COMMISSIONERS WANT TO KNOW IF WASHINGTON WOLF PLAN CAN BE TWEAKED

[Special T]

Forgive me if I don't see an upside. I read the Commissioners as buying into relocating wolves to the west side.
So that route we toss what little hunting we have in the Western 2/3rds down the rathole so we can maybe get delisting in what? 5 years if we are lucky? Then we fight for some kind of a harvest plan in the Eastern 1/3rd with tools it is proven won't reduce the wolf population.
Still seems like a race to the bottom.

I'm with you on this. I only see twerking of the plan not some kind of fundamental change to reflect reality.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[bearpaw]

I realize it's a tough issue and I completely understand west side hunters not wanting wolves, they will find and devastate some of your best hunting. The current plan literally pits us against each other, in order for wolves to be managed in NE WA  wolves must exist in all three current wolf zones. While hunters on the west side are doing everything they can to keep wolves out, people in E WA are doing everything they can to get wolves managed in E WA.

If boundaries were rewritten to make delisting easier without transplanting wolves that would be the best scenario for all of us. If that happened and Washington's delisting goals are met then it's more likely the feds will delist all of Washington.

Without some type of change in the current situation you will continue to see E WA do what we have to do to get wolf management relief. I'm pretty sure there is already a stipulation in the current wolf plan to transplant wolves, so that's not something new to be added, it's already in the current plan. It seems to me the best option is to look at changing the wolf plan requirements for each area. Yes no doubt there is a risk of something new, but the stipulation is already in the current plan to transplant wolves!

[pianoman9701]

Forgive me if I don't see an upside. I read the Commissioners as buying into relocating wolves to the west side.
So that route we toss what little hunting we have in the Western 2/3rds down the rathole so we can maybe get delisting in what? 5 years if we are lucky? Then we fight for some kind of a harvest plan in the Eastern 1/3rd with tools it is proven won't reduce the wolf population.
Still seems like a race to the bottom.

The study into relocation is a legislative mandate. They have no choice but to "buy into it". Do you think the wolf plan could get any worse than it already is? At this point with the way it's written, we'll never reach management goals. At least they all recognize (-1), that the eaters are doing real damage to the residents, livestock, and wildlife of the NE corner. That's a first, so far. 

[Humptulips]

I realize it's a tough issue and I completely understand west side hunters not wanting wolves, they will find and devastate some of your best hunting. The current plan literally pits us against each other, in order for wolves to be managed in NE WA  wolves must exist in all three current wolf zones. While hunters on the west side are doing everything they can to keep wolves out, people in E WA are doing everything they can to get wolves managed in E WA.

If boundaries were rewritten to make delisting easier without transplanting wolves that would be the best scenario for all of us. If that happened and Washington's delisting goals are met then it's more likely the feds will delist all of Washington.

Without some type of change in the current situation you will continue to see E WA do what we have to do to get wolf management relief. I'm pretty sure there is already a stipulation in the current wolf plan to transplant wolves, so that's not something new to be added, it's already in the current plan. It seems to me the best option is to look at changing the wolf plan requirements for each area. Yes no doubt there is a risk of something new, but the stipulation is already in the current plan to transplant wolves!

Dale,
Read the link in the thread I posted about why wolves will never be federally delisted in W WA. It makes it pretty clear the Appeals Court ruling makes it impossible to federally delist wolves anywhere. No matter how many everyone's hands are tied on management.
IMO the best thing is to put off  having wolves on this side for as long as possible. Either way everybody is screwed, just a matter of when.

[bearpaw]

I realize it's a tough issue and I completely understand west side hunters not wanting wolves, they will find and devastate some of your best hunting. The current plan literally pits us against each other, in order for wolves to be managed in NE WA  wolves must exist in all three current wolf zones. While hunters on the west side are doing everything they can to keep wolves out, people in E WA are doing everything they can to get wolves managed in E WA.

If boundaries were rewritten to make delisting easier without transplanting wolves that would be the best scenario for all of us. If that happened and Washington's delisting goals are met then it's more likely the feds will delist all of Washington.

Without some type of change in the current situation you will continue to see E WA do what we have to do to get wolf management relief. I'm pretty sure there is already a stipulation in the current wolf plan to transplant wolves, so that's not something new to be added, it's already in the current plan. It seems to me the best option is to look at changing the wolf plan requirements for each area. Yes no doubt there is a risk of something new, but the stipulation is already in the current plan to transplant wolves!

Dale,
Read the link in the thread I posted about why wolves will never be federally delisted in W WA. It makes it pretty clear the Appeals Court ruling makes it impossible to federally delist wolves anywhere. No matter how many everyone's hands are tied on management.
IMO the best thing is to put off  having wolves on this side for as long as possible. Either way everybody is screwed, just a matter of when.

Thanks, I had not seen that, it certainly complicates the issue further. Please try to understand that we need wolves delisted in the NE so we can do something here to manage wolves. Since we are stuck with this growing wolf population we have to do something, doing nothing would be worse. This court ruling makes even a stronger case for changing the states three recovery areas (wolf plan) so that recovery goals can be met. Perhaps you won't even have to get wolves on the peninsula if we can change the plan. As the court ruling seems to indicate, western WA is probably not going to see delisting unless congress does it. If the state delists which could happen sooner if the wolf plan was revised to allow that to happen, at least the eastern 1/3 where most wolves are located could be managed since it's already federally delisted. I would say the best option for western and eastern WA is to revise the wolf plan so wolves don't have to inhabit as many areas before management can begin in any part of the state.

[Skyvalhunter]

I am at a memory loss here perhaps one of you fine gentlemen refresh my memory. Was it the USFW that determined for us the number of wolf packs and distribution that we so eloquently be bestowed upon us before(if ever) delisting her in Wa will occur? What is to say we won't be in the same predicament as WI where it seems delisting will never occur?

[Dan-o]

Why is that?

[bearpaw]

I am at a memory loss here perhaps one of you fine gentlemen refresh my memory. Was it the USFW that determined for us the number of wolf packs and distribution that we so eloquently be bestowed upon us before(if ever) delisting her in Wa will occur? What is to say we won't be in the same predicament as WI where it seems delisting will never occur?

I don't think the feds mandated a number for WA or OR, just that we had to have an approved plan. ID/MT/WY have to have 15 bp's.

[pianoman9701]

I am at a memory loss here perhaps one of you fine gentlemen refresh my memory. Was it the USFW that determined for us the number of wolf packs and distribution that we so eloquently be bestowed upon us before(if ever) delisting her in Wa will occur? What is to say we won't be in the same predicament as WI where it seems delisting will never occur?

I don't think the feds mandated a number for WA or OR, just that we had to have an approved plan. ID/MT/WY have to have 15 bp's.

I believe we outlined our own plan and it was accepted by the USFWS. Also Bearpaw, I believe MT's plan called for 10 BPs. One of my arguments against the WA wolf plan was that with just about half the land and 8 times MT's population, WA's wolf plan called for 50% more BPs - ridiculous.

[Humptulips]

Why is that?

http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2014/12/TheGreatLakesWolfDec.htm

[bearpaw]

I am at a memory loss here perhaps one of you fine gentlemen refresh my memory. Was it the USFW that determined for us the number of wolf packs and distribution that we so eloquently be bestowed upon us before(if ever) delisting her in Wa will occur? What is to say we won't be in the same predicament as WI where it seems delisting will never occur?

I don't think the feds mandated a number for WA or OR, just that we had to have an approved plan. ID/MT/WY have to have 15 bp's.

I believe we outlined our own plan and it was accepted by the USFWS. Also Bearpaw, I believe MT's plan called for 10 BPs. One of my arguments against the WA wolf plan was that with just about half the land and 8 times MT's population, WA's wolf plan called for 50% more BPs - ridiculous.

I'm pretty sure that originally the NRM states had to have 10 bp's each, then the USFWS upted it to 15 bp's, but you might be right. OR and WA had no set requirement, in fact OR has met their plan and are working on delisting with the 6 or 8 bp's as designated in their plan. There was no reason we had to have so many wolves in WA except that's what WDFW wanted.

[Dan-o]

Why is that?

http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2014/12/TheGreatLakesWolfDec.htm

Good read.   Thank you.