Colville Wolf Management Meeting

[Aneoakleaf]

AND Hear breafings on Wolf management

July 27, 2009
Contact: Susan Yeager, (360) 902-2267

Commission to set waterfowl hunting rules; hear comments on director search Aug. 6-8 in Colville

OLYMPIA - The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission will accept public testimony and take action on waterfowl-hunting rules, take public comments on the search for a new director for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and hear briefings on wolf management and other topics at a meeting Aug. 6-8 in Colville. The commission, a nine-member board appointed by the governor, sets policy for WDFW.

The meeting begins at 2 p.m., Aug. 6, at the NE Washington Fairgrounds, Ag/Trade Center, 317 W. Astor St. in Colville, where commissioners will discuss the search for a new WDFW director with state Department of Personnel staff and take public input on that process. An executive session is scheduled for the rest of the afternoon, followed by a no-host buffet dinner at 6 p.m. The dinner is open to the public, but no public input will be taken.

The meeting continues at 8:30 a.m., Aug. 7, at the Sheriff's Ambulance Training Center, 425 North Highway 395 in Colville, with briefings by WDFW staff on 2010 supplemental budget proposals, current status of wolf conservation and management, department legislative proposals for 2010 and the status of WDFW lands management and public-conduct rules.

The commission will discuss local fish and wildlife issues with elected officials, hear a briefing and public testimony on rules that implement legislative changes to the Master Hunter permit program, hear public comments, and discuss and act on 2009-10 waterfowl hunting rule proposals during the afternoon.

The meeting is scheduled to re-convene at 8:30 a.m., Aug. 8, for additional briefings, including a report by the Colville Confederated Tribes on the results of a fishing gear use survey, Commission committee reports, and open public input on any fish and wildlife topic.

For the complete agenda, see http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2009/08/agenda_aug0609.html . 

[bearpaw]

There is a public comment period during the morning of Aug 7. I hope to see some of you there. You all need to send letters, supporting the "Minority Recommendation".

Read the current draft plan which does not even include hunting for eventual management.

Then I suggest you read the "Minority Recommendation" on pages 246-247. This was presented by the minority portion of the wolf working group. Had the WDFW not stacked the group with pro-wolfers, pages 246-247 would like be more what the draft plan might look.

Here is a link to the Draft Plan as it currently stands:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/gray_wolf/rev_wolfplan_cleanaug0309.pdf

Minority Position, Pages 246-247 (reads as follows in the draft plan)

May 27, 2008
The following represents a minority position held by the following members of the Wolf Working Group (WWG) Jack Field, Duane Cocking, Tommy Petrie, Daryl Asmussen, Jeff Dawson and Ken Oliver (We) on one critical component of the Wolf Working Group Plan; the number of Breeding Pairs (BP) of wolves that the state can support. We are “unable to live with” the proposed numbers in the WWG Draft Plan. We believe the numbers are too high and will result in direct conflict with the Livestock and Sportsman Communities.

Currently the plan calls for 6 BP’s to down list to Threatened, 12 BP’s to down list to State Sensitive and at least 15 BP’s for 3 years before they can be considered for limited hunting( p. 41 WWG draft). During this time period wolf populations could increase 24% per year (Bangs, conversation). Plus at the end of the 3 year time period, there is a very definite probability of one or more lawsuits as is now occurring after the Federal delisting of wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) area. It is estimated that it will take a minimum of 18 months for these challenges to work their way through the court system.

This same scenario will probably occur in this state. Consequently we could be looking at as many as 28 to 35 BP’s before control measures could be taken to control their growth. All of this in a state with Washington’s Population of 6,490,000 people and a population density of 97.5 people/ sq mi (WWG Draft Plan). This is 5 to 6 times the human population density of the 3 principle states in the NRM area, MT, ID, and WY. (WA, WY, ID, and MT state web sites). According to the Federal Register, Feb. 8, 2007, Vol.72, number 26, this state has only 297 square miles of suitable wolf habitat in the eastern third of the state (p.6117 Federal Register). It should be noted that this same source shows the following amounts of suitable habitat in each of the states comprising the NRM are, MT. 40924 sq. mi., WY. 29808 sq. mi., ID. 31,586 sq. mi., OR. 2556 sq. mi. and, UT. 1635 sq. mi. This same report indicates that if the 3 major states (ID, MT, and WY) can support 10 BP’s for 3 years that the species can be considered to be fully recovered and can be considered for delisting (p.6107 Federal Register). That criteria was met in 2002 (p. 6111 Federal Register).

The amount of suitable wolf habitat in the remaining two thirds of the state as depicted in the “Application of habitat models to wolf recovery planning in WA” by Carroll indicates scattered habitat in small isolated areas of the Okanogan, larger amounts of marginal habitat both North and South of Mt. Rainier, and a large area of habitat in and around the Olympic National Park, an area that strongly opposed wolf reintroduction several years ago.

Therefore we feel that the WWG’s desired number of BP’s is unrealistic given the lack of suitable habitat and the much higher human population density of this state and that the requirement of 15 BP’s for 3 years (50% Higher that the USFW criteria for recovery in WY, MT, and ID,) defies common sense. This is further compounded by a recent recommendation from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game Commissioners to set the limit for a wolf hunt at 2005 levels which could mean 500 wolves could be killed this year. Idaho Fish and Game biologists estimate there are
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT August 3, 2009
Appendix J 247 Washington Dept of Fish & Wildlife
currently about 750 wolves in the state, but after the breeding season this spring they expect more than 1,000. The commissioners on the higher figures because they did not believe that hunting would bring the wolf population numbers down to the levels they wanted to see.

We therefore propose the following numbers of BP’s statewide: 3 BP’s to down list to Threatened, 6 BP’s to down list to State Sensitive, and 8 BP’s to change to a Big Game Animal. And we would eliminate the 3 year period since the state was not considered essential for recovery of wolves in the NRM (p.6119 Federal Register). This total number of 8 BP’s or approximately 80 wolves would fit in the states economic analysis as outlined in Chapter 14, “Economics” which states “Wolf numbers between 50 and 100 animals should pose little detriment to the states livestock industry as a whole…As wolf populations become larger and more widely distributed, financial impacts are likely to accrue to more producers” (p.126). “Populations of 50 to 100 wolves should not have negative effects on big game hunting in Washington” (p.139).

The advantages of going with a lower number of BP’s are: the sooner wolves can be removed from endangered and threatened status, the more tools stockmen and rural residents will have at their disposal to deal with problem wolves. The sooner we can get wolves de-listed, the sooner our Fish and Wildlife Department can begin to manage them, until then their hands are tied.

The sooner we can get them listed as a Big Game Species, the sooner our Fish and Wildlife can turn them from a liability into an asset through the sale of raffle tags, permits, and Governors Tags.

We believe that these numbers are far too high and do not accurately represent the concerns that the livestock production community has with wolves. The livestock community has preferred zero wolves from the beginning however, due to ESA and WDFW requirements zero is not an option. We support the Minority Opinion Numbers of 3 breeding pairs to downlist to threatened, 6 breeding pairs to downlist to sensitive, and 8 breeding pairs to delist from sensitive and managed as a Big Game Species. The higher numbers that the WWG Draft Plan includes will result in far more individual wolves than Washington has habitat to support thus causing a severe negative impact on private landowners and livestock producers. Livestock producers must be able to protect their property regardless of the wolf’s status. We are also concerned that the WDFW has not effectively demonstrated its ability to secure long-term funds that will be a requirement in Management and Compensation. Without funding there is NO Support of any plan!!

The remainder of the WWG plan is acceptable to the supporters of the minority position.

Jack Field
Duane Cocking
Ken Oliver
Daryl Asmussen
Jeff Dawson
Tommy Petrie

[bearmanric]

 dont need more. going to stay out of all this political stuff gets worse every day. Rick

[wolfbait]

If we all support the "Minority Recommendation" hopefully it will be implemented, if it isn't we will be in a world of no hunting before long, that is till we can hunt wolves. I have read that washington might have more wolves than Moatana has right now. The powers that be are going to play the game that we are just now starting wolf recovery. Can any of you imagine what 15 bp's for 3 years will do to our game? Wonder what hunting will be like with say 1500 wolves working on the deer and elk herds, or how long it will take to finish them off. The minority recomendation is the only hope we really have at this time for earlly management.

[mulehunter]

If we all support the "Minority Recommendation" hopefully it will be implemented, if it isn't we will be in a world of no hunting before long, that is till we can hunt wolves. I have read that washington might have more wolves than Moatana has right now. The powers that be are going to play the game that we are just now starting wolf recovery. Can any of you imagine what 15 bp's for 3 years will do to our game? Wonder what hunting will be like with say 1500 wolves working on the deer and elk herds, or how long it will take to finish them off. The minority recomendation is the only hope we really have at this time for earlly management.

EXACTLY! Its OUR CHANCE!


Rick, I know how u feel because u know it already that THEY WONT MANAGE IT and wont listen to us even just like IDAHO, Mt for YEARS YEARS! Washington just already passed ONE YEAR! Probablly will start to Manage it with in 8 years later? I hope not! It will be UGLY!

Mulehunter 

[mulehunter]

Hey Bearpaw, How is meeting today? I am very anxious to hear about it.  I totally wish I could come up to the meeting! 


Mulehunter   

[bearpaw]

I am going to post meeting info on different threads.