Wolf Plan - Peer Review - March 2010

[bearpaw]

Washington-FWS-DEIS-PeerReview-March2010

I was sent a copy of this peer review this morning. The reviewers are suggesting that 15 breeding pairs may not be enough wolves in Washington.

I posted it on this link, it's rather lenghty:  http://washingtonwolf.info/pdf/Washington-FWS-DEIS-PeerReview-March2010.pdf

[Special T]

I normally find this kind of ignorance funny... Unfortunately it affects the hunting in MY state...
When I hear this kind of stuff the Green Day Paranoia lyrics come to mind
 "Been around the world and found that only stupid people are breeding
The cretins cloning and feeding
And I don't even own a TV,,,
G-dame you

[denali]

Thanks for the info BearPaw

reviewer 1

Therefore, the conservation estimate would be for about 200-250 wolves in the state. The
authors of this plan have stated that about 500 wolves in a population is considered
viable, therefore, this lower estimate of population size falls below the “accepted”
population size necessary for “viability”.

Plan reports that in Idaho pack territories are about 360 square miles in size. If given the
estimated 26,000 square miles of potential suitable habitat in WA, then around 72 packs
could persist if all suitable habitat is filled.

not close to reading the whole thing yet but these two items caught my attention   

[bearpaw]

denali you are spot on, I read the same thing...

Now for the $100,000 questions:

Who appointed the reviewers?
What is their position on Wolf Re-introduction?

[bbarnes]

Read the article in new national geographic.

[WAcoyotehunter]

(I think) WSU was contracted to hire reviewers by the WDFW. 

Sadly, it is probably true that recovery is an "all or nothing" outcome.  Having fifty wolves does not mean that they are back for good.   

[luvtohnt]

Actually UW wildlife management grad students were ued to do a peer review. I was adament in my letter to the WDFW that they use a combination of UW and WSU students. I hope that the students at UW are not brainwashed!!

Brandon

[bearpaw]

Please forgive me, I need to ask, what is the precise purpose of a peer review? Who should do a peer review on something as large in scope and importance as the State wolf plan?

[wolfbait]

Please forgive me, I need to ask, what is the precise purpose of a peer review? Who should do a peer review on something as large in scope and importance as the State wolf plan?

Peer views help further your agends especially if you pick the peers that favor your stand point, sort of like the the wolf group that was stacked heavy pro-wolf.


(Thanks for the info BearPaw

reviewer 1

Therefore, the conservation estimate would be for about 200-250 wolves in the state. The
authors of this plan have stated that about 500 wolves in a population is considered
viable, therefore, this lower estimate of population size falls below the “accepted”
population size necessary for “viability”.

Plan reports that in Idaho pack territories are about 360 square miles in size. If given the
estimated 26,000 square miles of potential suitable habitat in WA, then around 72 packs
could persist if all suitable habitat is filled.)

 I suppose it is starting to dawn on a few people on just how many wolves Washington will have and how and what will be you permit options. What private land owners will wolf fence their land so that they can lease it to hunters that have no other places to hunt. I was especially interested in their planned management for the game herds, as you might have heard Scott fitkin claims the wolves are not hurting the deer in the Methow Valley nor have there been any complaints about the wolves killing livestock.

What will be the measures that are taken to lessen wolf encounters among people? Shutting down public lands because of the dangers of wolf attacks will be at the top of their list.

[jackelope]

Seattle, WA 98195-2100

[jackelope]

REVIEWER 1

Are rigorous, transparent and sound research and statistical methods followed?
(a) Since this is a management plan and not a research document, it is difficult to evaluate
this question. Overall, the plan attempts to be rigorous in its approach to wolf recovery.
However, the plan has several ambiguous terms or ideas that need defining or criteria for
justification and clarification. Some areas or objectives have some background material,
but leave the door open for interpretation and potential misinterpretation by other
interested parties.

The plan states that ungulate herds will be managed to provide an adequate prey base for
wolves. How will this be accomplished? What is “adequate prey for wolves”? Again,
these objectives are rightly stated, but open to interpretation by either side of wolf
recovery. Hunters may claim their harvest opportunities have declined, while
conservation organizations may claim hunters are over-harvesting game populations and
therefore hunter harvest is detrimental to “adequate prey” for wolves. Whether the state
wishes to tackle these prickly questions right now in this plan to up to them, but these are
cautionary hints from other wolf recovery programs and the thorny issues that trying to
appease all sides is difficult, but the state will need to take the lead on these issues.

[bearpaw]

There are a lot of things in that peer review.      

Glad some of you guys are reading it.   

[bearpaw]

Letter to Washington Wildlife Commission
RE: Washington Wolf Plan Peer Review

“Washington’s Faulty Peer Review”

Dear Commissioners,
I want to thank you for carefully considering the Washington Wolf Plan before you adopt it. While I understand many urban residents want to think there are playful wolves bounding through Washington’s mountain forests, I want to remind you that rural residents, ranchers, and hunters all over Washington will have to live with the plan that you adopt. Big game herds will have to survive an additional predator on the landscape, so wolf numbers must be very carefully managed.

I recently read the March 2010 Wolf Plan Peer Review, I am amazed, it sounds like a pro-wolf political statement from Defenders of Wildlife, rather than a professional analysis of a wildlife management plan by experienced wildlife professionals. The Peer Review insults the intelligence of Washington residents and is a disgrace to sound wildlife management. Key issues are avoided such as Hydatid Disease and Neospora Caninum (62%-63% of Idaho and Montana wolves are confirmed infected with hydatid causing tapeworms) which threaten the public health and safety as well as the health of livestock and game herds. Throughout the document, facts and figures are used in a way to downplay wolf impacts on people, livestock, and game herds.
 
Washington’s wild game herds have been conserved and managed with sports dollars. One reviewer practically suggests that game herds be dedicated as a new wolf feeding project. The reviewers do not adequately address the impacts of reduced hunting opportunities and increased livestock depredation on Washington lifestyles, rural economies, or losses to wildlife management funding due to an inevitable reduction in hunting and license sales. The impacts on rural residents are nearly overlooked all together.
 
Reviewer 2 suggests that winter feeding of ungulates should be abandoned. This comment in itself reflects the lack of knowledge this reviewer has of modern game management and modern ecosystems. The year is not 1492, it’s the 21st century and human encroachment on winter ranges has consumed much ungulate winter range, as a result Washington has an unnatural modern environment. There is plenty of summer range; in fact summer range is underutilized. But many game herds, especially elk, need winter feeding to make up for the lack of winter range.
 
The reviewers fail to consider the most recent data about wolf depredation on livestock. By determining the average number of livestock animals killed per each individual predator on the landscape, and comparing these figures among the four primary predator species, Idaho Wildlife Services learned that individual wolves in Idaho are about 170 times more likely to kill cattle than are individual coyotes or black bears. Individual wolves were determined to be about 21 times more likely to kill cattle than were individual cougars. The reviewers seem to insinuate that wolves will be little problem for Washington livestock operations, our neighbors in Idaho and Montana tell a much different story.  (see links below)
 
The reviewers suggest wolf reproduction rates of 17% which are much lower than the 20% to 24% reproduction rates experienced in neighboring Idaho. Over 10 years the effects of this difference could be dramatic. Additionally, comments regarding the number of breeding pairs needed in Washington seem to be based on the premise that Washington wolves must be an "independent self-sustaining" population. Nothing could be further from the truth. The WDFW’s own data shows Washington wolves are migrating from British Columbia, Montana, and Idaho which confirms Washington wolves are part of those larger wolf populations. It’s absurd to manage Washington wolves as a “stand alone” wolf population. The reason the pro-wolf crowd is pushing that notion is to further their attempt to put more wolves on Washington's landscape. The USFWS has already delisted the eastern 1/3 of Washington as part of the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf population. If managed as part of the northern Rocky Mountain wolf population, Washington does not need to have near as many wolves as suggested in the Wolf Plan or the Peer Review, biological diversity is already guaranteed since this population is nearing 2000 documented wolves with individuals moving state to state.
(please watch the Idaho F&G Video, movement of wolves between states is illustrated)
 
Idaho F&G Video: http://washingtonwolf.info
Wolf Plan Peer Review: http://washingtonwolf.info/pdf/Washington-FWS-DEIS-PeerReview-March2010.pdf
Hydatid Disease: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydatid_disease
Graves Warning: http://graywolfnews.com/pdf/Graves_1993_Letter_EIS.pdf
Letter to MT EQC: http://graywolfnews.com/pdf/CommentsToEQC(2).pdf
Neospora Caninum: http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext/INF-DA/INF-DA_NEOSPORA.HTML
Hydatid Disease: http://washingtonwolf.info/Outdoorsman_Dec_2009.pdf
2009 Livestock Losses: http://graywolfnews.com/pdf/id-ws-fy-2009-wolf-report.pdf
Livestock Losses: http://graywolfnews.com/pdf/wolf_depredation_87-08.pdf
MT Livestock Losses: http://graywolfnews.com/pdf/missoulianwolfad.pdf
Idaho Director: http://www.kivitv.com/Global/story.asp?S=12096829 

I would suggest the Washington Wolf Plan be submitted to experienced professionals who are involved in state game management in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Alaska for an unbiased Peer Review that is based on the reviewer’s experience in real-life wolf management and the real issues involved with wolf recovery. As a Washington resident who strongly supports wildlife in Washington, I hope you will direct the WDFW to have another Peer Review done by professionals with actual wolf management experience.

Best Regards,
Dale

[Redmist]

You can't teach an old dog new tricks.  Suggestions from WDFW Biologists are ignored.  Ask them, (I have, and they tell me that in all the hundreds of suggestions they submit, few or none have been taken when it comes to wildlife management).  With the ego of this state management, input from other states is just flat ignored.  If a wildlife biologist talks about Hydatid or Neospora, in relation to humans he has experience, because he is a wildlife biologist, not an M.D.  Not that he doesn't know what he is talking about, but from a legal leg, he gives the state a reason to ignore.  Take this out of the zoo, and fight it at the Surgeon General level.  Take it to the Medical community where maybe it can't be ignored due to expert warning.  That's what I did today, the young surgeon with me found his first shed, he liked it, and he knew about Hydatid and didn't like that.  Get the people who might be listened to involved.   

[Little Dave]

I'm not sure about how the medical community is arranged along the lines of ethics.  I figure it would be a minority from that group that would recognize the risk and recommend attention to the matter.  I would expect the mainstream to wait it out and see.  In general, this is our society's approach to other long term alarms such as the global warming and climate change theory.  Just like energy offset purchasing, tree hugging global warming crisis harpies are still tootin along in a five miles per gallon citybus driven on asphault paved roads, a few of us who know about the tapeworm risk are still going to eat the berries out there.  Come on... they're good.

Apart from what should be done, the next best bet is to document the problem so that in 20 years when incidence of this disease becomes a mainstream health concern in this region, the problem can be recognized for what it is... and a solution to the problem at the ready.

[mathews_shooter4life]

This issue need way more input and also need DEQ to step up and declare the health hazards faced with the introduction and acceptance this species has been granted to our region. Here is a few words emailed to me by a Gov. Official from Montana...
Quote)
Yes, the wrong subspecies was introduced. The Rocky Mtn Gray Wolf is about 60-80 lbs. The Timber wolf of Canada grows to 120-150 lbs. The Rocky Mtn wolf ran in packs of three to seven (normally). The Timber wolf runs in packs all the way up to 35-40. I know of one near here that had 34. This has a huge impact on big game. Suffice it to say, if something is not done about the 3,000-5,000 wolves in Mt, Id, Wy our hunting will be gone for generations. BTW, all knowledgeable wolf experts will tell you that the actual number of wolves is two to three times as what is counted. The minimum counts are now at 1720 so that means any where from 3,440 to 5,160. Far more than the habit can sustain for a long period of time. Introduction of the wolf from Canada will prove to be a disaster, not only to game but the apparent introduction of E. Granulosus.(Quote)

This person is giving speeches throughout Montana now about just the E. Granulosus problem. This is more of a problem than we originally thought and were told.

We need to get our state's(Or & Wa) on the same page. Oregon has a management plan in place that allows 4 breeding pairs east and 4 breeding pairs west of the Cascades. (way too many in my opinion) My thoughts are that if we are forced to accept this species, ( which I fight every day, and refuse to accept personally) as normal, 35 wolves is too many for our state to house. (and that is just a figure of my own).

Fact is we need to get the public to see the truth surrounding this species...

1) This species is not native. (canis lupus occidentalis)

2) The native species, even through recent changes to taxonomy, is much smaller and travels in way smaller packs. (5-7 wolves as compared to 25-35).

3) Over 60% of wolves tested for E. Granulosus where infected in Idaho and Montana last year.

http://westinstenv.org/wildpeop/2010/01/10/two-thirds-of-idaho-wolf-carcasses-examined-have-thousands-of-hydatid-disease-tapeworms/

Here is a quote from an interview.....
(Quote)
Parasitologist William Foreyt of Washington State University was surprised by the amount of tapeworms they found in the 123 wolves he helped study.

“I was absolutely shocked to see such a high prevalence,” he said. “Some of these wolves had tens of thousands of tapeworms. They were massively infected.”(Quote)

There is a lot of information surrounding this species that must be shared to the public.