Introducing Wolves to the Westside

[WDFW-SUX]

Boy were already getting stir crazy and its not even January

[Curly]

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,38112.0.html

it looks like the wolves are making their way closer and closer to Seattle.

That's a funny thread.  Did anybody really think they were wolves? 

[wolfbait]

Some of the so called wolves in Arizona and new Mexico run around with their tails curled up like that. Got pretty hard for USFWS to say some of their cross bred wolves were not mostly dog.

[DOESLICKER]

The only good wolf is a dead wolf

[jumpin]

I swear I saw a wolf years ago while I was hunting near Bucoda at the steam plant. I thought it might have been an excaped fugitive from wolf haven nearby.

[Little Dave]

Could have been a wolf.  Apparently some do roam great distances.

A common counterargument to the notion that Idaho does not have enough genetic diversity yet is that a wolf collared near Sun Valley was found a few hours out of Calgary... that's about a 700 mile journey.  Considering the area covered it's obviously plenty opportunity for genetic diversity.

Similarly, it's about 700 miles between Bucoda and Prince George.  There's a lot of wolf country between here and there.  It could mean that they are already here from time-to-time as a transient species except (obviously) for certain remote areas adjacent to Canada and Idaho.  Kind of like what those early-1990s Seattle Times articles posted by wolfbait seem to suggest.  So in the 16 or so years since those articles were written, how do we explain the abundance of elk and lack of wolves.  Something about modern-time habitat and culture in our state just doesn't seem to support stable wolf populations.

If this is the case, it is unlikely that we will ever reach the proposed delisting status where the state would be authorized to manage the populations.  Wolves moved from infested areas to Western Washington will probably die out really quickly.  The only thing that seems certain in this case is that a lot of money will be spent.  The experiment conducted at the expense of our neighbors in the Methow, northeast, and Blue Mts.

[bearpaw]

Here is the data from the WDFW preferred option #2. Page 18 of the draft wolf plan: http://wdfw.wa.gov/wildlife/management/gray_wolf/draft_plan/05oct2009_draft_plan_deis.pdf

15 Breeding Pairs In The State As Follows:

2 in Eastern Washington
2 in North Cascades
5 in Southern Cascades/
Northwest Coast
6 anywhere in state

This plan requires 5 breeding pairs (packs) in the southern cascades or the northwest coast before delisting can occur anywhere in the state.

I strongly suggest that all hunters get proactive and take the time to respond to the Wildlife Commission that this is unacceptable. Our whole state will be over run with wolves before there are this many packs in that part of the state.

Take 30 minutes and send email now!
Here is a contact list to email copies of your letter to: http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,31831.0.html

[Skyvalhunter]

Wolf Litigation Continues; Elk Foundation Files New Brief
December 11, 2009.

From the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

Responding to the latest legal wrangling by environmental groups, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation again has entered into federal court an amicus curiae brief supporting wolf population management via state-regulated hunting in Idaho and Montana.

The move means U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy will consider RMEF positions against the environmental groups’ request for summary judgment in a lawsuit seeking to stop the hunts and return gray wolves to the endangered species list.

A summary judgment is a determination made by a court without a full trial.

Molloy is expected to rule early in 2010.

In September, Molloy denied the environmental groups’ request for an emergency injunction. Following a hearing in Missoula, Mont., Molloy ruled that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate how hunting would cause irreparable harm to wolf populations. RMEF documents, filed shortly before the hearing, were considered in that decision.

The ruling allowed wolf hunting to proceed in Idaho and Montana. By early December, hunters had taken approximately 184 wolves out of an estimated 1,500-plus total population in the northern Rockies—a harvest well below the combined quota.

However, in the September ruling, Molloy also said complaints alleging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service improperly delisted wolves in Idaho and Montana, but not Wyoming, could have legal merit. Plaintiffs trumpeted the legal opening and filed a motion for summary judgment based on this argument.

“Their attack on hunting proved unpersuasive so now they’re backing up and citing a procedural issue related to the Endangered Species Act. This legal wrangling has drug on well past the point of ridiculousness. This is what happens when you’ve got well-funded plaintiffs who can’t be bothered by on-the-ground facts, logic or common sense. That’s not how conservation works,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO.

RMEF entered its new amicus curiae brief by last week’s deadline.

The 37-page document reinforces four main themes:

• Historic success of modern, hunter-based conservation in North America.

• Viewpoints of hunters who continue to pay for the big-game resources that made wolf recovery possible.

• RMEF-funded research, along with other scientific and anecdotal evidence, showing that wolf populations are fully recovered and that, where wolves are present with elk, wolves are having detrimental impacts on elk.

• State wildlife agencies are best suited to manage wolves alongside other species.

[rainshadow1]

I used the public comment form, but I should send some e-mails and letters too.

If they establish in the Blues, they should manage the Blues.
If they establish in NE, they should manage NE.
If they establish in the Okanogan, they should manage the Okanogan.
If they establish in the Cascades, they should manage the Cascades.

Etc, etc, etc.

Washington is more diverse in climate and geography than any other State in the Union. To say they have to establish statewide before any management plan can be enacted is INSANE!!!


Get your voice heard, guys.

[rainshadow1]

Oh, and join the NPHA.

thenpha.com

Eventually they'll be strong enough to help out with some real focused advocacy.

[longrange7mm]

   :guns:i heard they come in like all predators to calls but i wouldnt know!

[WDFW-SUX]

Here is the data from the WDFW preferred option #2. Page 18 of the draft wolf plan: http://wdfw.wa.gov/wildlife/management/gray_wolf/draft_plan/05oct2009_draft_plan_deis.pdf

15 Breeding Pairs In The State As Follows:

2 in Eastern Washington
2 in North Cascades
5 in Southern Cascades/
Northwest Coast
6 anywhere in state

This plan requires 5 breeding pairs (packs) in the southern cascades or the northwest coast before delisting can occur anywhere in the state.

I strongly suggest that all hunters get proactive and take the time to respond to the Wildlife Commission that this is unacceptable. Our whole state will be over run with wolves before there are this many packs in that part of the state.

Take 30 minutes and send email now!
Here is a contact list to email copies of your letter to: http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,31831.0.html

If thats the plan there will never be any hunting of wolves but I assume thats the point.