsible hunting and ranching communities.

Various stakeholders are supporting research by our state’s universities to monitor the impact of the wolf’s return on deer, elk and other ungulate populations — animals cherished by wildlife watchers and hunters alike, myself included.

[pianoman9701]

Yeah right. First of all, it's a one-sided article written by a pro-wolfer about a problem which doesn't even exist. He talks about a couple of poaching incidents and then speculates the reasons for the slow growth of the wolf packs in the N. Cascades is poaching. He says one poaching incident is "unprosecuted". How are stiffer penalties going to change that? Could it be that hydatid disease or maybe echinococcus granulosus that's keeping their numbers low? Maybe some other disease that the USFWS ignored when they allowed them to fan out from the GYA. Or could it be that wolves are reproducing at a healthy rate, a rate predetermined by the scientists who designed the recovery from the start? There's not a bit of evidence that either shows their so-called slow pack growth is due any more to poaching than anything else, or that there's a problem with the population growth at all. It quite obvious to anyone who knows how to look at a map that the areas of fastest pack growth are also areas where poaching would be a greater issue (were it an issue at all) - the NE section of the state, where there are more people and more public land open to grazing. But there has been very little poaching in that area over the almost decade since they started moving in over there.

[trophyhunt]

I think you should get 10 bonus points for killing a wolf in Washington!! 

[mfswallace]

Yeah right. First of all, it's a one-sided article written by a pro-wolfer about a problem which doesn't even exist. He talks about a couple of poaching incidents and then speculates the reasons for the slow growth of the wolf packs in the N. Cascades is poaching. He says one poaching incident is "unprosecuted". How are stiffer penalties going to change that? Could it be that hydatid disease or maybe echinococcus granulosus that's keeping their numbers low? Maybe some other disease that the USFWS ignored when they allowed them to fan out from the GYA. Or could it be that wolves are reproducing at a healthy rate, a rate predetermined by the scientists who designed the recovery from the start? There's not a bit of evidence that either shows their so-called slow pack growth is due any more to poaching than anything else, or that there's a problem with the population growth at all. It quite obvious to anyone who knows how to look at a map that the areas of fastest pack growth are also areas where poaching would be a greater issue (were it an issue at all) - the NE section of the state, where there are more people and more public land open to grazing. But there has been very little poaching in that area over the almost decade since they started moving in over there.

What else would u expect from a recent induction to the leftist biologists club, it doesn't matter what anyone says, idonthunter would find the best way to paint it as no big deal to ungulates or hunters....

[Buzz2401]

I like how he even states in his article that like 5 wolves in as many years have been poached yet it is a "huge problem and needs to be addressed.    Dumb article from a biased media source. 

[Duckslayer89]

What is the current penalty even?

[huntnphool]

Various stakeholders are supporting research by our state’s universities to monitor the impact of the wolf’s return

 The same researchers supporting our "increased cougar encounters is direct impact of over harvesting" cougar plan?

 "To reduce encounters, increase their numbers"

 No thanks, I'll be happy to see them NEVER reach the 15BP threshold.

[pianoman9701]

Legal Status

Status of the Gray Wolf in Washington Under Federal Law

The gray wolf is federally listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the western two-thirds of Washington. Within this area, it is fully protected by the ESA, which is administered and enforced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). On May 5, 2011, wolves were federally delisted in the eastern one-third of Washington (east of State Route 97 from the Canadian border to Highway 17, east of Highway 17 to State Route 395, and east of State Route 395 to the Oregon border). This means that the USFWS has the lead responsibility for wolf management in the western two-thirds of Washington.

For species listed under the federal ESA, activities that may result in “take” of endangered species are generally prohibited. The definition of “take” includes to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Penalties for violations of the ESA include fines of up to $100,000, with a maximum prison term of one year in jail.

For more information see: US Fish and Wildlife 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation - Lower 48-State and Mexico Gray wolf (Canis lupus), February 2012.

Status of the Gray Wolf Under Washington State Law

The gray wolf was listed as endangered by the State of Washington (WAC 232.12.014) in 1980 and receives protection under state law (RCW 77.15.120) from hunting, possession, malicious harassment, and killing. It was listed because of its historical occurrence in the state, near elimination from the state, and existing status as endangered under the federal ESA. State law specifies that when species are federally listed, the WDFW will recommend that they be added to the state’s list. Penalties for illegally killing a state endangered species range up to $5,000 and/or one year in jail. Because wolves have been federally delisted in the eastern one-third of Washington, WDFW has management authority over the species in this part of the state.

Wolf-dog hybrids have no federal or state legal status.

[Bob33]

During the 2008 presidential campaign, the Seattle Times editorial staff published comments about Sarah Palin that were so outrageous, inflammatory, derogatory, and offensive that my wife and I cancelled our subscription and made a pledge to never again give a penny to the Seattle Times. We’ve lived up to that, even though there are many articles in the paper we’d prefer to read like the sports section which isn’t generally political.

[Jason]

I think you should get 10 bonus points for killing a wolf in Washington!!

[villageidiot]

So if a dad kills a child molester for molesting his kid, is he listed as a murderer?  Many of these so called poached wolves were killed to protect ranchers livestock and humans.  Do we still call them poachers?  Not in my circle.  The first wolves killed by ranchers in the Lookout pack were killing their cattle and a dog.  They then started crossing the mile long driveway every night his grandkids walked to school every day.  The rancher told federal biologists three times he had wolves and they shrugged him off as a kook.  Yet he was classed as a poacher and the newspapers would never print his story.  A poacher would be someone killing an animal for no apparent reason. Many doubts are raised on what these green wolf lover groups are calling poached.