Okanogan County considers state wolf de-listing

[jackelope]

New packs suggest wolf is no longer endangered, they say

By Marcy Stamper
Okanogan County commissioners are proposing a resolution that would ask the state to consider removing the gray wolf from its list of endangered species, calling the animal a “deleterious exotic wildlife” that is not native to Washington.

After more than a year spent reviewing the status of wolves and the research supporting special protections, the commissioners are considering submitting a petition to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to de-list the gray wolf as an endangered species in the state. Wolves have been de-listed by the federal government in the eastern one-third of Washington, which includes Okanogan County east of Highway 97. They remain protected in the Methow.

County Commissioner Bud Hover, who lives in the valley, said that the number of wolf packs in Washington state – including two discovered this year – shows that the animal is no longer endangered.

“There are two things in my mind: either WDFW is planting them or they are moving in on their own. Either way, there is no need for a listing because they are not endangered,” he said.

The proposed resolution, prepared by Okanogan County Planning Director Perry Huston, states that “substantial evidence exists that the Gray Wolves being introduced and managed as endangered are not a species native to the State of Washington,” and questions the basis for the state’s initial decision to list the animal.

Hover also questioned whether the wolves that have been found in Washington are indigenous, noting that they are much larger – and therefore more destructive – than native wolves.

“These are concerns – if in fact the wolves are being planted, are they the same type that were extirpated?” he asked.

Wildlife biologists say that the wolves found in Washington have migrated on their own. “No wolves have been introduced into Washington by people,” said Scott Fitkin, district wildlife biologist for WDFW. “The idea that this species is not native to Washington is incorrect.”

The wolf species found in Washington is the same throughout the state, although subtle genetic variations have been detected in tissue samples, said Fitkin. For example, tests on the alpha male and female from the Methow’s Lookout Pack showed a genetic similarity to wolves from coastal British Columbia, whereas wolves in northeastern Washington appear to be closer to wolves from inland British Columbia, he said.

In addition to questioning the basis for the endangered status, the resolution sets out concerns about the threat posed by Canadian wolves to livestock and other wildlife, as well as to dogs and humans because the wolf carries a tapeworm.

Research compiled by Huston to prepare the resolution, contained in a separate memo from June, notes that a public records request submitted to WDFW last year turned up no information supporting the endangered listing.

“It is my belief that the gray wolf was listed as endangered by the State of Washington because it was listed on the federal level,” wrote Huston.

The commissioners also have concerns about the basis for the listing, particularly because the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) did not designate any critical habitat for wolves in Washington, which Hover said is a prerequisite for an endangered listing.

John Stephenson, fish and wildlife biologist for USFWS, said because wolves are such habitat generalists their survival is more dependent on the availability of prey and on human tolerance than on a specific geographic area. As a result, the agency did not designate a specific area as habitat. The Endangered Species Act contains a section allowing the agency to publish a regulation saying that for some species a critical habitat is not determinable, noted USFWS biologist Gregg Kurz, the Endangered Species Act consultant for central Washington.

According to the most recent draft of the state’s wolf management plan, from May 2011, “Wolves were first listed as endangered by the Washington Department of Game in 1980 because of their historical occurrence in the state and subsequent near-extirpation, and because of their existing status as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act.”

Concerns about wolves’ impacts
Hover said WDFW can manage wolves by restricted hunting, but that an endangered listing places a burden on people who use public lands. Ranchers, in particular, face risks of livestock predation and have experienced delays in access to public grazing lands because of wolves, he said.

Noting that wolves had decimated elk herds in Idaho, Hover said he was concerned about a similar toll on mule deer in Okanogan County and the consequences for the county’s economy, since the deer draw many people to the area.

The fact that Fitkin unequivocally denied that any wolves were introduced into the state did not put the commissioners’ concerns to rest. Hover pointed to an instance in 1998 when employees of WDFW and the U.S. Forest Service submitted contaminated samples of lynx hair to a lab.

An investigation by the U.S. General Accounting Office found no evidence that the study had been deliberately falsified and concluded that the contaminated hair samples had no bearing on the USFWS decision to list the lynx as threatened two years later. Nevertheless, Hover said WDFW “does not have the best record or reputation” and said the lynx episode left him with reservations.

“At this point, this [petition] is something the commissioners want to do,” said Hover, who said they are holding a public hearing to see what the people of the county want.

The hearing is Wednesday (Aug. 3) at 6 p.m. in the commissioners’ hearing room in Okanogan. People may submit comments in writing to the commissioners to ljohns@co.okanogan.wa.us or testify at the hearing.

Photo courtesy of Conservation Northwest


July 27, 2011
 

[MtnMuley]

 

[rasbo]

there was a meeting yesterday at the burke hall in seattle,about the wolf topic anyone make that

[CAMPMEAT]

Conservation Northwest photo...............hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Don't trust them. Never have, never will !!

[Pathfinder101]

Conservation Northwest photo...............hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Don't trust them. Never have, never will !!

Yeah, I picked up their current rag while I was in a store in Kettle Falls last weekend.  Thing was chock-full of pro-wolf propoganda.  They tried to make some of it sound like they were veiwing it from "both sides", but it was definitely pro-predator.

Hey, on a related note.... Did you guys know there were "too many" elk in Yellowstone Park prior to 1996..?

...That's where they lost me BTW...

[CAMPMEAT]

Too many elk in Yellowstone. I wonder who decides that !!!!? Not the elk, that's for sure. Probably Conservation Northwest.

[bearpaw]

Best of luck to Okanogan County. 

[jackelope]

Conservation Northwest photo...............hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Don't trust them. Never have, never will !!

They are the ones responsible for a lot of the trail cam photos being used at least as part of the pack confirmation process. I hate to say it out loud but it seems like they have their chit together a lot more than our side of the fight does sometimes. Hopefully WFW and some other orgs on our side of the fight will change my mind. All that pic is is one of the trail cam pics that someone attached to the article. That pic has been around for a while.

[CAMPMEAT]

Conservation Northwest photo...............hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Don't trust them. Never have, never will !!

They are the ones responsible for a lot of the trail cam photos being used at least as part of the pack confirmation process. I hate to say it out loud but it seems like they have their chit together a lot more than our side of the fight does sometimes. Hopefully WFW and some other orgs on our side of the fight will change my mind. All that pic is is one of the trail cam pics that someone attached to the article. That pic has been around for a while.

They have tons of money to back them, we don't. They always sue and don't get challenged for that reason, money. It's sad, but what can ya do. I've seen that photo before.

[wsucowboy]

Best of luck to Okanogan County. 

[Pathfinder101]

Too many elk in Yellowstone. I wonder who decides that !!!!? Not the elk, that's for sure. Probably Conservation Northwest.

Yes, that's what I meant.  It was an article in Conservation Northwest's magazine about predators and the natural balance of things.  Apparently, there were "too many elk" in Yellowstone Park, and bringing the wolves in "fixed" things. 
 No mention of the moose that used to inhabit the park, and no longer exist.  I guess that example didn't exactly fit their narrative...

[CAMPMEAT]

Too many elk in Yellowstone. I wonder who decides that !!!!? Not the elk, that's for sure. Probably Conservation Northwest.

Yes, that's what I meant.  It was an article in Conservation Northwest's magazine about predators and the natural balance of things.  Apparently, there were "too many elk" in Yellowstone Park, and bringing the wolves in "fixed" things. 
 No mention of the moose that used to inhabit the park, and no longer exist.  I guess that example didn't exactly fit their narrative...

Boy o boy. You ain't a kiddin'.

[bearpaw]

Too many elk in Yellowstone. I wonder who decides that !!!!? Not the elk, that's for sure. Probably Conservation Northwest.

Yes, that's what I meant.  It was an article in Conservation Northwest's magazine about predators and the natural balance of things.  Apparently, there were "too many elk" in Yellowstone Park, and bringing the wolves in "fixed" things. 
 No mention of the moose that used to inhabit the park, and no longer exist.  I guess that example didn't exactly fit their narrative...

you are exactly right...

[jackmaster]

i know i am gonna catch a ration of *censored* for this but in that photo, they damn sure look like coyotes, i am sure i am wrong but i guess maybe they could be young pups to, and if they are wolves, that wouldd have been a good time to take 6 or 7 out of the pack.

[CedarPants]

Too many elk in Yellowstone. I wonder who decides that !!!!? Not the elk, that's for sure. Probably Conservation Northwest.

Yes, that's what I meant.  It was an article in Conservation Northwest's magazine about predators and the natural balance of things.  Apparently, there were "too many elk" in Yellowstone Park, and bringing the wolves in "fixed" things. 
 No mention of the moose that used to inhabit the park, and no longer exist.  I guess that example didn't exactly fit their narrative...

They have presented the same BS theory here in Washington as well.  I'm sure most of you have gone through the public comments section on the WDFW's Gray Wolf Conservation and Management page:  http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/comments.html

In their letter to the WDFW, Conservation Northwest argues that wolves are necessary in Washington because they will "naturally regulate the distribution and population of other animals, including deer and elk" as well as "providing benefits to riparian ecosystems, as documented in Yellowstone National Park"

Many of the other conservation groups state the same thing in their letters to the state.  All of them want the 15 breeding pairs threshold removed, with some of the suggesting numbers like "50 breeding pairs" and "500 animals required to sustain a breeding population".

Interesting and blood pressure rising read for those of you that haven't checked it out.  They are all arguing that we need wolves because of the success of the elk herds in Yellowstone once wolves were introduced.

Also an interesting read .... directly from the WDFW Gray Wolf and Management page: 

Won’t wolves eat too many elk and deer?

Elk populations in other states (ID, MT, WY) with wolves have mostly remained stable, although some have declined in areas where wolves are one of several factors affecting numbers. Idaho Department of Fish and Game recently reported (August 2010) that elk populations are at or above management objectives in 23 of the state’s 29 elk management zones.

Sounds to me like we need to have the IDFW sit the WDFW down for a serious come to Jesus talk