WA Wolf Plan Poll

[bearpaw]

The current draft plan for wolf management.  
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/gray_wolf/rev_wolfplan_cleanaug0309.pd

Reading this plan raises some questions!

Does WDFW have a biologist with wolf experience in another state working on this plan?
Why did the wolf working group not include a county commissioner from affected counties?
Why does the plan designate high numbers of wolves in a highly populated state?
Why doesn’t the plan specify Wolf-Free zones in populated rural and suburban areas?
Why doesn't the plan allow management of wolves by GMU?
Why doesn't the plan designate for wolves to be managed as “Big Game” after delisting?
Why doesn't the plan list "Hunting" as the eventual management tool?
What will be the State's cost for management without hunting?
Why is "Defenders of Wildlife" so closely involved in the wolf plan?
Why is the WDFW distributing "Defenders of Wildlife" materials on their website?
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/gray_wolf/livestock_wolves08.pdf

I suggest you visit "Defenders of Wildlife" website: http://www.defenders.org/  

Then I suggest you read the "Minority Recommendation" from pages 246-247. This was presented by the minority members (hunters & ranchers) of the wolf working group. Had the WDFW not stacked the wolf working group with pro-wolf members, pages 246-247 might have been the draft plan.

Minority Position, Draft Wolf Plan (Pages 246-247)

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

(Note: BP's means “Breeding Pairs”)

[bearpaw]

Sorry about the mistake on the other thread. Be sure and vote on this poll.

[mulehunter]

State of Wa,
I VOTED
No MORE Wolves in Wa Please, Enough of BLOODS from Wolves, Check under whole my Threads with all pictures of Kills and pictures of TrailCamera Enough is enough, Please Allow to us a Open to hunting All Year around. Not worth to loose 34 Cattles Plus 3 Dogs with in two half years, We MUST protect and Support RANCHERS! I want all Rancher to SHOOT Wolves if they step in their property to hunt their Cattles, We need Replace Biologlist NOW who can manage it better than Scott Fitkin. He is one of MAJOR PROBLEM IN WASHINGTON!

I think this state of Wa need to do something about changing the LAW about Rancher and hunter.


Mulehunter 

[bearpaw]

Check out Page 13, line 7...

Wolves in the eastern third of Washington were removed from federal listing in May 7 2009 and are now under state management. Pending legal action will determine whether wolves in 8 this portion of the state will continue to be federally delisted.

This is another reason for you guys to write letters to the commission supporting hunting as a mnagement tool for controling wolves. The minority position recommends reduced number of breeding pairs to delist from state threatened and to list and manage as a big game animal.

[bearpaw]

Page 15, line 10

After the conservation/recovery objectives for delisting are met, wolves could be reclassified by the 10 Fish and Wildlife Commission to game animal or protected species. Reclassifying and managing the 11 species as a game animal will require that wolves continue to be carefully managed to maintain a 12 stable and healthy population level. After delisting, WDFW will develop a new plan for managing 13 wolves.

You need to write letters to the commission now asking that the plan include language, When delisting occurs, wolves will be reclassified as a Big Game Animal and managed as such by using hunting as the primary management tool.

[bearpaw]

Page 18  (this is why all sightings, etc, need reported)

Table 1. Miscellaneous reports of wolves in Washington from 1916 to the 1950s.

Record..............Location.....................Date....................Source
Two seen Sluiskin Falls, Mt. Rainier National Park 1916 Taylor and Shaw (1927)
One killed Near Nisqually Glacier, Mt. Rainier National Park 1916 Taylor and Shaw (1927)
Three heard Skate Mountain, Lewis County 1916 Taylor and Shaw (1927)
Two killed Near the former community of Wahluke, Grant Co.1 1917 Dalquest (1948)
Tracks seen Paradise Valley, Mt. Rainier National Park 1920 Taylor and Shaw (1927)
Two killed North fork of the Quinault River, Jefferson Co. About 1920 Dalquest (1948)
Two sightings Whatcom Co. 1922 Edson (1931)
One killed Skamania Co. 1924 Guenther (1952)
Bounty paid for one killed Skagit Co. 1927 Edson (1931)
Bounty paid for one killed Snohomish Co. 1927 Edson (1931)
One trapped Near Tonasket, Okanogan Co. 1930 Guenther (1952)
One reported Near Prouty Mountain, Pend Oreille Co. 1932 Hansen (1986)
One seen Near Camp Muir at Mt. Rainier National Park About 1933 Macy (1934)
One killed Twin Peaks, Snohomish Co. 1936 Booth (1947)
One killed Near Granite Falls, Snohomish Co. About 1945 Larrison (1947)2
Tracks at several sites Monte Cristo area, Snohomish Co. 1940s Larrison (1947)
One killed Taylor Ridge about 12 mi east of Republic, Ferry Co. 1950 Guenther (1952)
Two seen Near Curlew, Ferry Co. 1951 Hansen (1986)
Four seen and heard Sheep Creek drainage in northern Stevens Co. Early 1950s Hansen (1986)
One seen North of Slate Creek, Pend Oreille Co. 1955 Layser (1970)

Probable reports of wolves continued to occur in Washington during the next few decades, with 1 greater effort devoted to documentation of records during the 1970s and 1980s. Sixty-eight records 2 of the species held in the WDFW Heritage database for 1970-1989 were largely restricted to the 3 Cascade Mountains and parts of northeastern Washington. Hansen (1986) summarized 42 reports 4 from northeastern Washington made from before 1960 to 1985. Records were compiled from a 5 variety of sources, including unpublished accounts, reports from the public, and trapper 6 questionnaires. Twenty-four records were judged as probably accurate and 18 were possibly 7 accurate. Eighteen originated from before 1960 to 1973 and 24 were from 1974 to 1985. Five 8 records involved three or more wolves, 10 were of two wolves, and 27 were of single animals; most 9 reports of two or more wolves originated from 1973 or earlier. Two-thirds of the reports after 1973 10 came from the eastern half of the Colville National Forest, with most obtained from the Slate 11 Creek/Sullivan Creek area on the east side of the Pend Oreille River. One wolf was killed near 12 Mansfield, Douglas County, in 1975. Hansen (1986) gave brief descriptive accounts of many of 13 these records.

[bearpaw]

Wolf Plan Page 20-22  (read and send letters supporting minority position for delisting)

Washington experienced a flurry of reported wolf activity during the early 1990s, primarily in the North Cascades, which presumably involved animals originating mostly from southern British Columbia. Adult wolves with pups were detected at two locations in the North Cascades in the summer of 1990. One of these sites was in the Hozomeen area of the Ross Lake National Recreational Area, where animals were present for more than a month (Church 1996, Almack and 36 Fitkin 1998) and were again documented (without breeding evidence) in 1991, 1992, and 1993. It was later learned that a pet wolf released in this area in the early 1990s (Martino 1997) was responsible for some of these sightings (S. Fitkin, pers. comm.). The second location occurred near the Pasayten Wilderness northwest of Winthrop (Anonymous 1990, Gaines et al. 2000). Howling surveys conducted in the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests from 1991 to 1993 resulted in two confirmed wolf responses in backcountry areas, with one involving multiple individuals in the Lake-Chelan-Sawtooth Wilderness and the other being a lone individual in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness (Gaines et al. 1995; W. Gaines, pers. comm.). A sighting of a wolf with pups was also reported in the North Cascades in July 1996 (Church 1996), but this record could not be confirmed with genetic testing at the time (W. Gaines, pers. comm.). Additionally, one wolf was found dead near Calispell Lake in southern Pend Oreille County in May 1994 (Palmquist 2002; WDFW, unpubl. 1 data). This animal was radio-collared and had immigrated from northwestern Montana.

Overall, from 1991 to 1995, Almack and Fitkin (1998) reported confirmed wolf sightings in Washington. Sixteen of these were made in the Cascades and four in Pend Oreille County, although these records were probably biased towards observations in the Cascades. Almack and Fitkin (1998) concluded that small numbers of wolves existed in Washington, mostly as individuals but with several family units that had reproduced being present. No evidence of large packs or a recovering population was detected. Almack and Fitkin (1998) also confirmed the presence of free-ranging wolf-dog hybrids in the state and believed that a significant number of reported wolf observations probably represented hybrid animals. Wolf reports in Washington declined after 1995, probably due mainly to a reduced emphasis on data collection. In February 2002, a radio-marked female spent several weeks in northern Pend Oreille County, including sites near Metaline Falls and the Salmo-Priest Wilderness (Palmquist 2002). This individual had also immigrated from northwestern Montana and soon departed for British Columbia.

Reports of wolves and tracks have continued since 2002 and have increased in the past several years (Appendix D), although this may partly reflect greater effort by agency biologists and others to obtain and follow-up on wolf reports and to place remote cameras in the field. In most cases, reports have involved single animals. Many have originated from Pend Oreille and Stevens counties, including several individuals photographed by remote cameras at different locations in 2007 (S. 23 Zender, pers. comm.). A pair of wolves was also photographed by a remote camera in Pend Oreille County in 2008 and a calf depredation in northernmost Stevens County in late August 2007 was attributed to one or more wolves by USDA Wildlife Services (R. Woodruff, pers. comm.). In May 26 2009, a probable mated pair, including a lactating female, was photographed by remote cameras in Pend Oreille County. DNA analysis of hair collected at a camera site verified the presence of a male wolf linked genetically to the southern Alberta-northwestern Montana- northern Idaho population (J. Pollinger, pers. comm.). Citizen reports, howling surveys, and remote cameras eventually confirmed the presence of a pack (named the Diamond Pack) of about 8 wolves, including at least 3 pups, in July.

Wolf reports from Okanogan County increased dramatically in 2008 (Appendix D), with subsequent investigation revealing suspected activity dating back a number of years at or more locations (S. 35 Fitkin, pers. comm.). A pack with at least three adults/yearlings and six pups, designated as the Lookout Pack, was confirmed in the western part of the county and adjacent northern Chelan County in the summer of 2008, when the breeding male and female were captured and radio-collared, and other pack members were photographed near a suspected rendezvous site. This represented the first fully documented (through photographs, howling responses, and genetic testing) breeding by a wolf pack in Washington since the 1930s. Radio-tracking locations showed that the pack occupied a geographic area totaling about 350 square miles during the remainder of 2008 and into 2009. Preliminary genetic testing of the breeding male and female suggests they are descended from wolves occurring in (1) coastal British Columbia and (2) northeastern British Columbia, northwestern Alberta, or the reintroduced populations in central Idaho and the greater Yellowstone area (J. Pollinger, pers. comm.). The pack produced another litter of pups in 2009, as well as a probable litter in 2007 based on a sighting report of 6-8 animals in nearby northern Chelan County in September 2007 (R. Kuntz, pers. comm.) and one of 7-9 animals in Okanogan County in the winter of 2007-2008. A wolf believed to be a member of this pack was killed illegally in December 2008.

There have also been multiple public reports of wolves in the Blue Mountains dating back to at least 2006, including several groups of 2-5 wolves made in Garfield/Asotin and Walla Walla counties in 2008 and 2009 (Appendix D; P. Wik, pers. comm.; P. Fowler, pers. comm.). However, howling surveys have failed to date to confirm the presence of breeding wolves in this portion of the state.

[bearpaw]

Draft Wolf Plan Page 23, line 35

The province also has a policy of removing wolf packs that threaten the recovery of mountain caribou

Current wolf management in southern British Columbia allows a 9-month hunting season in much of the Kootenay region (including along the borders of Stevens and Pend Oreille counties of Washington) and no closed season in the East Kootenay Trench, with bag limits of two animals. There is also a 5.5-month trapping season with no bag limit. The province also has a policy of removing wolf packs that threaten the recovery of mountain caribou. Wolves were killed for this reason at several locations in 2008, including east of Creston near the Idaho border, but there are no plans to do so near the Washington border (G. Mowat, pers. comm.). Wolves are currently protected from hunting and trapping in the Okanagan region, but a hunting season may be proposed (B. Harris, pers. comm.).

[bearpaw]

Draft Wolf Plan...page 32


What will wolf population be in Washington 5 or 10 years from now?

Wolf populations in six regions of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming increased at mean annual rates of 16-56% through 2005 (Mitchell et al. 2008).

Idaho’s wolf population grew from fewer than 20 animals in 1995, when reintroductions first occurred, to an estimated 846 wolves in 2008 (USFWS et al. 2009), which corresponds to a mean annual growth rate of about 33%. Eighty-eight packs were documented in 2008 and had expanded across much of the state from the Canadian border, south to the fringes of the Snake River plain, and east to the Montana and Wyoming borders.

[bearpaw]

Draft Wolf Plan...page 33, line 41

I believe Defenders of Wildlife was party to the lawsuits to stop delisting.

A final delisting decision was 41 published in the Federal Register on February 27, 2008, and became effective on March 28, 2008 42 (USFWS 2008a). Under this rule, wolves became federally delisted east of Highways 97, 17, and 395 43 in Washington, but remained federally listed in the state west of these highways.

However 12 conservation groups challenged this determination by suing the USFWS to prevent delisting. On July 18, 2008, a U.S. district judge granted a preliminary injunction restoring federal protection to wolves in the DPS until the court case challenging the population’s delisting could be decided. On September 29, 2008, the USFWS asked the U.S. district judge that granted the preliminary injunction to vacate its delisting rule for the DPS. The agency reopened the comment period to again consider delisting wolves in the DPS on October 28, 2008 (USFWS 2008b). On January 14, 2009, the USFWS announced its intention to again delist the DPS, with the exception of Wyoming, which no longer has an accepted management plan. The new Obama administration withdrew this action on January 20, 2009, pending further review, but announced its decision to proceed with delisting on March 6, 2009 (USFWS 2009). Delisting became effective on May 4, 2009, except in Wyoming. In June 2009, two lawsuits were filed by conservation groups opposing delisting, while two others were filed by the state of Wyoming and a coalition of livestock groups and others seeking the delisting of wolves in that state. Where delisting occurs, the USFWS is required under the Endangered Species Act to continue monitoring delisted wolf populations for at least five years to ensure that abundance remains above a threshold for relisting.

[bearpaw]

Draft Wolf Plan...page 37

Attitudes in Washington
Two recent studies conducted by Responsive Management, a professional public opinion and attitude survey research firm specializing in natural resource and outdoor recreation issues, provide information on citizen attitudes statewide on a variety of questions pertaining to hunting and wildlife management in Washington, including wolves. The first of these (Duda et al. 2008a) examined overall public opinion and entailed a telephone survey of 805 Washington residents years old and older in January 2008 (see Appendix E for greater detail on survey methods). The survey asked six questions about wolves and related issues. Each question and the public’s responses to the question appear in Appendix E. The following summary of results is reprinted from the survey’s final report:

 “The large majority of Washington residents (75%) support allowing wolves to recover in Washington; meanwhile, 17% oppose.

 “A cross tabulation found that those who live in urban and suburban areas are more likely to support wolf recovery; while those residing in small city/town or rural areas are more likely to oppose. Note that those living on ranches or farms are the most likely to strongly oppose.

 “When the stipulation is put on wolf recovery that it could result in localized declines in elk and deer populations, support declines slightly: 61% support wolf recovery if it will result in some localized declines in elk and deer populations, and 28% oppose.

 “Most Washington residents (61%) support some level of lethal wolf control to protect at-risk livestock; however, 31% oppose. Additionally, a majority of residents (56%) support having the state pay compensation out of the General Fund to ranchers who have documented losses to livestock from wolves, but 35% oppose.

 “When asked how worried, while recreating outdoors, they would be about wolves, respondents most commonly say that they would not be worried at all (39%), and 26% would be only a little worried; in sum, 65% would be only a little worried or not worried at all. On the other hand, 33% would be very or moderately worried, with 11% very worried.

 “In a question tangentially related to wolf management, the survey found that wildlife viewing specifically of wild wolves would appear to be popular, as 54% of residents say that they would travel to see or hear wild wolves in Washington. (Note that 2% of respondents say that they would not need to travel, as they have wild wolves nearby already.)”

[WDFW-SUX]

Come on Bearpaw you know there magical.....

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr183lk-wQk[/youtube]

[bearpaw]

Which of you guys were surveyed?    

Draft Wolf Plan...page 37

The second survey (Duda et al. 2008b) assessed hunter opinions only and entailed telephone interviews with 931 Washington hunters 12 years old and older from December 2007 to February 2008 (see Appendix F for greater detail on survey methods). Interviewees in this study were exclusive from those contacted by Duda et al. (2008a). The survey asked three questions about wolves and related issues. Each question and hunters’ responses to the question appear in Appendix F. The following summary of results is reprinted from the survey’s final report:

 “After being informed that wolves are highly likely to re-colonize Washington over the next 10 years, hunters were asked if they support or oppose having the Department manage wolves to be a self-sustaining population. Support exceeds opposition among every type of hunter except [those in a category combined for] sheep/moose/goat hunters.

 “Common reasons for supporting include that the hunter likes wolves/that all wildlife deserves a chance to flourish, that wolves should be managed and controlled anyway, or that wolves should be managed so that they do not overpopulate.

 “Common reasons for opposing include concerns about potential damage to livestock and/or game and wildlife, that the respondent does not want wolves in the area, or that wolves are not manageable.”

[WDFW-SUX]

I was... Im in the minority

[wolfbait]

I really think that the surveys will change in a big way when the people who voted for the wolves realize just how cuddley these wolves arn't. Here in the Methow Valley cross country ski'n is a big thing in the winter time, but watch how the tide changes the first time one of their special wolves starts munchin on the spandex of some poor ill-advised city skier or see how things turn out when the same people can't out run the wolves in them fake snow shoes that are only good for 6 inches of snow. What will happen then, will they shut down all the fun of these wolf loven people, will these same people want to give up their fun in the outdoors as they see it for the wolves. How many wolves do you think they will see peekin out the car window, and how much fun will that be for the outdoorzee people. In Yellowstone there has actually been a drop in tourist, corse as some have pointed out that could be the econamy. at any rate I really think we need to prove that we have enough wolves to delist now, wolf sightings reported and checked out, not by the wdwl but by an indepent group of people. Bring this out into the open, don't let this turn into another Idaho or Montana, where they now have over 3000 wolves and growing. Get involved, some of you say well its all pollitics, well yep it is, but since when does honesty not count for something. You folks, me the guy down the road who loves to hunt n fish, the people who like to take the kids campin, all have sonething very valuable to lose if these wolves are not delisted sooner, Just think about it.