Washington Wolf Plan Poll

[bobcat]

the state will have way more conflict than all others.

No doubt about that. But I really don't think the WDFW actually WANTS wolves in this state. Sure, maybe some of the employees might lean that way. But overall as an agency I doubt they would choose wolves over "us". (hunters)

[leed]

Back in 1988 I think a report was submitted to Congress and USFWS. It stated that the Greater yellowstone ecosystem could sustain up to 100 wolves without interfernce to the predators and prey that are part of the greater North American Conservation model.  So, why would any state want more that that?  Further these wolfes are NOT indeginous to Wa. They are in FACT a different species from Alberta, Canada.  More summer reading lists have include, White, Christianson, and many others.I have read, contacted and exchanged e-mails with KentLaudon/Montana Wolf Specialist, and the USFWS Wolf Specialist in wyoming.  When you contact them one on one they give you a slightly different picture. Bleak and truthful. I have shared those stories and comments with our WDFW Commission and Director Anderson.  Let's step back and look at the big picture. Wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone knowing they would not stay. That was their goal (The invironmental groups) They also knew that destruction they would create and decreased huntter harvest would occur. That is what they intended. Less harvest, less hunters, less opposition to hunting and then the big push on gun control. Let me ask you the real question that is before us now. Why is the wolf being managed as BREEDING PAIRS versus a total capped popultion?  Answer - breeding pairs obscure the real numbers of wolves. The wolf will be the ONLY animal managed on breeding pairs instead of a total population. Make your voices be heard! GO TO THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING AND ASK FOR THE TRUTH!   
Lee Davis - Kittitas County Field & Stream Club

[bearpaw]

 

Thanks for your post Lee.... 

[sebek556]

In many areas our elk population is below target level, the caribou is endangered, antelope are being reintroduced and struggling to make it, bear numbers are high along with cougar numbers with no effective means of managing those numbers. And they want to add another alpha predator, which will kill for pleasure, how does this make any sense?

[fireweed]

The number of breeding pairs in the plan (15) is completely irrelavant.  It is just a starting number for the lawsuits.  They could have 1 or 5 or 300 breeding pairs and it wouldn't matter, and wouldn't lead to a delisting.  It would only be the kick-off point for the environmentalists lawsuits and tactic of delay, stall, sue, delay more.  Haven't we learned that in neighboring states. Put the BP number Low (like 1) start the delisting process...then when the smoke clears and we actually can delist them (if ever) we will be tripping over wolves (like Idaho etc) and have well over 15 pairs.

[silverdalesauer]

Back in 1988 I think a report was submitted to Congress and USFWS. It stated that the Greater yellowstone ecosystem could sustain up to 100 wolves without interfernce to the predators and prey that are part of the greater North American Conservation model.  So, why would any state want more that that?  Further these wolfes are NOT indeginous to Wa. They are in FACT a different species from Alberta, Canada.  More summer reading lists have include, White, Christianson, and many others.I have read, contacted and exchanged e-mails with KentLaudon/Montana Wolf Specialist, and the USFWS Wolf Specialist in wyoming.  When you contact them one on one they give you a slightly different picture. Bleak and truthful. I have shared those stories and comments with our WDFW Commission and Director Anderson.  Let's step back and look at the big picture. Wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone knowing they would not stay. That was their goal (The invironmental groups) They also knew that destruction they would create and decreased huntter harvest would occur. That is what they intended. Less harvest, less hunters, less opposition to hunting and then the big push on gun control. Let me ask you the real question that is before us now. Why is the wolf being managed as BREEDING PAIRS versus a total capped popultion?  Answer - breeding pairs obscure the real numbers of wolves. The wolf will be the ONLY animal managed on breeding pairs instead of a total population. Make your voices be heard! GO TO THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING AND ASK FOR THE TRUTH!   
Lee Davis - Kittitas County Field & Stream Club

 

[bearpaw]

Take 30 seconds and send an automated message to the WA Wildlife Commission:  http://capwiz.com/biggameforever/home/
Take another 30 seconds and sign the petition asking congress to delist wolves:  http://biggameforever.org/


If every hunter will do these things now, it will help to make a difference.


I also recommend voting in the wolf poll and watching the informational video here: http://biggameforever.org/

[bearpaw]

Bumping this up so everyone gets their vote in.... 

[Skillet]

Done and done. 

[KillBilly]

Bob is correct, we have wolves filtering from Idaho and Canada. As far as conflict goes, I agree with you high country. We have as much sustainable Wolf habitat as any of the other states but in a much smaller area with higher densities of population. We are bound to have conflicts. We are not going to be able to make wolves go away. What we can do is amass the numbers and insist that the Commission reject the current Wolf Management Plan. They need to focus on managing a much smaller popluation of wolves. We are suggesting that 8  BPs or 80 Wolves is a managable number and would allow us to better keep our predator/prey numbers under control.

[bearpaw]

Bob is correct, we have wolves filtering from Idaho and Canada. As far as conflict goes, I agree with you high country. We have as much sustainable Wolf habitat as any of the other states but in a much smaller area with higher densities of population. We are bound to have conflicts. We are not going to be able to make wolves go away. What we can do is amass the numbers and insist that the Commission reject the current Wolf Management Plan. They need to focus on managing a much smaller popluation of wolves. We ar suggesting that 8  BPs or 80 Wolves is a managable number and would allow us to better keep our predator/prey numbers under control.

 

[jackelope]

Zone management requirements and total number of breeding pairs are the 2 big concerns from my end.
 

[bobcat]

My question would be, how do we know a lesser number of BP's would be approved by the feds? I assume the WDFW knows what they are doing and that their management plan would allow for the least number of wolves possible in the state, in order to satisfy the feds. I don't know how all this works and with the WDFW being the experts on this, I'm not sure I'm in a position to tell them how to do their job better. If I were to really give them my honest opinion of how many wolves I want, I don't think I would be taken seriously- because if it were up to me, this state would have no wolves. Or at least the wolves we did have would be afraid to come out in the open because they'd be fair game, year around, no license or tag needed.

[bearpaw]

Bobcat, only 1/3 of Washington was considered part of the Northern Rocky Mountain recovery area.

Did you see my quote from Oregon's plan? Please see page 29:   http://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/2010_wcmp_wolf_conservation.pdf

Oregon Wolf Plan details how small wolf populations are viable:
Because secure habitat is limited in Oregon, biologists predict that fewer wolves will occupy Oregon than are found in similar but much more abundant habitat in Idaho. The federal recovery goal for the Idaho wolf population was 10 breeding pairs in what has been described as the best remaining wolf habitat in the lower 48 states. Oregon, on the other hand, was not selected as a recovery state primarily due to lack of large blocks of contiguous public land habitat.
 Research published in 2003 suggested that the smallest viable wolf populations might be two to three adjacent packs with four wolves each, located 40-60 kilometers apart (Fuller et al. 2003). Each pack might cover 117 square kilometers if the ungulate density averaged eight deer per square kilometer. The authors also wrote that such small populations could persist anywhere if the prey density was at average population levels and productivity, and where wolf production exceeded mortality.
Several notable examples of small wolf populations can be found in the scientific literature. The Isle Royale wolf population began from a single pair of wolves in about 1949. The population has fluctuated between 12-90 individuals. This population has persisted for more than 50 years despite being isolated on an island and apparently losing 50 percent of their original genetic diversity. Remnant wolf populations in Europe (i.e., Italy, Spain and Portugal) numbering fewer than 100-200 wolves persisted for decades and have since expanded their numbers and range, and avoided extinction (USFWS 1994).

[whacker1]

Zone management requirements and total number of breeding pairs are the 2 big concerns from my end.