Washington Wolf politics

[groundhog]

I recieved this in an e mail today.  It looks like one breeding pair represents ten wolves. So 35 breeding pairs would be 350 wolves! Yikes!! We should all voice our opinions on issues like this! I think they should de-list them to big game animals once the breeding population reaches 4! These guys make sense to me!

May 27, 2008
Ms. Harriet Allen
Endangered and Threatened Species Section Manager
Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way N
Olympia, WA  98501-1091

The following represents a minority position held by the following members of the Wolf Working Group (WWG) Jack Field, Duane Cocking, Tommie Petrie, Daryl Asmussen, Jeff Dawson and Ken Oliver (We) on one critical component of the Wolf Working Group Plan; the number of Breeding Pairs (BP) of wolves that the state can support.  We are “unable to live with” the proposed numbers in the WWG Draft Plan.    We believe the numbers are too high and will result in direct conflict with the Livestock and Sportsman Communities.   

Currently the plan calls for 6 BP’s to down list to Threatened, 12 BP’s to down list to State Sensitive and at least 15 BP’s for 3 years before they can be considered for limited hunting( P.41 WWG draft). During this time period wolf populations could increase 24% per year (Bangs, conversation). Plus at the end of the 3 year time period, there is a very definite probability of one or more lawsuits as is now occurring after the Federal delisting of wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) area. It is estimated that it will take a minimum of 18 months for these challenges to work their way through the court system.

 This same scenario will probably occur in this state. Consequently we could be looking at as many as 28 to 35 BP’s before control measures could be taken to control their growth. All of this in a state with Washington’s Population of 6,490,000 people and a population density of 97.5 people/sq mi (WWG Draft Plan).  This is 5 to 6 times the human population density of the 3 principle states in the NRM area, MT, ID, and WY.  (WA, WY, ID, and MT state web sites). According to the Federal Register, Feb.8, 2007, Vol.72, number 26 this state has only 297 square miles of suitable wolf habitat in the eastern third of the state (p.6117 Federal Register). It should be noted that this same source shows the following amounts of suitable habitat in each of the states comprising the NRM are, MT. 40924 sq. mi., WY. 29808 sq. mi., ID. 31,586 sq. mi., OR. 2556 sq. mi. and, UT. 1635 sq. mi. This same report indicates that if the 3 major states (ID, MT, and WY) can support 10 BP’s for 3 years that the species can be considered to be fully recovered and can be considered for delisting (p.6107 Federal Register). That criteria was met in 2002 (p.6111 Federal Register).
 
The amount of suitable wolf habitat in the remaining two thirds of the state as depicted in the “Application of habitat models to wolf recovery planning in WA” by Carroll indicates scattered habitat in small isolated areas of the Okanogan, larger amounts of marginal habitat both North and South of Mt. Rainier, and a large area of habitat in and around the Olympic National Park, an area that strongly opposed wolf reintroduction several years ago.
 
Therefore we feel that the WWG’s desired number of BP’s is unrealistic given the lack of suitable habitat and the much higher human population density of this state and that the requirement of 15 BP’s for 3 years (50% Higher that the USFW criteria for recovery in WY, MT, and ID,) defies common sense. This is further compounded by a recent recommendation from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game Commissioners to set the limit for a wolf hunt at 2005 levels which could mean 500 wolves could be killed this year. Idaho Fish and Game biologists estimate there are currently about 750 wolves in the state, but after the breeding season this spring they expect more than 1,000.   The commissioners on the higher figures because they did not believe that hunting would bring the wolf population numbers down to the levels they wanted to see.

We therefore propose the following numbers of BP’s statewide. 3 BP’s to down list to Threatened, 6 BP’s to down list to State Sensitive, and 8 BP’s to change to a Big Game Animal. And we would eliminate the 3 year period since the state was not considered essential for recovery of wolves in the NRM (p.6119 Federal Register).
This total number of 8 BP’s or approximately 80 wolves would fit in the states economic analysis as outlined in Chapter XIII, “Economics” which states “Wolf numbers between 50 and 100 animals should pose little detriment to the states livestock industry as a whole…As wolf populations become larger and more widely distributed, financial impacts are likely to accrue to more producers” (p.23 WWG Draft). “Populations of 50 to 100 wolves should not have negative effects on big game hunting in Washington,” (p.38 WWG Draft).

The advantages of going with a lower number of BP’s are:  The sooner wolves can be removed from endangered and threatened status, the more tools stockmen and rural residents will have at their disposal to deal with problem wolves.

The sooner we can get wolves de-listed, the sooner our Fish and Wildlife Department can begin to manage them, until then their hands are tied.  The sooner we can get them listed as a Big Game Species, the sooner our Fish and Wildlife can turn them from a liability into an asset through the sale of raffle tags, permits, and Governors Tags.

We believe that these numbers are far too high and do not accurately represent the concerns that the livestock production community has with wolves.  The livestock community has preferred zero wolves from the beginning however, due to ESA and WDFW requirements zero is not an option.  We support the Minority Opinion Numbers of 3 breeding pairs to downlist to threatened, 6 breeding pairs to downlist to sensitive, and 8 breeding pairs to delist from sensitive and managed as a Big Game Species.  The higher numbers that the WWG Draft Plan includes will result in far more individual wolves than Washington has habitat to support thus causing a severe negative impact on private land owners and livestock producers.  Livestock producers must be able to protect their property regardless of the wolf’s status.  We are also concerned that the WDFW has not effectively demonstrated its ability to secure long term funds that will be a requirement in Management and Compensation.  Without funding there is NO Support of any plan!! 

The remainder of the WWG plan is acceptable to the supporters of the minority position.


Jack Field             Duane Cocking         Ken Oliver
Jack Field            Duane Cocking         Ken Oliver
            
Daryl Asmussen          Jeff Dawson            Tommie Petrie
Daryl Asmussen       Jeff Dawson          Tommie Petrie



            

[haus]

Bump because this is damn important 

[wolfbait]

*This total number of 8 BP’s or approximately 80 wolves would fit in the states economic analysis as outlined in Chapter XIII, “Economics” which states “Wolf numbers between 50 and 100 animals should pose little detriment to the states livestock industry as a whole…As wolf populations become larger and more widely distributed, financial impacts are likely to accrue to more producers” (p.23 WWG Draft). “Populations of 50 to 100 wolves should not have negative effects on big game hunting in Washington,” (p.38 WWG Draft).)

Quite sure the Okanaogan already has well over 80 wolves, maybe WDFW would like to share their list of how many wolves they have released in say the last five years in Okanogan County. Then we can conpare notes and perhaps start hunting wolves this fall.

[WAcoyotehunter]

Give me a break...why would you think that Okanogan has over 80 wolves?   I'm still highly skeptical of any "reports" of released wolves.  I don't believe that it happened, and thus far NO ONE has produced a shread of evidence that wolves were released there.      

[wolfbait]

Give me a break...why would you think that Okanogan has over 80 wolves?   I'm still highly skeptical of any "reports" of released wolves.  I don't believe that it happened, and thus far NO ONE has produced a shread of evidence that wolves were released there.      

Maybe you can explain why your buddy fitxin would lie about the wolf recovery project of the 1980's 90's? Or maybe you can explain why in the last five years the Methow Valley all of a sudden had many sightings of the big wolves? Or hows this. two wolf packs on the same day 25 miles seperating them and fitkin will not confirm. Why do I waste my time on you. Would you care to pull up the thread below and read about the first wolf pack in 70 years lie???

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,51056.45.html

In Washington, Feds Opt For Wolf Introduction Over Recovery
June 8, 2010

[WAcoyotehunter]

same ungrounded BS with no documentation...  show us the evidence of any wolf recovery efforts in the 80's and 90's...more than the same inaccurate newspaper article you always produce. 

Still waiting on your earthshaking court case to make the news too...can't wait for that. 

[haus]

same ungrounded BS with no documentation...  show us the evidence of any wolf recovery efforts in the 80's and 90's...more than the same inaccurate newspaper article you always produce. 

Still waiting on your earthshaking court case to make the news too...can't wait for that. 

wasn't an effort in the '90s cupcake the wolves did it on their own, detailed by NPS, WDFW, media outlets etc. Yet today everyone says 70 years!!! as if they just got here    apparently they got held up by ICE 

[jackelope]

same ungrounded BS with no documentation...  show us the evidence of any wolf recovery efforts in the 80's and 90's...more than the same inaccurate newspaper article you always produce. 

Still waiting on your earthshaking court case to make the news too...can't wait for that. 

wasn't an effort in the '90s cupcake the wolves did it on their own, detailed by NPS, WDFW, media outlets etc. Yet today everyone says 70 years!!! as if they just got here    apparently they got held up by ICE 

don't try and tell wolfbait they came here on their own.

[WAcoyotehunter]

yeah that.  and don't call me cupcake either...

You're exactly right; they are coming on their own.  it was only recently that the agencies were able to (put much real effort into) actually documenting the wolf packs.  A transient animal or a pack that does not persist means very little, they needed to collect some data to document reproduction. 
That's why the lookout pack was the "first documented pack"...not likely the first wolves to try though.

[wolfbait]

yeah that.  and don't call me cupcake either...

You're exactly right; they are coming on their own.  it was only recently that the agencies were able to (put much real effort into) actually documenting the wolf packs.  A transient animal or a pack that does not persist means very little, they needed to collect some data to document reproduction.  
That's why the lookout pack was the "first documented pack"...not likely the first wolves to try though.

By golly wacoyote yer just a wealth of information, I'm sure glad we have you to clear everything up for us. Keep up the good work!!

(same ungrounded BS with no documentation...  show us the evidence of any wolf recovery efforts in the 80's and 90's...more than the same inaccurate newspaper article you always produce.  

Still waiting on your earthshaking court case to make the news too...can't wait for that)

Once again you come through with flying colors, how ever do you manage? Do you suppose the news papers just made everything up? Nothing to do on a friday but sit around the seattle times news office and make up wolf stories, Hmmm. I bet fitkin is some pissed off about all the lies they wrote about him catching wolves back in them days, or maybe he paid them to fudge up some storeis so he could use them in his job seach. What do you think? Really I am just dyin to hear some more of your ideas.  

The lawsuit, well funny you should ask because I was just talking to a gentlman this morning and he made it perfectly clear that it is on the way. Takes a lot of money to sue but one of these days all the ducks will be lined up and things will start rolling along.  

[bearpaw]

Check out some of the recent wolf headlines: 
http://graywolfnews.com/



Have you guys read this before:

Gray Wolves' Return Subject Of Monday Meeting
Friday, April 17, 1992

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920417&slug=1486887

[Curly]

Interesting.

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.

[bearpaw]

That news report was in 1992, that was on one of wolfbaits previous posts, I can't take credit for finding, thank wolfbait.

[Lowedog]

So an 18 year old newspaper article where no one was actually quoted is supposed to some kind of proof of the great wolf conspiracy? 

[KillerMiller]

Newspapers are not always correct.  Many people are misquoted in articles all the time.  If we believe the article as fact, why almost 20 yrs later are we talking wolf recovery?  I thought these things multiplied like rabbits .  Surprised we still have elk and deer considering there were 6 packs back in 1992.