Wolf Wars have moved to Washington

[robertg]

I THINK MOSTLY WE'RE AGAIANST WOLVES BEING SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS. (I'M NOT TALKING RE-INTRODUCING OR INTRODUCING ECT)  I'M TALKING ABOUT THE B.S. WOLF PLAN WITH B.S. NUMBERS THAT THEY HAVE NO INTENSION TO STICKING TO (AS WE'VE SEEN).  THIS STATE CAN'T MANAGE THE PREDITORS THAT WE HAVE HERE AS IS,... SO LETS TRY TO GET A CRAPLOAD OF MORE PREDITORS(MORE DISTRUCTIVE ONES) SO WE CAN MISMANAGE THEM TOO,    ITS MORE ABOUT MANAGEMENT THAN BEING AGAINST WOLVES.  AS OF RIGHT NOW, WE NEED A BIG CHANGE TO THE PREDITOR MANAGEMENT THAT WE HAVE NOW, AND WE NEED TO START MANAGEING THE WOLVES RIGHT AWAY, BY REGIONS, NOT BY THE WHOLE STATE.

Wolves were not shoved down your throat. The wolves in WA now came over naturally from other states. Natural migration is not the same thing as WA going to other states to get wolves and bringing them back to WA.

THERE THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE MORE VISABLE.   
ITS THE WOLF PLAN THAT IS BASICALLY SHOVING THE  B.S. NUMBER DOWN OUR THROATS.  AND WE ALREADY KNOW THAT 15 BREEDING PAIRS WON'T BE ENOUGH FOR THE GREENIES.  THEY'LL WANT MORE AND MORE AND MORE WITHOUT LOOKING AT OTHER PROBLEMS. (PREDITOR POPULATION AS A WHOLE)

I know you are worried that wolves are going to eat a lot of deer and elk, but we need to set our personal feelings aside and let the scientists determine how many wolves is needed for a sustainable population. This has nothing to do with loving wolves or being a wolf lover or hating them. This is all about science.


Wolf population targets laid out in a draft management plan by Washington Department of Fish and Game officials are too low to sustain a viable population, according to some independent scientists who reviewed the proposal.

Wolves were classified as an endangered species across the state of Washington by the federal government in 1973 and by the state government in 1980. In 2009 the predators were delisted under federal law for the eastern third of Washington, though they remain listed as endangered in the western two-thirds of the state. Well aware that wolves likely will begin to spread across their state, Washington officials are drawing up a management plan that will allow wolves to be delisted as an endangered species statewide...but prevent them from growing too robustly in number.

The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, under a draft environmental impact statement examining the management plan, is proposing a goal of 15 breeding pairs to justify removal of the species from protection under that state's Endangered Species Act. But officials with the National Parks Conservation Association have questioned those population targets, and their concerns are now being supported by an independent review.

“The majority of the scientific reviewers agree with NPCA that a higher number of breeding pairs is needed to produce a sustainable wolf population in Washington,” said David G. Graves, the NPCA's Northwest field representative.

According to NPCA officials, some scientists who conducted an independent peer review of the state's DEIS found that its population recommendations are not biologically defensible and will not ensure the ‘reestablishment of a self-sustaining population of gray wolves in Washington.’

As one reviewer puts it, the current population goal of 15 breeding pairs “does not flow from the result of scientific evaluation.” A second reviewer states, “…we might anticipate that the state should support somewhere between 320 and 668 wolves.” Finally, a third reviewer says, “Wolf populations currently living in Wisconsin and Michigan are at levels of 626+ and 580+ wolves (winter 2009) respectively, in states that have human population densities similar to Washington…”
The reviewers also said that an adjustment of the population goals and other minor changes (such as addressing how interaction with other wolf populations would be maintained or restored) can result in a scientifically defensible plan, the parks advocacy group said.

“The blind scientific peer review is vitally important and should be closely considered in crafting the final version of the wolf plan for the state of Washington,” said Mr. Graves.

The review panel's comments are attached below.

Research indicates that healthy wolf populations can benefit local communities. The University of Montana recently estimated that Yellowstone National Park wolves generate $35 million in economic benefits every year for local communities. This money comes from tourist spending directly related to wolves, including wolf tours and related services, such as lodging and meals.

Scientists also believe the return of the gray wolf to the Olympic peninsula would lead to cleaner water and healthier ungulate populations, NPCA said. In Olympic National Park, stream and river habitat has been damaged from elk overgrazing. This damage is limited in other parks, such as Yellowstone, where wolves are present to control and manage the elk population, the group said.

In January, members of the Washington State Legislature and local Washington community leaders sent a letter to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) urging it to restore a healthy and vibrant wolf population to Washington State. The letter included five members of the state Senate, 15 members of the state House of Representatives and 13 community leaders, including Paula L. Houston, Executive Director of the Mathews East Madison YMCA, Bob Kelly, Policy Director for the Nooksack Indian Tribe, and Peter Jackson of the Henry M. Jackson Foundation.

[robertg]

SO,.. ROBERT:  WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD BE THE RIGHT WAY TO HANDLE THE WHOLE WOLF/PREDITOR PROBLEM HERE IN WASHINGTON?  HOW DO YOU THINK WASHINGTON WILL BENEFIT FROM WOLVES? (WITH THE CURRENT WOLF PLAN)  WILL WASHINGTON BENEFIT FROM THIS ECONOMICALLY? HOW DO YOU THINK THIS SHOULD ALL BE PAID FOR? KEEP IN MIND THAT MOST HUNTER DON'T WANT THIS.

Wolves, bears, and bison are the biggest attractions at ynp and many people go to yellowstone specifically to see these animals. When there are 15 breeding pairs which is what the science says will be a sustainable wolf population, hunting will be allowed for wolves. Yeah, I know hunters don't want this, but there are others in wa who do.

[BIGINNER]

SO,.. ROBERT:  WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD BE THE RIGHT WAY TO HANDLE THE WHOLE WOLF/PREDITOR PROBLEM HERE IN WASHINGTON?  HOW DO YOU THINK WASHINGTON WILL BENEFIT FROM WOLVES? (WITH THE CURRENT WOLF PLAN)  WILL WASHINGTON BENEFIT FROM THIS ECONOMICALLY? HOW DO YOU THINK THIS SHOULD ALL BE PAID FOR? KEEP IN MIND THAT MOST HUNTER DON'T WANT THIS.

Wolves, bears, and bison are the biggest attractions at ynp and many people go to yellowstone specifically to see these animals. When there are 15 breeding pairs which is what the science says will be a sustainable wolf population, hunting will be allowed for wolves. Yeah, I know hunters don't want this, but there are others in wa who do.

   YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION....   

[Dave Workman]

As far as national parks like yellowstone go, wolves are being managed. Wolves die from other things like disease, starvation, getting hit by cars, etc. I do find it a bit odd that Washington has a lot of cougars and as of now, they are killing many more deer and elk than wolves and all people seem to focus on is wolves. There seems to be a lot of hate for wolves and not that much hate for cougars even though there are by far many more cougars in WA and they are killing many more deer and elk than wolves as of now.

It may have something to do with the fact that people are allowed to hunt cougars and kill them. Hopefully one day, we will see full restoration of hound hunting for mountain lions as it was when I was a kid.

People know you cannot hunt wolves here and will NEVER be able to hunt wolves here because the wolf advocates have already demonstrated they will not settle for the level of wolves suggested in the draft plan, and they have no intention of dealing in good faith with wildlife managers here. They have a well-established track record that continually interferes with management, no matter how "scientific" it might be, because they will come up with their own science and scientists, to contest your science and scientists.

Predator populations allowed to grow unchecked will prey unchecked. YNP is a text book example, and while there may be other contributing factors to the dramatic drop in elk populations in the park, for anyone to suggest that wolves were not a major factor is delusional or a deliberate lie. It is already established that wolves do "thrill kills" and that there has been a rare occasion of wolves killing humans.

This state has far too many cougars and we saw from the black bear incident in Lynnwood the other day that we have too many bears, too. They are bolder and they are more abundant, because of the disastrously stupid hound hunting ban. But people with the right tags can kill mountain lions and bears. Not so with wolves.

[robertg]

SO,.. ROBERT:  WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD BE THE RIGHT WAY TO HANDLE THE WHOLE WOLF/PREDITOR PROBLEM HERE IN WASHINGTON?  HOW DO YOU THINK WASHINGTON WILL BENEFIT FROM WOLVES? (WITH THE CURRENT WOLF PLAN)  WILL WASHINGTON BENEFIT FROM THIS ECONOMICALLY? HOW DO YOU THINK THIS SHOULD ALL BE PAID FOR? KEEP IN MIND THAT MOST HUNTER DON'T WANT THIS.

Wolves, bears, and bison are the biggest attractions at ynp and many people go to yellowstone specifically to see these animals. When there are 15 breeding pairs which is what the science says will be a sustainable wolf population, hunting will be allowed for wolves. Yeah, I know hunters don't want this, but there are others in wa who do.

   YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION.... 

I'm sure there are  people in WA who don't necessarily hunt who would enjoy seeing wolves in the wild. I know most hunters don't want wolves in WA.

[sebek556]

Robertg, I have been researching this for 3 days now, and have found multiple videos of packs of wolves killing and leaving game in yellowstone, a few are posted on this thread. Also is you look at other threads we are trying to get  more rights to both cougar and bear. Some of the issues here are A washington does not have the abundance of elk populations of idaho or montana, so after elk populations decline what will be the next target? Moose population is also low to very low so not a good target. Deer while the deer population is good many of these populations are in urban enviroments so this means wolves hunting prey in sub-urbs, do you think this is a good idea? B The number of contagous virus in the wolves,  60 to 70% of the wolf's tested in idaho have one of three types of roundworms that can infect humans along with other animals, these are transfered through feces salvia and hair. So your nature walk could infact be bringing unwanted guest into your home. C since wolf reintroduction in montana there has been over 1 million dollars paid to farmers and ranchers for confirmed wolf kills, this does not include disappearences beleave to be cause by wolve predation where no carcus was recovered. 1 million dollars in 15 years started by 20 wolves. in my area we have schools closing due to lack of funds, would you rather educate the youth of our state or pay for a wild animal that is already here? More to follow if you needs links to any of this information let me know. All are confirmed sources not a news reporter.

[Dave Workman]

When there are 15 breeding pairs which is what the science says will be a sustainable wolf population, hunting will be allowed for wolves.

What flavor of Kool Aid is that you're drinking?

[sebek556]

i knew it would not belong before one popped into or little world here. cant wait for some data from him.
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/news/fg_news/10/aug.pdf
offical review of wolves impact on elk for you.

[BIGINNER]

SO,.. ROBERT:  WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD BE THE RIGHT WAY TO HANDLE THE WHOLE WOLF/PREDITOR PROBLEM HERE IN WASHINGTON?  HOW DO YOU THINK WASHINGTON WILL BENEFIT FROM WOLVES? (WITH THE CURRENT WOLF PLAN)  WILL WASHINGTON BENEFIT FROM THIS ECONOMICALLY? HOW DO YOU THINK THIS SHOULD ALL BE PAID FOR? KEEP IN MIND THAT MOST HUNTER DON'T WANT THIS.

Wolves, bears, and bison are the biggest attractions at ynp and many people go to yellowstone specifically to see these animals. When there are 15 breeding pairs which is what the science says will be a sustainable wolf population, hunting will be allowed for wolves. Yeah, I know hunters don't want this, but there are others in wa who do.

   YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION.... 

I'm sure there are  people in WA who don't necessarily hunt who would enjoy seeing wolves in the wild. I know most hunters don't want wolves in WA.

WELL SAID       IN OTHER WORDS,.. WOLVES WILL NOT BENEFIT THE STATE AT ALL.

[Kain]

WELL SAID       IN OTHER WORDS,.. WOLVES WILL NOT BENEFIT THE STATE AT ALL.

Any small economic gain will never offset the losses of lost hunting opportunity, livestock depredation, pets deaths, study after study, tracking, investigating and so on.  And that is not even counting the countless lawsuits the state will have to fight just to remove them from the list and the years of management the state will go through before they even admit the correct number of wolves. 

And after all that is said and done, you will have the same incompetents managing wolves that now manage our other predators.   

[BIGINNER]

WELL SAID       IN OTHER WORDS,.. WOLVES WILL NOT BENEFIT THE STATE AT ALL.

Any small economic gain will never offset the losses of lost hunting opportunity, livestock depredation, pets deaths, study after study, tracking, investigating and so on.  And that is not even counting the countless lawsuits the state will have to fight just to remove them from the list and the years of management the state will go through before they even admit the correct number of wolves. 

And after all that is said and done, you will have the same incompetents managing wolves that now manage our other predators.

YEP...  SAD DEAL 

[sebek556]

I must say thank you for emphasizing my point of needing a wolf cheat sheet. We give you a few facts and 25 mins later... nothing.

[robertg]

SO,.. ROBERT:  WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD BE THE RIGHT WAY TO HANDLE THE WHOLE WOLF/PREDITOR PROBLEM HERE IN WASHINGTON?  HOW DO YOU THINK WASHINGTON WILL BENEFIT FROM WOLVES? (WITH THE CURRENT WOLF PLAN)  WILL WASHINGTON BENEFIT FROM THIS ECONOMICALLY? HOW DO YOU THINK THIS SHOULD ALL BE PAID FOR? KEEP IN MIND THAT MOST HUNTER DON'T WANT THIS.

Wolves, bears, and bison are the biggest attractions at ynp and many people go to yellowstone specifically to see these animals. When there are 15 breeding pairs which is what the science says will be a sustainable wolf population, hunting will be allowed for wolves. Yeah, I know hunters don't want this, but there are others in wa who do.

   YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION.... 

I'm sure there are  people in WA who don't necessarily hunt who would enjoy seeing wolves in the wild. I know most hunters don't want wolves in WA.

WELL SAID       IN OTHER WORDS,.. WOLVES WILL NOT BENEFIT THE STATE AT ALL.

Wolves will bring benefits. The people who want to see them in the wild can. Just because wolves may not bring benefits to hunters, doesn't mean they won't bring benefits to people who love seeing wildlife.

[Wenatcheejay]

WELL SAID       IN OTHER WORDS,.. WOLVES WILL NOT BENEFIT THE STATE AT ALL.

Any small economic gain will never offset the losses of lost hunting opportunity, livestock depredation, pets deaths, study after study, tracking, investigating and so on.  And that is not even counting the countless lawsuits the state will have to fight just to remove them from the list and the years of management the state will go through before they even admit the correct number of wolves. 

And after all that is said and done, you will have the same incompetents managing wolves that now manage our other predators.

What the pro wolf organizations (& their mouthpieces) are saying is, "You know we are lying, You know we will not abide by any agreements we make, You know the outcome of our agenda will lower the number of human hunters, and we are determined to keep on course." The "science" is junk, it does not include all factors. Like every Eco-agenda the "science" plays out like a Jehovah Witness Watchtower. Their words are the truth from the rose colored glasses & the brainwashed point of view.

[BIGINNER]

Wolves will bring benefits. The people who want to see them in the wild can. Just because wolves may not bring benefits to hunters, doesn't mean they won't bring benefits to people who love seeing wildlife.

I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT HUNTERS BENEFITING.  I SAID STATE 
THE STATE WILL NOT BENEFIT IN ANY WAY FROM WOLVES.  JUST READ KAINS POST.  WE'VE SEEN IT HAPPEN IN IDAHO.  AND IT'LL BE THE SAME THING IN WASHINGTON, ONLY WORSE.