HB 1872 Would Delist Wolves in Four WA Counties

[bigtex]

HB 1872 sponsored by Representatives Kretz, Blake, and Short would delist wolves in Okanogan, Ferry, Stevens, and Pend Orielle Counties. It would prevent WDFW from listing wolves as endangered, threatened, or sensitive species in those counties. It would have no effect in all other counties.

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1872.pdf

[Special T]

Doubt this will go anywhere but it sends a clear signal that those reps want to do something and are being hosed by the rest of the state.

[bigtex]

Doubt this will go anywhere

It won't. It'll get a hearing and vote in committee but that is probably it. 

[dreamunelk]

Hopefully this is a symbolic gesture.  What could potentially happen is the door will be opened for full federal management.  That would be bad news for everyone but the wolf huggers.
Careful what you ask for!

[timberfaller]

Just the simple fact that Kertz and Short have their names attached, is good enough for me!!

Won't go anywhere though,  look no further then I-594 and who controls the State!!!  West side liberals and lazy voters!

[KFhunter]

WDFW still sets the hunting rules, what effect would this have?

[headshot5]

I'm not sure what affect it will have, but I'm sure it would help to force WDFW hand for owners being able to protect livestock.  Less hoops to jump through if you kill a wolf attacking your cows etc in these counties.      

[jackelope]

I'm not sure what affect it will have, but I'm sure it would help to force WDFW hand for owners being able to protect livestock.  Less hoops to jump through if you kill a wolf attacking your cows etc in these counties.      

It is currently legal to shoot a wolf endangering livestock or pets.

I support it. Unfortunately it won't go anywhere.

[Curly]

A lot smaller punishment for someone caught shooting a wolf would be the result.

[bearpaw]

Westside legislators won't let it go anywhere, but it's good to see our legislators trying! 

[DOUBLELUNG]

I could see it maybe passing if it excluded the portion of Okanogan County where wolves are ESA listed.  They could be reclassified as big game outside of the western third of the state where they are still federally listed.  There would be management advantages over the long term by reclassification as big game with a closed season currently that would not conflict with implementing the wolf management plan.  It would be the same status as pronghorn - big game species with no open season.  I hope to see a compromise bill that would do that, I think that a bill that conflicts in western Okanogan County with the ESA doesn't stand a chance.   

[Special T]

You likely would know, but what would management  allow by changing status? Is it just one step to eventually shooting them?

[Magnum_Willys]

3 No's ?   Uh 3 people havent had their coffee and hit wrong button selection by mistake ? or am I missing something ?

[SuperX]

the wolf issue is federal, there isn't anything a state can do to open harvest of wolves above their target populations.  Minnesota had a wolf season for 2-3 years after they hit their numbers, and the feds shut it down when they re-listed wolves.  Lots of lawsuits in MN, which cost the state millions I'm sure.

[bearpaw]

the wolf issue is federal, there isn't anything a state can do to open harvest of wolves above their target populations.  Minnesota had a wolf season for 2-3 years after they hit their numbers, and the feds shut it down when they re-listed wolves.  Lots of lawsuits in MN, which cost the state millions I'm sure.

The feds delisted the eastern 1/3 of WA several years ago, it's the state of WA that still has the eastern 1/3 listed. The line of federal delisting is what DOUBLELUNG was referring to.

[Special T]

Feds delisted in the eastern part of the state. In the NE it's a state issue not federal.

[jackelope]

the wolf issue is federal, there isn't anything a state can do to open harvest of wolves above their target populations.  Minnesota had a wolf season for 2-3 years after they hit their numbers, and the feds shut it down when they re-listed wolves.  Lots of lawsuits in MN, which cost the state millions I'm sure.

There is something a state can do once they're federally delisted. In this state though, we have a ridiculous, seemingly unachievable wolf plan population goal we have to meet first.

[SuperX]

I'm sure state de-listing is trumped by federal listing.  That's what happened in MN when they kept hunting & trapping wolves after they were de-listed in 2012.  If WA state de-lists wolves and starts to manage them via hunting and/or trapping, the feds would start getting sued to re-list.  Most of the time the lawsuits are too expensive to fight, and so I believe they would be back on the ES list for our state too.  No telling if wolf listing on ES will survive the next 4 years of deregulation, I hope not, but even if de-listed, I fear the lawsuits will overwhelm state's financial ability to fight to re-instate a hunting season for wolves.

FWIW, there are way more wolves in MN than washington, having been re-introduced there (and protected) for 40+ years



Judge returns Great Lakes wolves to endangered species list
By Virginia MorellDec. 22, 2014 , 4:00 PM
Gray wolves in the western Great Lakes region are once again protected by the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), following a federal court ruling. The decision ends wolf hunting and trapping in Minnesota and Wisconsin. In Michigan, which does not allow wolf hunting, voters recently rejected an effort to establish a wolf season.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) removed federal protections for the wolves (Canis lupus) in 2012. The agency concluded that the canids had fully recovered from near-extinction and turned their management over to the three states’ wildlife departments. But in her 19 December ruling, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell called the decision “arbitrary and capricious.”

At the time of the wolves’ delisting, federal wildlife biologists estimated the animals’ population in the region at 4400. That number dropped to 3748 this year as a result of hunting and trapping, and state plans called for an even greater decline. For instance, Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources was aiming for a statewide wolf population of just 350 animals (from a high of 800).


In response, the Humane Society of the United States, representing a coalition of animal rights and conservation organizations, filed suit against the U.S. Department of the Interior in 2013. They argued that the decision to remove federal protections was premature and threatened the wolves’ survival.

Howell agreed, finding that FWS had incorrectly interpreted the ESA by not assessing the species as a whole. The agency’s delisting decision was “fatally flawed,” she wrote, because it was tied to “a scientific finding that turned out to be, at best, premature, or, at worst, erroneous.”

FWS spokesman Gavin Shire disagreed, saying that the “science clearly shows that wolves are recovered in the Great Lakes Region, and we believe the Great Lakes states have clearly demonstrated their ability to effectively manage their wolf populations.” FWS has not yet decided if it will appeal the ruling.

[DOUBLELUNG]

You likely would know, but what would management  allow by changing status? Is it just one step to eventually shooting them?

It would make response to damage a much more flexible situation, for example allowing the Dept to issue depredation and kill permits as a fast response, create "wolf areas" to target problem packs through use of a draw system or master hunters.  Same options they have now for deer, elk, bear, cougar conflicts.  And, it wouldn't require spending six figures on helicopter time and government agents to remove individual problem packs.

[jackelope]

3 No's ?   Uh 3 people havent had their coffee and hit wrong button selection by mistake ? or am I missing something ?

Up to 5.

[buckcanyonlodge]

Trolls are among us ..at least five of them

[Jerky]

I think conceptually this is a great idea, but I do not support the bill as written as it undermines the authority of the division director with respect to a single species.  I would rather see the State revise the management plan based on new information regarding distribution and establishment of new populations, or lack thereof, in the Southern Cascades region.  I believe this behavior is currently regarded as adaptive management.  There is a reason no wolves have shown up there yet - lack of suitable habitat or lack of migration corridors to access that habitat may be primary reasons.  To wait for them to arrive and establish, which they may not ever do, while other areas of WA far exceed management goals does not appear to be wise economically, politically, or even ecologically.

I continually find it interesting some of you reject all that disagree with your opinion and then resort to name calling in a public forum which by definition is designed to provide a venue for such dialogue.   

[jasnt]

I'm not sure what affect it will have, but I'm sure it would help to force WDFW hand for owners being able to protect livestock.  Less hoops to jump through if you kill a wolf attacking your cows etc in these counties.      

we know exactly what effect it will have. It means wa is in for a whole lot of lawsuits from hsus and dow.

[garrett89]

Yes, and they need to manage said wolves to not cross into other counties. The numbers in wolves should not increase extravagantly like they already allowed.