Washington Wolf Plan Poll

[pianoman9701]

here it is.

[asl20bball]

Sorry...just got lazy and stopped reading. Thanks for the info pianoman...looks much better.   

[pianoman9701]

Sorry...just got lazy and stopped reading. Thanks for the info pianoman...looks much better.   

No problem. You don't have to read. Just do what we tell you!! 

[Curly]

I don't understand why a study states that 10 BP over 3 states (not including WA) means that wolves can be delisted, but yet 10 BP are being offered as the number for this state?  Maybe I read it wrong, but it seems like the BP number could be much lower............like say 1. 

[bearpaw]

I don't understand why a study states that 10 BP over 3 states (not including WA) means that wolves can be delisted, but yet 10 BP are being offered as the number for this state?  Maybe I read it wrong, but it seems like the BP number could be much lower............like say 1.

Curly you are exactly correct. There is no federal requirement for Washington to have 15 bp's, 10bp's, or even 5 bp's. We are required to have an approved plan since the eastern 1/3 of the state is included in the Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) recovery area but it does not state that we must have any specific number of wolves. I am nearly positive there is no federal mandate to have any wolves in the other 2/3 of Washington, but we have them in the Methow and expanding into the Cascades so we are stuck adressing them in the state wolf plan. Additionally, the WDFW is trying to convince people that Washington must have a stand alone self sustaining wolf polulation. That is why they want 15 or more bp's.

DNA and tracking collars have proven the entire wolf population in the US and Canada is one big poulation now with wolves mgrating back and forth across state and provincial borders, plus the feds have delsited 1/3 of WA twice already, this is proof that Washington does not need a stand alone wolf population, Washington wolves are part of a much greater and growing self sustaining wolf population which numbers in the many thousands..

WDFW has done a good job of convincing people that 15 bp's is our only option, but that is a homegrown idea from within the WDFW. The problem is that sportsmen are outnumbered in the general public and in the Wolf Working Group. The "Minority Group" (ranchers and sportsmen) on the wolf working group are opposed to the 15 bp's and have offered a compromise solution provided that delisting occurs when the 10 bp's are documented (no 3 yr wait) and there is a cap on the maximum number of wolves.

Given the politics of Washington and the fact that there needs to be united opposition, I think the Minority Position is a much better option than what the WDFW is trying to shove on rural Washington.

As Pianoman said, if we request something unreasonable, WDFW will not even pay attention to us. If everyone will get behind the Minority Position, I think there is a chance it may be adopted as the Minority Group has made some very good arguments.

This state cannot even get a good count on cougar which have been in WA all along and do not breed near as fast as wolves. I question the ability of WDFW to confirm 15 bp's for 3 consecutive years, sounds like to tall order to me. Just getting WDFW to confirm bp's is tough enough. I am afraid hunters are going to have to keep after them right along to get additional bp's confirmed.

But I figure if we can get 10 bp's for 1 year in the plan, that is definitely better than 15 bp's for 3 consecutive years. 

[Curly]

Thanks for the reply.  That does make sense I guess, but it seems like the minority group can justify a much lower number and not be thrown out as being ridiculous.  Everything I read suggests a much lower number should be accepted, so I don't see how they can justify 15 or really even 10.

I'm just afraid that the commission will say "ok, you want 10 bp's and WDFW wants 15 bp's so we'll compromise at 13 bp's.  Why not suggest 5 bp's and then compromise at 10?

BTW - I'm not trying to argue, I'm just asking questions.........

[pianoman9701]

Thanks for the reply.  That does make sense I guess, but it seems like the minority group can justify a much lower number and not be thrown out as being ridiculous.  Everything I read suggests a much lower number should be accepted, so I don't see how they can justify 15 or really even 10.

I'm just afraid that the commission will say "ok, you want 10 bp's and WDFW wants 15 bp's so we'll compromise at 13 bp's.  Why not suggest 5 bp's and then compromise at 10?

BTW - I'm not trying to argue, I'm just asking questions.........

No, I understand your position and am inclined to agree that would be a good position from which to negotiate. After having spoken with one of the members of the Cattleman's Association who's on the committee, it's clear to me that their stance is 10 BP with no room for movement or further compromise. One reason is that it's precisely the number that the USFWS came up with, so in their eyes, and ours, it can be easily justified as backed by the original Federal government proposal and plan. I appreciate your comments and we'll consider each one before making a final decision on what our stance will be.

[bearpaw]

Thanks for the reply.  That does make sense I guess, but it seems like the minority group can justify a much lower number and not be thrown out as being ridiculous.  Everything I read suggests a much lower number should be accepted, so I don't see how they can justify 15 or really even 10.

I'm just afraid that the commission will say "ok, you want 10 bp's and WDFW wants 15 bp's so we'll compromise at 13 bp's.  Why not suggest 5 bp's and then compromise at 10?

BTW - I'm not trying to argue, I'm just asking questions.........

I agree with you again, one reason I decided to support 10 is because I figure everyone needs to unite on something substantially less than 15. Another key factor for me is if the 3 consecutive year requirement is removed, that is a real killer in my mind.