COMMISSIONERS WANT TO KNOW IF WASHINGTON WOLF PLAN CAN BE TWEAKED

[bearpaw]

6 YEARS IN, COMMISSIONERS WANT TO KNOW IF WASHINGTON WOLF PLAN CAN BE TWEAKED

this is worth reading...

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/6-years-in-commissioners-want-to-know-if-washington-wolf-plan-can-be-tweaked/

[Special T]

I think opening it up for change is just as dangerious as the original plan. We are not in a better place to have more control over management.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[banishd]

The commissioners said that they do not know if they will ever meet objectives based on the original plan but they think we have seen recovery already. Recovery just doesnt fit with how they guessed it would look like. Now that they have a lot more info on where the wolves are dispersing to, you think it is dangerous to let them use real world information to make more informed decisions?

[bearpaw]

The commissioners said that they do not know if they will ever meet objectives based on the original plan but they think we have seen recovery already. Recovery just doesnt fit with how they guessed it would look like. Now that they have a lot more info on where the wolves are dispersing to, you think it is dangerous to let them use real world information to make more informed decisions?

Wolves are not dispersing to the southwest, we need changes in the plan!

[banishd]

Heres what  I read:

"Southeast Washington will be sooner or later full up on their quota of wolf packs.”

“We’re there,” Commissioner Jay Holzmiller of Anatone interrupted him briefly to say

[banishd]

Ok, yes southwest. But isnt the idea here to get to the place where we have more management options where they are well established already? I dont know if we will get to that point without changes. 

[bearpaw]

Ok, yes southwest. But isnt the idea here to get to the place where we have more management options where they are well established already? I dont know if we will get to that point without changes. 

Bingo...

 

I dont know if we will get to that point without changes.

[Special T]

The commissioners said that they do not know if they will ever meet objectives based on the original plan but they think we have seen recovery already. Recovery just doesnt fit with how they guessed it would look like. Now that they have a lot more info on where the wolves are dispersing to, you think it is dangerous to let them use real world information to make more informed decisions?

First off Commisioners only make recommendations. We know this because when they made the recommendation of liberlizing cougar quotas a few years ago the governor vetoed it.

If you read the article it hints that what they really want is to transplant wolves across the state to "accommodate" the plan. Considering the 2 folks that suggest this in the article I doubt there will be much meaningful change in the management.

What would you consider a best/worst case senerio for an altering of the plan?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[banishd]

Best case they come to their senses and let areas with successfully established populations actively manage them. Worst case, western washington gets to find out what it is like having wolves a little bit sooner than its taking now and still may never be able to do anything about them. What other options are there other than waiting it out at this point?

[Special T]

I just asked because I don't know it all. Just curious if there was an up side, and I wasn't convinced by your statement that there was one.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[ghosthunter]

I say let them transplant to concrete to control their elk damage and watch the fireworks begin.

[bearpaw]

The commissioners said that they do not know if they will ever meet objectives based on the original plan but they think we have seen recovery already. Recovery just doesnt fit with how they guessed it would look like. Now that they have a lot more info on where the wolves are dispersing to, you think it is dangerous to let them use real world information to make more informed decisions?

First off Commisioners only make recommendations. We know this because when they made the recommendation of liberlizing cougar quotas a few years ago the governor vetoed it.

If you read the article it hints that what they really want is to transplant wolves across the state to "accommodate" the plan. Considering the 2 folks that suggest this in the article I doubt there will be much meaningful change in the management.

What would you consider a best/worst case senerio for an altering of the plan?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

What I got out of the comments is that they might also consider changing the three recovery areas or the requirements for each area. The best scenario would be to recognize that we have more than the required breeding pairs for the state as a whole and scrap the three individual area requirements, that's not required by the feds anyway.

[Boss .300 winmag]

I say let them transplant to concrete to control their elk damage and watch the fireworks begin.

Thier already here. 

[Special T]

I say let them transplant to concrete to control their elk damage and watch the fireworks begin.

Thier already here. 

They were here almost 20 years ago...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Hunter4Life]

I think opening it up for change is just as dangerious as the original plan. We are not in a better place to have more control over management.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

You are 100% correct.  Opening up the wolf plan would require a new EIS and by the time new plan got adopted we could be 2 - 3 years down the road.  Do you want to put our fate in the hands of the Commission?  I think we would be far worse off.  You are probably better off trying to accomplish changing this legislatively and risking the governor vetoing it, but that is a super hard path.  The legislative math is this (50, 25, 1).  You need 50 house votes, 25 senate votes, and the governor to sign it.

Are the recovery zones and wolf distribution a problem?  Oh hell yeah!  Kretz's translocation bill as amended would have been a start, but again there were still problems.   In the southwestern recovery area, wolves are still federally listed. 

We have another pitfall.  Wolves are federally listed in 2/3 of the state.  The feds still had jurisdiction over the state in those areas.

All this talk just gets  us to recovery.  What is really important is what happens AFTER recovery.  What we should really talking about is a post-delisting management plan.  With 24 packs, and 14 breeding pairs we are getting close to delisting numbers.  We don't want to make the mistake of Idaho and wait until delisting before we work on a delisting plan.  We need to start working on that plan now so that it is in place when wolves reach delisting numbers.  That means mores than anything else.   A post-delisting plan has to have population maximums and control mechanisms to make sure that ungulate populations are protected and hunting opportunities are not diminished.     

[Skyvalhunter]

 A post-delisting plan has to have population maximums and control mechanisms to make sure that ungulate populations are protected and hunting opportunities are not diminished.    

will not occur

[Katmai Guy]

Would it help to put them in ONP to control the goats?

[pianoman9701]

I'm surprised to hear that Jay Kehne wants to take a look at tweaking the plan. It sounds from the quotes that he's finally coming around to seeing the damage these eaters are doing to the ranchers and their families and communities in the NE. Although I'm unsure the changes would solve more problems than they'd create, it's at least an indication that some of the commissioners may be starting to assess this realistically.

[fishwhackin]

In a perfect world where we all compromise I vision changes to the management plan to include hunting/trapping wolves beginning this fall.  This would get ahead of the overpopulation that has and will continue to ensue due to conservative (on the low side) numbers being used by the WDFW and likes to ensure a large population of wolves.  This overpopulation is obviously Eastern Washington and impacting the Northeast especially.  Hunting these wolves would not only prove that the best tool for management is hunting but also help push them into more "natural" areas away from livestock and also help maintain a stable ungulate population.  Pushing these wolves to a more natural area would also cause them to seek "safer" areas which would include Western Washington until the population is established there which should not take too long given the slow elk with the hoof rot and various pet buffet.  How do we get there?  Breeding pairs are important to the recovery population.  Can we negotiate breeding pair safety in return for hunting?  Collar the breeding pairs in a highly visible (to a human/hunter) collar and make them off limits but any wolf without a collar is fair game to the hunter/trapper until a quota is met for the year?  I even support the tag sale money going to wolf recovery if that is what it takes to get the green light to hunt/manage them ahead of schedule. I know this is all a dream but seems to be common sense in my mind at least.

[Hunter4Life]

I'm surprised to hear that Jay Kehne wants to take a look at tweaking the plan. It sounds from the quotes that he's finally coming around to seeing the damage these eaters are doing to the ranchers and their families and communities in the NE. Although I'm unsure the changes would solve more problems than they'd create, it's at least an indication that some of the commissioners may be starting to assess this realistically.

Some of the Commissioners are seeing that are problems with the wolf plan and wolves are a problem.  Very accurate post.  I think Jay Kehne is starting to see the light, or has saw the light.  Jay Holzmiller is an excellent Commissioner as is Bob Kehoe.  Some will want to and rave about Kehoe on fishing issues, but I am speaking on hunting issues only.  Don McIsaac is a very intelligent man. 

This is such a tough issue.  The NE part of Washington is being devastated by wolves.  They need relief.  We will never get this issue resolved in this state until wolves are federally delisted.

[Special T]

I'm surprised to hear that Jay Kehne wants to take a look at tweaking the plan. It sounds from the quotes that he's finally coming around to seeing the damage these eaters are doing to the ranchers and their families and communities in the NE. Although I'm unsure the changes would solve more problems than they'd create, it's at least an indication that some of the commissioners may be starting to assess this realistically.

Some of the Commissioners are seeing that are problems with the wolf plan and wolves are a problem.  Very accurate post.  I think Jay Kehne is starting to see the light, or has saw the light.  Jay Holzmiller is an excellent Commissioner as is Bob Kehoe.  Some will want to and rave about Kehoe on fishing issues, but I am speaking on hunting issues only.  Don McIsaac is a very intelligent man. 

This is such a tough issue.  The NE part of Washington is being devastated by wolves.  They need relief.  We will never get this issue resolved in this state until wolves are federally delisted.

There in lies the rub... they ARE federally delisted in the rocky mountain region which includes  E WA. The fact that the plan refused to acknowledge this potential is why there is such little trust.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[jackelope]

Sounds like Kehne may have ruffled some feathers in CNW.

[jackelope]

Would it help to put them in ONP to control the goats?

They can't catch goats.

[bearpaw]

I'm surprised to hear that Jay Kehne wants to take a look at tweaking the plan. It sounds from the quotes that he's finally coming around to seeing the damage these eaters are doing to the ranchers and their families and communities in the NE. Although I'm unsure the changes would solve more problems than they'd create, it's at least an indication that some of the commissioners may be starting to assess this realistically.

Some of the Commissioners are seeing that are problems with the wolf plan and wolves are a problem.  Very accurate post.  I think Jay Kehne is starting to see the light, or has saw the light.  Jay Holzmiller is an excellent Commissioner as is Bob Kehoe.  Some will want to and rave about Kehoe on fishing issues, but I am speaking on hunting issues only.  Don McIsaac is a very intelligent man. 

This is such a tough issue.  The NE part of Washington is being devastated by wolves.  They need relief.  We will never get this issue resolved in this state until wolves are federally delisted.

There in lies the rub... they ARE federally delisted in the rocky mountain region which includes  E WA. The fact that the plan refused to acknowledge this potential is why there is such little trust.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Yes, 1/3 of WA is delisted, there could be wolf management in NE WA if WDFW would modify their own ridiculous wolf plan.

Our moose are being absolutely devastated by wolves. My friends who used to shed hunt for moose antlers have completely quit hunting moose sheds. Areas that have been impacted hard by wolves only have about 30% of the moose that used to exist, some of my shed hunting friends think there are less moose than that.

[Ridgeratt]

Yes, 1/3 of WA is delisted, there could be wolf management in NE WA if WDFW would modify their own ridiculous wolf plan.

Our moose are being absolutely devastated by wolves. My friends who used to shed hunt for moose antlers have completely quit hunting moose sheds. Areas that have been impacted hard by wolves only have about 30% of the moose that used to exist, some of my shed hunting friends think there are less moose than that.

That makes a hard sell to the folks who would be applying for the coveted OIL moose tags.

[bearpaw]

I'm surprised to hear that Jay Kehne wants to take a look at tweaking the plan. It sounds from the quotes that he's finally coming around to seeing the damage these eaters are doing to the ranchers and their families and communities in the NE. Although I'm unsure the changes would solve more problems than they'd create, it's at least an indication that some of the commissioners may be starting to assess this realistically.

Some of the Commissioners are seeing that are problems with the wolf plan and wolves are a problem.  Very accurate post.  I think Jay Kehne is starting to see the light, or has saw the light.  Jay Holzmiller is an excellent Commissioner as is Bob Kehoe.  Some will want to and rave about Kehoe on fishing issues, but I am speaking on hunting issues only.  Don McIsaac is a very intelligent man. 

This is such a tough issue.  The NE part of Washington is being devastated by wolves.  They need relief.  We will never get this issue resolved in this state until wolves are federally delisted.

There in lies the rub... they ARE federally delisted in the rocky mountain region which includes  E WA. The fact that the plan refused to acknowledge this potential is why there is such little trust.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Yes, 1/3 of WA is delisted, there could be wolf management in NE WA if WDFW would modify their own ridiculous wolf plan.

Our moose are being absolutely devastated by wolves. My friends who used to shed hunt for moose antlers have completely quit hunting moose sheds. Areas that have been impacted hard by wolves only have about 30% of the moose that used to exist, some of my shed hunting friends think there are less moose than that.

That makes a hard sell to the folks who would be applying for the coveted OIL moose tags.

  It really sucks, many people have invested more than 20 years of applications into hopefully moose hunting in WA, now when they finally draw in several units they will find out that the good old days of moose hunting and seeing 10 to 20 moose a day in NE WA have passed, very sad deal! I just heard from another tag holder this last fall who hunted most of the season and only saw three moose, no calves. We also saw very few calves when we hunted moose in WA last fall.

[Ridgeratt]

Gives some explanation to the proposed reduction of antlerless tags and the "almost" elimination of the youth hunts.

[Hunter4Life]

Sounds like Kehne may have ruffled some feathers in CNW.

You said it Jackelope!  I truly believed he has.

[Humptulips]

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.

[Skyvalhunter]

How far do you want to get in that rathole?

[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.