Wolf Wars have moved to Washington

[bobcat]

Here is a map showing the regions in the wolf management plan:

[bobcat]

From page 86 of the wolf plan:

25 Lethal take in the act of attacking livestock: This provision allows lethal take of wolves “in the act”
26 of attacking livestock (defined as biting, wounding, or killing; not just chasing or pursuing) by
27 livestock owners, family members, and authorized employees on private land they own or lease
28 during all state listed statuses, if wolves are not federally listed. If federally listed, it would have to be
29 consistent with federal law, which prohibits killing an endangered species except in cases of self
30defense. At federal threatened status, there is more management flexibility through federal
31 regulations. Wherever wolves are federally listed in Washington, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
32 will be in the lead. WDFW will consult with and collaborate with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on
33 management decisions and actions to ensure consistency with federal law. Lethal take in the act of
34 attacking livestock is not allowed by citizens while wolves are federally endangered.
35
36 Under state law, killing an endangered species is prohibited under RCW 77.15.120, unless it has been
37 authorized by rule of the commission. Subject to limitations established by the commission, certain
38 private citizens may kill wildlife that is threatening human safety or causing property damage.
39 Under RCW 77.36.030, the conditions set by the Commission must include “appropriate protection
40 for threatened or endangered species.” It also states that in establishing the limitations and
41 conditions related to wolves, the Commission “shall take into consideration the recommendations
42 of the Washington state wolf conservation and management plan.”
43
44 While wolves are listed as state endangered and threatened, this management tool will be
45 reconsidered if used inappropriately or if more than two wolves are killed under this provision in a
46 year. WDFW will carefully monitor total statewide wolf mortality from all causes to ensure that

(page 87)
1 mortality from all causes is not adversely affecting recovery. After delisting, this provision will
2 include both private and public land owned or leased by the livestock producer.
3
4 According to WAC 232-36-051, it is unlawful to kill state endangered species causing damage to
5 commercial livestock unless authorized by Commission rule or WDFW permit. It is important for
6 livestock owners to understand that wolves stalking, looking at, or passing near livestock, present in
7 a field with livestock, standing over dead livestock, or present on private property are not considered
8 to be in the act of attacking. Wolves seen near domestic animals can and should be deterred with
9 non-lethal methods. Wolves may not be intentionally baited, fed, or deliberately attracted for any
10 purpose, including killing under this provision. Public education is necessary for this provision to be
11 used appropriately and to not adversely affect wolf recovery. Experience from the northern Rocky
12 Mountain states (Sime et al. 2007; E. Bangs, pers. comm.) suggests that this provision will likely be
13 rarely used in Washington and that very few wolves would be killed under it, especially during the
14 early stages of recovery when total wolf numbers are small.
15
16 Wolves killed under this provision must be reported to WDFW within 24 hours, with additional
17 reasonable time allowed if there is limited access to the take site. The wolf carcass must be
18 surrendered to WDFW and preservation of physical evidence from the scene of the attack for
19 inspection by WDFW is required.

[bearpaw]

Dale,
Judging by the public comments I heard at the meeting. Your group should be attending every meeting until this thing is finalized. 

My only suggestion is. When you guys speak to the commission. Make sure to leave out any emotion you may have pertaining to this issue. And make damned sure that all comments are fact based. If you let your emotions get out of check at these meetings. It just hurts any chance of being taken seriously. Comments to the commission should be well thought out and written out to stay on topic.

Unfortunately the wolf issue is what it is. They WILL be here to stay. The hurdle now will be. Countering the wolf lovers, to keep the numbers as low as possible. And the number of zones to thier current numbers.

You cannot keep the #s low because you are afraid the wolves are going to kill a lot of deer and elk. It needs to be based on science. The science says you need 15 breeding pairs to produce a sustainable wolf population in Washington. This is the science talking, not the emotion.

The wolf advocates were at the meeting and complained that the department's goal of 15 breeding pairs was much too low. I think that's why he said "countering the wolf lovers to keep numbers as low as possible". The WDFW has obviously done their homework and if they say 15 breeding pairs is good enough, then it is, and I have no doubt it's based on the best science available. But some people will never be happy with any number the WDFW comes up with, and they will always argue for a higher number. Reason for that- probably because they don't ever want to see wolves off the endangered species list in our state.

it needs to be based on science. Wolf lovers want more wolves and others want little to no wolves. Let the science do the talking. 15 breeding pairs is what the science says. If people want to disagree with what the science says, that's fine. Whether we agree with the science or not, the science is what it is.

Here is the problem with "your science", your science is based on biologists who love wolves and studies scewed in favor of wolves. There are also scientists opposed to wolves, but the state F&G and media choose to ignore their warnings.

We have all seen the results of too many wolves in YNP, Idaho, MT, WI, MN, and WY. The "proven" science from those states now indicates the F&G and wolf lovers all want too many wolves for the land to support and that will cause great losses of other animal populations resulting in impacts to citizens and livestock as hungry wolves are forced to invade populated areas.

This scenario "wolf science" is already being orchestrated in Washington exactly as it was done in the other states, it started with the wolf lovers promoting wolves and infiltrating the F&G programs. Then the past WDFW director appointed a Wolf Working Group that was weighted heavy to wolf supporters, no wonder the working group recommended 15 bp's. The minority position recommended half as many wolves. FACT (its in the draft wolf plan)

You know that with the current wolf plan there will be far more than the 15 bp's on the ground (that you say you desire). For every "documented" breeding pair, there will most likely be two or thee bp's (packs) of wolves eating elk, deer, and moose. The WDFW can't even spray noxious weeds on their small holdings, or respond to all the cougar complaints, how can we think they will possibly find and document all the wolves in Washington. Then to top it off, you already know that wolf groups will sue in Washington courts to stop any management and that wolves will continue to populate.

That is the "proven" science of wolves in a NUTSHELL and you know all that is true.

Let's hear some more of your "false" wolf propaganda!
I want to thank you for helping to educate our members who have not been exposed to the same lies and deceit that occurred in ID/MT/WY/MN/WI/MI. 

bearpaw, science has absolutely nothing to do with whether one likes wolves or not. Science is determining how many wolves are needed to produce a sustainable wolf population.

robertg or Carter, whomever you are, you are absolutely correct, I totally agree.   

Science and history has now shown us irrefutable proof that the number of wolves "desired by wolf loving scientists" in remote Idaho and YNP cannot be supported. YNP and the Lolo prove without a doubt that previously desired wolf numbers can not be supported. Ungulate numbers will crash and wolves will be forced to invade ranching operations and seek out new herds to destroy.

You are trying to repeat the same process in Washington. That is not a "good" science, any reasonably intelligent person would look at what has happened on the ground in Idaho and YNP and conclude that the "new" science requires more conservative management of wolves.

Self Sustaining Wolf Population
This is a false argument you are using to claim that Washington needs 15 BP's. The "science" clearly shows that Washington wolves are clearly part of an already self sustaining and expanding population of wolves in Canada, Idaho, and Oregon. Science (dna taken from washington's wolves) has shown us that the documented BP's in Washington are "genetically proven" members of these large and growing wolf populations in Idaho and Canada.

The science has already proven that Washingtons wolves are part of a self sustaining wolf population that inhabits two countries and several states and provinces.

robertg, I suggest you look at the science and understand what it clearly and irrefutably indicates.

I again thank you, this time for helping to educate our membership on the true and proven science of wolves. 

[bobcat]

From page 87:


21 Lethal take in the act of attacking domestic dogs: This provision allows private citizens to kill a wolf
22 that is “in the act” of attacking (defined as biting, wounding, or killing; not just chasing or pursuing)
23 domestic dogs on private land while wolves are state listed. Lethal take in the act of attacking
24 domestic dogs is not allowed by citizens while wolves are federally listed. It is important to
25 understand that wolves stalking, looking at, or in the vicinity of domestic dogs are not considered to
26 be in the act of attacking. In these situations, wolves can and should be deterred with non-lethal
27 methods. Other conditions are the same as those identified in the previous section on lethal take in
28 the act of attacking livestock.
29
30 This management tool will be reconsidered if used inappropriately or if more than two wolves are
31 killed under this provision in a year. WDFW will carefully monitor total statewide wolf mortality
32 from all causes. After delisting, this provision would be allowed on both private land and on public
33 lands where allowed by the administering agency.

[mulehunter]

Here is a map showing the regions in the wolf management plan:

  Northern cascade and southern coast region alltogether in one regions is going make it really tough because yakima and south of Ellensburg.  They are going shoot whole packs when harvest quote met. And all other packs in thick forest going to live longer and wipe out all Elk herd. They need divide in to 5 not three. So packs will be serious balance each important Elk herd in wet land and dry land.

Mulehunter.

[bobcat]

I see it as a positive thing. This means there could be wolves in the southern Cascades, and NONE in the Willapa Hills or the Olympic Peninsula, and this wolf region would still have its allotment of wolves.

[bearpaw]

I see it as a positive thing. This means there could be wolves in the southern Cascades, and NONE in the Willapa Hills or the Olympic Peninsula, and this wolf region would still have its allotment of wolves.

mulehunter, I agree with Bobcat, the fewer areas the better. This way once we meet requirements for each of three regions then wolves can be delisted. It would even be better if we were like Idaho and just considered so many wolves for the whole state to delist. 

[mulehunter]

I see...

Cool.

Mulehunter

[DoubleJ]

Dale, check your PM's

[robertg]

robertg, how familiar are you with Washington and do you believe 15bp's is a realistic number? 

My opinion is that it is not a realistic goal for WA.  I don't believe WA has enough room for that many wolves and that we will never reach that number keeping wolves as a protected species here.

It's not what I think. I listen to what the science says. Wolves will continue to show up every now and then from places like Idaho and Canada and other places and some of these wolves will form new packs, so I believe that that number can be reached.

[billythekidrock]

If they want wolves in the Olympics, then I assume that means they want to transplant them.  It's one thing for wolves to enter across the ID or Canadian border and allow them to live, but to transplant them is another thing altogether IMO.

Not transplant......trans-locate. Move within the state.

[billythekidrock]

Why do we need 15 breeding pairs.........just so they can get off the endangered list?  Leave them on the list and keep the numbers at or below what they are now.

It is actually more than 15 breeding pairs.
It it 15 breeding pairs for 3 years. If there are 15 pairs, but one pair doesn't breed then it doesn't count.

[billythekidrock]

Dale,
Judging by the public comments I heard at the meeting. Your group should be attending every meeting until this thing is finalized. 

My only suggestion is. When you guys speak to the commission. Make sure to leave out any emotion you may have pertaining to this issue. And make damned sure that all comments are fact based. If you let your emotions get out of check at these meetings. It just hurts any chance of being taken seriously. Comments to the commission should be well thought out and written out to stay on topic.

Unfortunately the wolf issue is what it is. They WILL be here to stay. The hurdle now will be. Countering the wolf lovers, to keep the numbers as low as possible. And the number of zones to thier current numbers.

I agree 100%. Wolves are coming whether we like it or not. Now we need to try to mitigate the damage.
 
I was surprised that there seemed to be no one from the WFW at the meeting. I would have also thought there would have been a larger presence from the WPHA.

[bearpaw]

Dale read some of the books authored by the biologist working in Yellowstone and Idaho. They all admit that while they don't want the wolves to be killed they know it is necessary to keep the population in check. The nonprofits go through and glean info and use it out of context in their lawsuits to get what they want. Science says the goal was reached long ago but with all the lawsuits our hands are tied for now.

Also I would like some info preferably on line about the different species of wolves, and info that people use to determine that these wolves are in fact invasive species. Thanks.

As far as finding and following the wolves that is up to the USFWS until we are able to delist to state endangered. This is because they fall under federal protection under the ESA. So they will most likely be diligent until it is turned over to the state.
Brandon

My son was sitting watching some wolves in central Idaho that had made an elk kill on the road and drug it into a creek bottom. Two snowmobiles with well meaning "young USFWS wolf researchers" wolf experts pulls up to my son in central Idaho and asks if he has seen any wolves, he pointed across the canyon and said yes there's wolves right there. One wolf was running up the hillside with part of a elk leg in its mouth. Then my son asked them if they saw where the wolves ran the elk down on the road and drug it down into the creek bottom, they hadn't seen any of that. 

Next they questioned him where the wolves were all at, they hadn't been finding many. So my son told them about numerous wolf packs in the area.

My point is this, the USFWS is not using knowledgeable experienced outdoorsmen, they are using college kids who want to be wolf researchers. No wonder Idaho residents will tell you there are up to 5 times as many wolves as what is documented in Idaho.

More To The Story
At the same time my son is talking to these wolf researchers one of the other guides had walked in 4 miles up another canyon looking for cougar tracks. My son got through talking to the USFWS and went over to meet where the other guide was walking out. The other guide made it out and just as they are loading up dogs another two USFWS "young wolf experts" pulls in and tried to ask the two guides to quit walking their dogs up the canyon because they had trouble telling the differnce between dog and wolf tracks. They said they would tell the guides if there was any cougar tracks in there. Figuring that if the USFWS couldn't tell the difference between dog and wolf, how would they know cougar tracks, so they continued to walk the canyon that week.

There was a tom cougar working the area that had been on the road with lots of tracks and a old mule deer buck kill, wolves had ran the cougar off the kill 3 days earlier and the cougar never came back to finish the kill. There were also wolf tracks all over the road in the area, but it did not seem that the USFWS boys saw any tracks, they never mentioned during future meetings along the trail every day about seeing any of those tracks or the kill which was all visible from the road. 

This reinforces my point that we are being expected to trust the abilities of people who don't know what they are looking for, to document how many wolves there are in Washington. Trust me my friends, we will end up just like Idaho, or even worse.

Picture shows the mule deer buck killed by the cougar (notice heart & liver eaten) and then left after wolves ran the cougar out of the area. But the wolves never came back to eat the deer, they were only concerned with chasing the cougar out of the area, and the USFWS never mentioned seeing any of it and they never walked down to the kill to check it out. The two guides walked this trail every day and talked to the USFWS every day that week. 

[stumprat]

Excellent post Dale. This just shows how diligent we will have to be to keep USFW honest. And the WDFW for that matter.