Washington Wolf politics

[bearpaw]

A story about Northeast Oregon
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=432121858242#!/notes/keely-hopkins/-and-the-westside-remains-silent/432121858242

Keely Hopkins: ... and the Westside remains silent.

When I was 10 years old, Oregon passed an initiative that banned the use of cougar hunting with dogs. I am not a hunter, and I am not a rancher, but Measure 18 forever changed my life. I am now a law school graduate and heavily immersed in Oregon politics and policy-making because of one initiative. Measure 18 was passed by Oregon’s urban majority with a campaign led by the Humane Society of the United States out of Washington D.C.. In the years following Measure 18, Oregon’s cougar population doubled the recommended level for Oregon. I sat by with the rest of Wallowa County to witness the effects. Ranchers lost cattle, horses were killed, and the deer and elk populations were dramatically depleted. The urban majority was happy to govern Eastern Oregon’s wildlife until the negative effects were voiced, and then the Westside remained silent. To me, there is something inherently wrong with Rural Oregon not having meaningful say on what are primarily rural issues. Determined to help Wallowa County’s voice be heard, I made the big move across the mountains to Oregon’s Capital and enrolled in law school.

Fast forward to today. The Board of Commissioners are asking the Governor to declare a state of emergency in Wallowa County. For the last month, a pack of 10 wolves have killed two calves per week east of Joseph. Wallowa County is a small ranching community of about 7,200 people, with agriculture being one of our only remaining industries. 10 calves killed in 3 weeks and a state agency reluctant to acknowledge the kills has obviously stirred up the community.

So, how are our leaders responding? Oregon’s current administration has already failed Wallowa County, since it was their wolf plan that lacked management tools to help prevent kills or to respond effectively thereafter. Let's hope for better from Chris Dudley, who wants to be our next people’s representative as the Governor of Oregon, but at this point he has also remained silent on Wallowa County’s issues.

Eastern Oregon shouldn’t be discouraged though, some of our state legislators understand Oregon's issues extend beyond those of the I-5 corridor and are addressing our concerns. During the interim committee session, the House Committee on Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Rural Communities heard from Jim Beers, a former state wildlife agency official, who presented to the legislature on the potential for transmission of diseases by wolves near urban areas. Beers explained that 24 out of 29 diseases carried by wolves are transmittable to humans, with urban areas impacted the most due to close contact and more interaction. Representative Krieger, who worked with the Oregon Cattleman’s Association to bring Beers before the committee, questioned the possibility of wolves dramatically effecting Oregon’s deer and elk herds, citing Montana and Idaho’s herds being down 50-70% due to predation. Representative Smith also urged the legislature to consider revisiting the Oregon Wolf Plan.

With a letter in to the Governor, numerous media stories, and a few legislators going to bat for us, hopefully those with the ability to make changes will hear Wallowa County’s call for help. In the meantime, we just wait, while the Westside yet again remains silent.

[Little Dave]

Private citizens can capture probable wolves and collect specimens for testing.  This is arranged through the "scientific permit."  The permit is issued by WDFW.  Presumably, during capture, if the animal is determined by a credible biologist to be a hybrid, it could be dispatched as provided by law.

We don't have to wait for the state to do any of this.  We can do this... and I have some experience working with the state in this capacity.

Dave, how hard would it be to get one of those permits?

The plan needs to be a structured scientific study.  Setting up a plan would be the first step.  It should be prepared by a respected biologist who is familiar with both wolves, the study area, the process of collecting DNA samples, trapping and collaring methods, safety precautions, considerations for the public, opportunity for education and community outreach, volunteer training and so forth.  I could help prepare an outline for something like this but my training is in other sciences.  The detail is best managed by a wildlife biologist.

The difficulty in the case of the Methow might be that Mr. Fitkin, whom you have mentioned several times, would be one of the biologists assigned to review the plan.  I know nothing of the man except for what you have described.  However, if you have something set up where you are legitimately monitoring the wolves you might someday reach an awkward situation where you are funded but the state not so much.  Guess who knocks on your door for a job?

[haus]

Can you imagine calling yourself a wildlife biologist but only presenting preferencial facts to the public? You'd get laughed out of the room. Are you going to tell us that a majority percentage of the biologists studying these wolves are being entirely neutral and withholding any of their social or economic views from their reports? 

Without speaking for the biologists that are working on the wolves in WA, I would guess that they are tired of being flamed (generally irrational rants) by the public for something they have no real control over.  They didn't put the wolves here, they're just trying to do their job and learn what they can about them.  Maybe there is bias, i suppose it would be easy to form...but I think the people (at least the field staff) are trying to do their best with the situation.

I guess the stuff I've seen from the agencies has been pretty accurate.  Without going into ridiculous conspiracy theories, what have they said that was untrue?  What evidence does anyone here have to refute their biology?   

The whole documentation thing is a challenge.  The agency can't really produce a news release about a wolf sighting...they needed to gather REAL information and document reproduction before they could 'go public'.  I'm doubtful that they ever denied having some wolves in the state.  Instead they were wary about making a claim of a pack when it wasn't reproducing.  I think they were right to err on the side of caution.   
 

So you don't think the personal opinions, general beliefs, and any possible or real affiliations to any organization has any impact on how a biologist goes about his/her profession? You don't think it shows in how they've interpreted the data and how they are presenting it in their reports?

If your answers no then congradulations for this being the sole profession that conducts its business without the interference of personal opinion. By no means do I see this as a bad thing or see this as a reason to view any biologist negatively. I just don't take any biologists' word as the gospel, but it seems that in general our society does.

[RidgeRunner_07]

might as well move to Idaho...Washingtons got our dogs....trying to keep our "bird" trees.....bait barrels...and a majority of the traps...why not keep the Wolves?

[Special T]

What would you guys think about a question answer session with a wolf biologist... especially one that we may not agree with... Do you think we could just ask intelligent Questions? We may not be able to get one on our forum but get answers via email... I guess i should start a poll...

[Lowedog]

What would you guys think about a question answer session with a wolf biologist... especially one that we may not agree with... Do you think we could just ask intelligent Questions? We may not be able to get one on our forum but get answers via email... I guess i should start a poll...

As long as it's not someone who reads much on this site you might be able to find someone who will talk with you.   

[WAcoyotehunter]

What would you guys think about a question answer session with a wolf biologist... especially one that we may not agree with... Do you think we could just ask intelligent Questions? We may not be able to get one on our forum but get answers via email... I guess i should start a poll...

As long as it's not someone who reads much on this site you might be able to find someone who will talk with you.   

good point... one major concern of mine would be that folks on here would just call BS because the answers don't match what they believe to be the case.  Hopefully this does not happen.  Otherwise, I think it's a great idea! 

[bearpaw]

We are working on getting a wolf blog attached to graywolfnews.com.

My hope is to offer biologists, wolf experts, and noted individuals each their own page on the blog to comment. I will offer any biologist a page on the wolf blog. Every Biologist reads and interpets data in different ways, I would prefer to get as many different people as possble.

[haus]

one major concern of mine would be that folks on here would just call BS because the answers don't match what they believe to be the case.

that would depend on the biologist in question

[wolfbait]

The subspecies should be discussed.  That is one of the problems with translocating (not introducing to the state, but moving within) wolves from Eastern Wa to the Cascades...some people lump some people split...in this case we should probably think about it before wolves are moved from here to there.  It might not be appropriate for the wolves in PO county to be in the cascades, but there is little evdidence to tell us what was where...  

why wasn't this part of the conversation and why hasn't it been mentioned in the WWG proposals then? why would the WWG ramrod legislation that ignores such information and leaves out any window of opportunity for it to be discussed? If such possibilities are even remotely true then why is it being ignored by our states biologists? Why would it not be mentioned by them? You know a simple "hang on guys we see there are possibly some fundamental differences between the two packs, its possible the ecological impact could differ between the two if placed in western wa" why is that so hard to say?

September 8, 1991
Removing the wolf from the endangered-species list is the primary objective of Montana's recovery plan.
Although wolves generally prefer to prey upon elk and deer, and although attacks on humans almost never happen, livestock owners contend that they prey indiscriminately. But Fish and Wildlife Service figures indicate that domestic livestock are rarely killed by wolves.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/archive/?date=19910908&slug=1304367

Wednesday, February 5, 1992
The gray wolf, listed as endangered in every state but Minnesota and Alaska, disappeared from Washington in the early 1900s. But reports of wolf sightings in the wild North Cascades have increased in recent years. In 1990 biologists discovered two dens - the first time wolves had been sighted in the state since 1975.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/archive/?date=19920205&slug=1473981

Friday, April 17, 1992
State wildlife agents already have identified six packs of wolves in Washington's Cascades, and more are expected to migrate from Canada to the state's protected forests.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/archive/?date=19920417&slug=1486887

Copyright (c) 1992
It must also be remembered that the wolf is listed as an endangered or threatened species in all the 48 lower states and that plans are under way for wolf recovery in Utah, Colorado (Bennett 1994), Arizona, and New Mexico. Washington state may already have more wolves than Montana. Wolf reintroductions are being considered for New York and Maine (Van Ballenberghe 1992), and the red wolf has already been released in the Southeast. Under the present Endangered Species Act, wolves must be restored to every state with suitable habitat; at least, that is how the act is being interpreted by environmental organizations.
http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/endangered/wolfreport.htm

December 6, 1992
TWISP, Okanogan County - We may not be dancing with wolves, but they're here, their numbers are growing and it is possible to coexist with them in relative peace.
For example, 100 sightings were reported in 1981, and last year there were 200, ranging as far south as Mount St. Helens, Almak said.
Biologists are trying to write a wolf-recovery plan for Washington.
Originally planned as part of a recovery program for the northern Rockies, where wolves were brought in, the effort could become unique to Washington because of the apparently burgeoning population.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19921206&slug=1528536


Copyright (c) 1997
In 1990, adults with pups were seen in the Hozomeen area. This was the first known reproduction of wild wolves in Washington State in at least 50 years! Since 1990, biologists have seen three separate groups of adult wolves with pups in the Cascades.
http://www.nps.gov:80/archive/noca/wolf.htm

Friday, November 1, 2002
WASHINGTON — Two conservation groups are calling on the federal government to restore gray wolves to Washington state, saying it's time to "hear the call of the wild again" in Western Washington forests.
Defenders of Wildlife and the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance said yesterday they have sent a petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, requesting that the agency restore and protect gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/archive/?date=20021101&slug=graywolves01m

07/19/2008
A state biologist said Monday that he believes one or more packs of gray wolves are living in the Methow Valley...
Packers have made numerous reports of wolves in the high country in the past couple of years, and there have been increasing reports by residents in lower elevations, he said.
Fitkin said there have been reliable wolf sightings in the Methow dating to the early 1990s, but only sporadic, unconfirmed reports of wolf packs.
http://daily.sightline.org:80/daily_score/archive/2008/07/19/washingtons-wolves-are-back

 WDFW doesn’t want anything to do with remembering the first wolf recovery in Washington. Without the Mackenzie wolves it is not considered wolf recovery.

[bearpaw]

http://www.ussportsmen.org/Page.aspx?pid=1490&storyid2905=79&ncs2905=3
 
HSUS’ Conspiracy Theory   
 
Wednesday, June 16, 2010 5:01:20 PM

By Doug Jeanneret, Vice President of Marketing
Do you like conspiracy theories?  Apparently, the Humane Society of the United States’ President and CEO, Wayne Pacelle, does.

You could not ask for a more crystal clear description of the views the HSUS has about hunting than this little piece from a previous Wayne Pacelle blog dealing with Alaska’s wolf management program:

“Many state fish and wildlife agencies cater to sport hunting enthusiasts by managing deer, elk, moose, and caribou for elevated population levels. They treat wild areas as open-area wildlife game ranchers, viewing wild ungulates like cattle and sheep, and killing the predators that threaten them—just like ranchers do. More predation by wolves, bears, or mountain lions means fewer game animals for hunters to shoot. They’ve got an economic stake in the matter: with inflated populations of hoofed game mammals, they can sell more hunting licenses and generate revenue for their bureaucracy.”

In the mind of the head honcho at HSUS, state agencies are basically conspiring to sell licenses in order to increase their bureaucracy.  If this is an accurate reflection of how they feel, how can any reasonable person not believe that they are adamantly anti-hunting?  Instead of acknowledging science, they assume underhanded motivations on behalf of wildlife professionals.

I wonder how the agency folks feel about being accused of this?

[bearpaw]

I would suggest that some people in our agencies are subscribing to the HSUS philosophy and want to decrease hunting and fishing opportunities.

[jackelope]

one major concern of mine would be that folks on here would just call BS because the answers don't match what they believe to be the case.

that would depend on the biologist in question

What it would really depend on is the willingness from the folks on both sides to listen to stuff they might not want to hear.

What biologist in their right mind is gonna want to come on here, explain wolf science, and then get their heads torn off by all the folks on here, then called a liar, then called a DOW supporter, then on and on...I don't see it happening. I'd love to see it but I don't think you'll convince a bio to do it.
 

[WAcoyotehunter]

one major concern of mine would be that folks on here would just call BS because the answers don't match what they believe to be the case.

that would depend on the biologist in question

What it would really depend on is the willingness from the folks on both sides to listen to stuff they might not want to hear.

What biologist in their right mind is gonna want to come on here, explain wolf science, and then get their heads torn off by all the folks on here, then called a liar, then called a DOW supporter, then on and on...I don't see it happening. I'd love to see it but I don't think you'll convince a bio to do it.
 

you forgot "WOLF LOVER" the worst thing you can call someone here!!!! 

I agree though.  It would require some restraint and consideration of other folks views.  It might happen though.  There are a few that might appreciate the opportunity to volunteer some information. 

[Curly]

I don't see Fitkin getting much of a chance on this board.