Wolf Chat with the DFW in Seattle

[Little Dave]

First of all, I don't care to spend any more time in Seattle than absolutely necessary.  Good to see a few familiar faces at the meeting.

Here's my rough notes from the November 2 meeting:

Phil L.
Has hunted elk/deer for 20 yrs.  Supports wolves, they are native to the state and belong here.  Believes wolves keep ungulates healthy.  Wolves pressure elk, keep them moving.

Jack Field
Exec. VP for WA Cattlemen's association.  Recomends minority opinion requesting fewer breeding pairs with a 3-6-8 delisting schedule.  Cited funding shortfalls.

[Little Dave]

They cut comments to three minutes, so I tried to get all this in:

Why so fast?  No all stakeholders are represented in the discussion?  This comment period takes place during hunting season.  Requested an extended comment period beyond January 8.

Plan is substantially more agressive than ones implemented in neighboring states.  Recommend the cattlemen's proposal of the 3-6-8 delisting schedule.  Because of our state's smaller size 7 would be compatible with Idaho's plan.

Prefer that instances of "illegal hunting" be changed to "game violations" throughout the document.  Described hunting as not illegal, but a noble activity.  As a hunter, I bring local lean meat home to my family in much the same way that many people here in Seattle go to the Pike Place market and bring fresh locally grown produce home to their families and feel proud about that.

Questioned the proposed outlay of $300,000 to $800,000 per year when $11 million was just cut for the current year.

Concerned that organizations such as the Defenders of Wildlife promise to support financing damage claims for stockmen suffering losses due to wolf kills might not be a sustainable plan.  The group supported Idaho's wolf management plan, however now a few years later they are party to a lawsuit to get the federal government to relist the wolf as endangered in Idaho.  Will they also decide to end the damage payments in Idaho?  Can they be trusted in Washington?

Requested that comments about erosion and forage patterns in Yellowstone and Olympic parks in the proposal disclose the whole truth about the erosion.  The document should disclose that hunting is also significantly restricted or prohibited in these areas and may have influenced the excess growth of the herds in those areas.

[Little Dave]

Continuing with the other comments...

Hiker
Prefers to have more wolves.  Recommends alternative 3
50 breeding pairs to sustain population at adequate levels.  Urges more funding.

Sonny
Feels strongly about wolves.
They are beautiful.  Rather not have stockmen kill wolves.

Ed Wilson
National park ranger prefers plan 3
Short number of viable pairs, need to bring in wolves from Canada for genetic diversity.

Denise Jones read a prepared statement from one of the lobby groups
Wants even more wolves.  Doesn't like to see the discussion couched as wolves vs. people or settle for political compromises.  Thousands are needed to reduce genetic threats.

[Little Dave]

And more...

David A.
In the summer of 1981 he was on the Nahani River in the Northwest Territories.  The wolf followed the river as he drifted by and he was overcome with emotion, a life changing event like watching St. Helens erupt, or birth of a child.  Figures 15 breeding pairs is too low.

A. Lawson
Appreciates the proactive and collaborative plan.  Thinks plan 3 is best.  Likes the beautiful environment around Seattle, wants wolves.

Theona Clog
Has British accent, but has since become a citizen.  Likes plan 3, wants more than 15, thinks 30 breeding pairs would be better.  Needs support of ranchers to make it work.  She thinks tourisim revenues will increase because people will come here to see the wolves.  People spend a lot of money to go to places like Yellowstone to see the wolves.  They might as well stay in Washington and spend the money here.

[Little Dave]

There's more...

R. Nelson
From Olympia area.  Family has been in livestock for 150 years.  Predators are a serious problem for cattlemen.  Lethal take is needed so that assets can be protected.  Despite reports that wolves have been gone longer, last wolves were shot in the 1970's.  He prefers the 3-6-8 delisting schedule.  He'd really rather have no wolves at all.  He's concerned about reports of lost sheep, and expensive pyrenees herd dogs.  Hikers will also be at risk.

R.C.
Read some post cards sent in from Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife solicitations.  Requests legislation, sound science.  Goals should be met for five years rather than three years before engaging management activities.  Prefers alternative 3 and introduction of wolves from other areas like Canada.

R. Champlain
He's a volunteer.  Refrenced wolf killed recently in Okanogan County.  Said that it is written that "In the beginning we are all created equal."   This should not be a Cattlemen's Association recovery plan.  Wolf howls are beautiful and will inspire children.

Believe it or not... I stayed for the whole meeting.

[Little Dave]

There's more...

Ralph T.
Cattlemen will shoot a wolf regardless of law.  Suggest that 300 wolves are needed.  Should be an emphasis on Olympic Park.  He turned with much drama to address the rancher from Olympia and said that he has a private farm with pigs, goats, and chickens next to the Olympic Forest and not far from Olympic Park and he is not concerned about wolves.

Next
Thinks the breeding pairs figure is low.  Concerned about how wolves in Pend Oreille county have affected the endangered woodland caribou there.

Next
Wolves are native.  Ecosystems are incomplete without them.  Wolves kill coyotes  Figures that 15 breeding pairs are too low.

J. Rundall
Supports plan 3.  No cash for cattlemen.

[Little Dave]

Last few comments...

Ben
Supports Olympic Park introduction.

Next
Where's the money coming from?  Populations are unsustainable.  Hunters know that for any species large populations are needed for health.

L. Myrtfelt
As a citizen she owns the public land.  Supports wolves on her public land.  Supports alternative 3.  Supports livestock compensation and recommends that cattlemen use techniques such as timed birthing.

[Little Dave]

Answers from the DFW/wolf group to a few questions raised in the comments:

How is it funded?
Seeking multi-faceted funding.  We're looking for sources.  It's an important question.

What about the caribou?
USFWS is looking into it.  It's a concern.  Mentioned in the draft plan.

Will the Idaho delisting and hunt affect Washington?
Yes, it will influence dispersal and slow natural migration to our state.  It's mentioned in the draft plan.

Why not include re-introduction from out-of-state locations?
Expensive, contraversial, wolves are coming in on their own anyway.  Translocation is an option in the future once the wolves are here.  Help them get to places like Olympic Park.

How would translocation be done?
Can be difficult for the wolves.  Probably better to locate a whole pack at once rather than select a few from the pack.

[cle elum bowhunter]

Little Dave, thanks for the update.  Here at the firehouse working a 24 and just got back from an arson fire. 

[Little Dave]

Then questions...

Q: Is the DFW coordinating with the USFWS?
A: Yes.

Q: How is carcass analysis done?
A: Depends on listing status.  For areas like Western Washington USFWS is the lead agency and their criteria are used.  Once de-listed DFW is lead agency, DFW criteria are used.

Q: What is the current flexibility for use of lethal take for property damage?
A: Unsure.  That will be the decision of the DFW commission.

Q: What is the basis for the wolf/ungulate model?  Why not consider Minnesota and Wisconsin where there are already well integrated wolf and ungulate populations as a model rather than adjacent states?  
A: There are some comments in the plan.

Q: Are these plans final and fixed in stone?  If there is consensus that we need more breeding pairs, how does the group respond?
A: All questions will be considered.

Q: Can the plan be set up to prohibit wolf hunting?
A: It will be a DFW decision open to public discussion at a later time.

[Little Dave]

Little Dave, thanks for the update.  Here at the firehouse working a 24 and just got back from an arson fire. 

Hope nobody got hurt in that.  Hope you figure out who's behind the fire.  Got a few friends with cabins out that way.  Saw a huge fire off of U Peoh Sunday night.  Probably just a brush pile though.

[Little Dave]

My question was regarding the method increasing the ungulate populations to support both hunters and the wolves.  I cited the two principals from the draft plan:

1. Reduce game violations.
2. Do better game management.

I asked... how do you quantify "do better game management" and measure results?  I offered that the DFW is already managing the game on a increasingly limited budget.  How are we going to do better game management and support hunters and wolves with more game?

She admitted that this is a challenging question.  She touched on habitat improvement and monitoring of game populations.

This point in particular is a very weak component of the plan and needs more thought and discussion.  What this means then is that there is a plan to delist wolves.  A substantial component of this plan is hope.  Hope that the wolves will cause huge swings in ungulate populatoins.  Hope that money will be available for the program.

There seems to be an emphasis from the wolf group on protecting the state from lawsuit.  It seems as though they would like to have the option to handle the matter conservatively, but in order to avoid a meddling lawsuit they are making huge concessions to the likely plantiffs.

[Little Dave]

There were a few other comments.

Another comment from Phil L (has hunted deer/elk in WA last 20 years).
Q: What is the DFW doing to educate hunters about wolves?  Many say "shoot, shovel, and shut-up"?
A: There's an education and outreach section in the plan.

Somebody else...
Q: Can you clarify why there is a 2:1 payout based on ranch size?
A: It's a new concept.  Idea is that if a livestock kill is found on a large property, there might be another which will be difficult to locate.  For smaller properties, it is easier to know the location of all stock.

Q: What happens if a population is wiped out?
A: Re-listing would take place.

[Little Dave]

There had been a comment on education and outreach.

So I cautioned that the 1990 film "Dances With Wolves" may have inspired many to become interested in wolves, conservation and so forth... and I noted that the Defenders of Wildlife group uses the music from that film in some of their promotial materials, but the movie is a poor model for living with wolves.  The movie shows the main character habituating or befriending a wolf.  It will be important for people to come out of this fog where wolves are thought of as friends and instead respect wolves for what they are... wild animals, and know that habituated wolves are dangerous.

The plan does make such statements about the risks of habituation.  So we ended the discussion there.  It will be important in the next few meetings to insist that the plan is completed to the point where it can actually be implemented.  Do better game management is an unsatisfactory description of how ungulate populations will be increased to support new demand.  We're searching for multi-faceted funding sources is an unsatisfactory description of how this plan is financially sustainable.

[wolfbait]

Thanks Dave, great info.