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.