Wolves, Who's In Charge?

[twisp_river_slayer]

who already made the decision that scott isnt qualified for managing the lookout pack...?

[WDFW-SUX]

The retarded hillbilly forum.

[bearpaw]

who already made the decision that scott isnt qualified for managing the lookout pack...?

From what I have read mostly just ranchers who have lost stock or are worried about losing stock or hunters worried about losing hunting opportunities, that's all. 

As I questioned, it would be nice to know what his prior wolf experience is, and is he a qualified wolf expert since the WA wolf plan is being developed around his work?

Do you know any of these answers?

[twisp_river_slayer]

who already made the decision that scott isnt qualified for managing the lookout pack...?

From what I have read mostly just ranchers who have lost stock or are worried about losing stock or hunters worried about losing hunting opportunities, that's all. 

As I questioned, it would be nice to know what his prior wolf experience is, and is he a qualified wolf expert since the WA wolf plan is being developed around his work?

Do you know any of these answers?

well i dont know if he has his wolf expert deploma or a degree in wolves so i cant answer that. i also dont know his prior experience with wolves. i dont know how bringing someone in would help though. each situation is different and each managment plan is unique, especially this one. he is a qualified biologist and thats what the WA wolf plan is developing there work around. although i dont agree with some of his descisions i dont think that the problem with this whole mess would end with him. I think this has went over the head of our district biologist.

[wolfbait]

Why would a highly experienced wolf specialist leave ID, MT or WY to do the same job in WA?

That wasn't an answer to my question, but to answer your question, they seem to have all the other job positions filled. I would assume if a wolf specialist position was offered, there would be applicants and an experienced wolf specialist could be found....isn't that the usual process?

I would also assume that most people on either side of this argument would want an experienced wolf specialist involved, unless of coarse they had something to gain by not having a specialist involved.

The Washington wolf plan is looking alot like the mexican wolf reintroduction plan, where  they released the wolves in the middle of cattle raising operations, they are trying to manage everything around the wolves, things are not going well, wolves are getting killed because of the management stupidity, and any support they might have gained is gone. In perspective they are trying to shove the wolves down peoples throats and it is not working. Now they plan on flooding Washington with wolves where we have a  great number of people, many who live to spend time in the great outdoors. Same thing they are shoving them on us and saying deal with it. Using a very poor wolf plan, that represent the environmenalists, another very stupid move on their part! They will end up jumping up and down on their own parts and they will deserve it. The people and the wildlife deserve honesty in the wolf issue. If I go to the doctor for a broken leg I don't want an eye doctors setting the bone. Why would we want someone who is not eligable representing our wolf problems in Washington. Surely with as much money as they have already wasted on the wolves, they could supply Washington with  someone who has the ability and smarts to tell us what killed what. They don't seem to have problems sending their wolf looky lews.
, Or the mighty enforcers.

[bearpaw]

who already made the decision that scott isnt qualified for managing the lookout pack...?

From what I have read mostly just ranchers who have lost stock or are worried about losing stock or hunters worried about losing hunting opportunities, that's all. 

As I questioned, it would be nice to know what his prior wolf experience is, and is he a qualified wolf expert since the WA wolf plan is being developed around his work?

Do you know any of these answers?

well i dont know if he has his wolf expert deploma or a degree in wolves so i cant answer that. i also dont know his prior experience with wolves. i dont know how bringing someone in would help though. each situation is different and each managment plan is unique, especially this one. he is a qualified biologist and thats what the WA wolf plan is developing there work around. although i dont agree with some of his descisions i dont think that the problem with this whole mess would end with him. I think this has went over the head of our district biologist.

I will tell you exactly how it makes a difference who is making determinations on these livestock kills.

Right now the state is claiming via the Defenders of Wildlife propaganda on the WDFW website that wolves are not much problem for livestock owners. If an experienced wolf predation specialist recognized that these were wolf kills instead of saying it's non-conclusive, then the whole attitude and recomendation for how many wolves should inhabit this state might change. Thus an entirely different wolf plan.

That is the difference my friend......

[bearpaw]

2008 Interview - ED BANGS, Wolf Recovery Coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

http://www.grist.org/article/aspen-envt-forum-the-word-on-gray-wolves

Wolf recovery chief Ed Bangs talks about the species’ delisting.
Posted 10:43 AM on 28 Mar 2008
by Lisa Hymas

The gray wolf population in the northern Rocky Mountains is being dropped from the federal endangered species list on Friday, and on Thursday I just happened to run smack into Ed Bangs, the wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (Such is life at the Aspen Environment Forum.)

Bangs oversaw the celebrated and controversial reintroduction of gray wolves into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho in 1995 and 1996, when the nice Canadians gave the U.S. government 66 wolves to set free in a region that hadn't seen the carnivores since 1926 (though about 60 had come down from Canada on their own into Glacier National Park in northwest Montana). Since then, the wolf population in the region has grown at about 24 percent a year, to a point where there are now more than 1,500 spread out across some 110,000 square miles in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Bangs and his crew say that's a viable population and their work is now done. Except for dealing with the lawsuits from enviros, that is.

Eleven conservation groups -- including Defenders of Wildlife, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club -- are filing suit to challenge the delisting. They contend that the wolf population is not yet genetically healthy, and that 2,000 to 5,000 wolves in the region should be the goal. They also don't like the plan to hand wolf management over to the states, which are poised to allow wolf hunting.

I pulled Bangs aside for a few minutes to get his take on it all:

Is now the right time to delist?

 Ed Bangs. Absolutely. We've got a lot of wolves. The states [Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming] have all got plans that will assure that there will be at least 1,000 wolves in the Rocky Mountains forever. The state fish and game agencies have great professional organizations to do wildlife management; they'll do a better job than we could do.

The states had to come up with management plans?

Yep. We reviewed the plans and we approved them. We approved Montana's and Idaho's in 2004, and we rejected Wyoming's plan. So they went back to the drawing board, and there was litigation, and in 2007 they produced a new wolf management plan that we approved. They addressed all the issues we had with the one we rejected.

You're being sued over this?

For sure. We've been sued over every single wolf thing, by both sides, all the time.

But this time it's just the conservationists suing. What do you think is their main concern?

Mistrust of the states. They argue that 1,000 wolves isn't enough. Most of it boils down to they just want more wolves in more places, and they think the Endangered Species Act is the better way to get them there than to have states do wolf management.

The states will have hunting of wolves, just like they do for deer, elk, mountain lions, black bears, and people don't like the idea of that, even though we, the agencies, kill about 10 percent of the wolves each year for problems. But the idea of people hunting them, some people find that objectionable. And I understand that. But my job is the science and the biology of restoring viable wolf populations. It isn't the moral aspect of whether we should be hunting or not.

What if the wolves aren't doing well in a few years?

There is a mandatory five-year monitoring period by the Fish and Wildlife Service, so we have to watch it over pretty closely. And if things go to hell in a handbasket, we'll step back in.

So are you out of a job?

I hope so! I'm looking for something else to do with the rest of my life. I'm hoping that by summer or fall I'll be on a beach with a rum drink in my hand watching for sea turtles.

One last question: What's your favorite animal?

Wolverines, I love wolverines. I'm wild about wild animals, but wolves are just another animal to me. Wolves are OK.

But wolverines -- they are so cool.

**

 Will Stolzenburg.Bangs will be on a panel on wolves here at the forum on Saturday, but unfortunately it conflicts with a panel I'm moderating, so I won't be able to attend. On the panel with Bangs will be Will Stolzenburg, a wildlife biologist and journalist who has a different view on the delisting.

Stolzenburg told me he thinks the USFWS did its job and planned appropriately to keep wolf numbers where it wants them, but he's concerned that the agency didn't consider the big picture. He would have liked to see a more ecologically based decision that considered whether the wolf will really be able to fill its historic role in the ecosystem. Stolzenburg has written a forthcoming book on this very topic: the ecological roles of the world's great predators and the consequences of their disappearance: Where the Wild Things Were: Life, Death, and the Ecological Wreckage in a Land of Vanishing Predators.

[bearpaw]

So are you out of a job?

I hope so! I'm looking for something else to do with the rest of my life. I'm hoping that by summer or fall I'll be on a beach with a rum drink in my hand watching for sea turtles.

Sounds to me like Ed Bangs, the dean of Wolf recovery may be available if the state of Washington was interested.

[bearpaw]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008060501_apidwolfdelistingidahoreax1stldwritethru.html

Still, Ed Bangs, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist who led the wolf recovery effort, said in an interview from his office in Missoula, Mont., that the three-state wolf population had grown so successfully that delisting or hunts had no chance of threatening its survival. "For an injunction, you have to show irreparable harm," Bangs said. "The hunting of wolves clearly wouldn't endanger threatened wolf populations. We thought our delisting was a very biologically sound package."

Some of you may ask why I would suggest hiring Ed Bangs because he was in charge of wolf recovery.  

If you read through his material Ed Bangs does believe that wolves should be in the lower 48, but he also believes that they should be managed just as other animals are managed.

Currently the Washington Wolf Plan has been influenced by people who believe wolves should not be managed by hunting, that is obvious since the wolf plan does not include hunting as the eventual management tool.

I spoke with Ed Bangs on the phone yesterday. I had called him and left a message several weeks ago trying to get info on what important considerations the USFWS would recommend in the WA Wolf Plan since the USFWS played such an important role in getting Idaho/Mt delisted.

He called me back yesterday, he was very polite, very upfront, and very helpful.

I told him I did not know what his position was on hunting wolves for sure, but that I was concerned that WA did not have hunting listed as the eventual management tool.

He told me that he would forward some info showing that hunting was included in the original USFWS recovery plan. He said that he would also copy the info to the state of WA, I assume Harriet Allen, who is in charge of the WA Wolf Program.

So there you have, I think a person like Ed Bangs would do this state a lot of good. He's probably not available or looking to work for the state of WA, but someone like him would be a fresh breath of air for a wolf plan that does not recognize hunting as an eventual management tool.

No offense meant to Mr. Fitkins or Harriett Allen, but I think this state needs a wolf specialist who has hands on experience. My guess is that the people of Washington would agree with that.

[twisp_river_slayer]

that was very interesting to read and i agree that it would be a breath of fresh air to the managment plan. thanks for bringing in the material

[WAcoyotehunter]

Ed Bangs has a very well written article in this months Bulge Magazine.  There are several wolf related articles this month.  Check it out.

[wolfbait]

I have read several articles that Bangs has written, I beleaive he is straight up kind of a guy. He knows what these wolves have done and will do to our livestock and wildlife if they are not managed. Considering his position as compared to most other bio's, I think he would be honest with the people of Washington. Livestock killing wolves need to be delt with. With the reintroduction of the first Canadian wolf hunting was part of the plan in the original recovery.  No one in WDWL will even say that upfront, they beat around the bush. We need a biologist who knows what will happen with over population, We can not afford to not have hunting as management in Washington. The enviomentalists want wolves over populated in states so that the wolves populate the states around them, with Washington we are flanked on all sides by wolves. We will get wolves from Oregon as well as Idaho, they come in from Canada and white shwans wolf delivery trucks and if that isn't enough, then there is the tranlocating of wolves around Washington from within. When you look at it from that stand point Washington will be like a wolf magnet, at least until they run out of things to eat. )

[yelp]

Ed Bangs has a very well written article in this months Bulge Magazine.  There are several wolf related articles this month.  Check it out.

Bangs in Bulge Magazine?  What kinda of magazines you reading Wacoyotehunter?  LOL    Sorry couldn't help it..

[mulehunter]

Bearpaw, Wolfbait....

I thank u both for doing best u can to teach all of us something we DONT know that much. I learned A LOT from you both. I am glad to have you both on this site and more we learn the better we understand in our Future. I hope we will get good biologlist. I would love to join and help.   

Mulehunter 

[wolfbait]

Problems Plague Gray Wolf Reintroduction
by Ted Robbins

July 26, 2006

Listen
All Things Considered


Add to Playlist
Download
Transcript
 
Enlarge Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project
Mexican gray wolves have been reintroduced in the Apache-Sitgreaves and Gila National Forests in Arizona and New Mexico.


Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project
Mexican gray wolves have been reintroduced in the Apache-Sitgreaves and Gila National Forests in Arizona and New Mexico.

 
Enlarge Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project
A mother wolf and her pup feed on roadkill elk and "carnivore logs" placed by the reintroduction project team as the animals learn to hunt on their own. This photo was taken with a remote motion-sensing camera.


Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project
A mother wolf and her pup feed on roadkill elk and "carnivore logs" placed by the reintroduction project team as the animals learn to hunt on their own. This photo was taken with a remote motion-sensing camera.

text sizeAAA
July 26, 2006
A program to reintroduce the endangered Mexican gray wolf in the Southwestern United States has run into problems. Bred in captivity, the wolves haven't learned to hunt in the wild, and they're attacking cattle grazing on federal lands.

Eight years ago, the Mexican gray wolf was re-introduced to the mountains of Arizona and New Mexico. The species had been near extinction. It had been eliminated from the wild decades earlier, because it preyed on livestock.

Today, as many as four dozen wolves roam those mountains. But that's only half the number that program managers had hoped for.

The wolves were bred in captivity and when first released have to learn to live in the wild. So, researchers leave food for animals new to the wild, to help them make the transition to hunting on their own.

It's imperative that they learn to hunt because the only other large prey in the mountains is cattle — the reintroduction area is federal grazing land.

Some people seem to be taking matters in to their own hands: They've illegally shot and killed 23 Mexican wolves.

Seven wolves have been killed legally by the government. Under the strict rules of the program, a wolf that attacks cattle can be put back in captivity or killed.

Three years ago wdwl were feeding road kill to some new wolves in the Methow Valley, makes me wonder if they weren't pen raised wolves???



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5584866