Washington Wolf Plan Poll

[asl20bball]

So in reality here's the timeline.... 15 BP have to be CONFIRMED spread out in 3 regions. Then 3 years have to go by. Then delisting occurs. Then WDFW establish a hunting season. Then hunting to manage the wolves....all the while hoping there is no lawsuits from enviornmentalists. This is an equation that EQUALS disaster to our states game populations (not to mention cattle ranchers, WDFW budget from lost hunting revenue, etc)! This s/b so obvious it is an embarrassment. I serious wish these pro-wolf people would not be so one-minded. There are other animal groups existing in the natural enviornment that they will destroy all for one animal. sad, sad, sad.

[Sumpnneedskillin]

I may have missed it, but I see nothing in the plan addressing transient wolves.  What happens with a pack the resides in ID or OR but continually crosses into WA?  These wolves will have an impact on WA wildlife and livestock but under the current plan are not included in the WA population numbers.

[KillBilly]

Even a transient Pack (at least two wolves traveling together) may be counted while in Wa., they may migrate back and forth and unless collared would not necessarily be readily recognized as transients. And we currently have this occuring....

In answer to another question, The feds are more concerned with Washington Wildlife Managers using Good Sound Science in creating this recovery plan. Therefore if 2 or 4 or 6 were the absolute best science and scientific data being used then the feds would approve. Truly, it is all down to the Science being used. The reason WFW is strongly admonishing the Commission to reject the current Wolf Recovery and Management is because of the lack of Sound Science and Data. Their plan is full of holes and un-answered questions.

The plan should consider various approaches to meeting recovery objectives including, but not limited to regulation, mitigation, acquisition, incentive, and compensation mechanisms.
We as hunters and wildlife enthusiasts find it very difficult to see how WDFW is meeting these requirements and would like to remind the WDFW and the Commission of two other major commitments:
1. Mission: To preserve, protect and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable
fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities.
2. To meet the requirements of the Federal Endangered Species Act. Which requires the Management
of endangered species using Science & Scientific Data.

[mulehunter]

VOTE STRONGEST NO.......  WDFW have no respect for us all because wdfw want healthy herd to be killed I mean ALL.  WDFW STEAL millions dollar TO FEED ALL HEALTH HERD TO WOLVES.

WDFW need expand Fish hatcheris use funds because we use fish to eat.  They need confirmed 15 BP then OPEN HUNT. No three years after 15 Bp. because it will grow faster and WDFW doesnt care about fish and they want no food for us by hunting Elk,Deer. WDFW want raise funds and borrow 75,000.00 To study and expand more wolves.  It pissed me off more because WDFW doesnt want read story, history, experiences from other states. WDFW think they have good Balls than them.  Oh sure they will have to fix all problem over again by not listen to what happen to other states.  WDFW need to learn that " WE " need food Fish, Elk, Deer.  But WDFW all cares about letting wolves wipe out healthy Herds.   

WDFW need to be loyality with us as hunter friendship.  if WDFW want to hurt our friendship  they loose Tags dollars.  WDFW need to help us to keep tradation alive.  but they dont want to listen to 1925's problem Now what happen to whole hunters start to quit, avoiding, many busniess got slow down, who fault is it. all F/G as MANAGEMENT WHO SUPPORT WOLVES.  WE DONT NEED WOLVES IN American.. period.


Mulehunter.

[fillthefreezer]

in one year my german shepherd had 2 litters totalling 21 pups. she was only 1 year old. about half of the litter were females, they too would be ready to breed at one year old. how many wolves could we have if they followed a similar pattern by year three...?

[BOWHUNTER45]

I do not want them here period !!!! and if they are here then it should be open season year around  YA THINK ?

[Tman]

15 breeding pairs is to many as others have said.  By the time WDFW confirms the 15th pair will will most likely have 3 to 4 times that many.  Wolves are elusive and have proven to be hard to track, picture, etc unless the den location has been located.  Do you really think WDFW has the resources to ensure they have an accurate count?

[KillBilly]

in one year my german shepherd had 2 litters totalling 21 pups. she was only 1 year old. about half of the litter were females, they too would be ready to breed at one year old. how many wolves could we have if they followed a similar pattern by year three...?

Well wolf breeding patterns and number of whelp are totally different than any domestic dog. However, the fact remains that  during the 3 year waiting period, there is portential for the total count to reach the 6-700 wolves. That is why WFW is asking for 8BPs or 80 wolves without a 3 year waiting period.

[runamuk]

breeding pairs will only work in a high fence or zoo think wolf haven/northwest trek like scenario.  Breeding pairs does not account for actual wolf population or actual numbers of breeding animals in an environment.  Wolves in the wild is a really awesome romantic notion kinda like moving to the quaint country side when you have only driven through and stayed at a B&B.  Wolves are a top predator and as such they kill and eat and reproduce and kill and eat some more and oopsy their only real "natural" opponent is a grizzly bear which oopsy we dont have "many" of here the other "natural" predator is this one called homo sapiens its a part of nature that has strangely been removed when other homo sapiens discuss what is nature.  The only realistic way to effectively manage a population of wolves is gonna be by the numbers in a specific management area and not necessarily by GMU....it may be more effective to create new wolf management areas based on each area's specific need.  Kinda like the idea of education and standardized testing has proven to be a big huge frickin flop...yeah thats what this whole 15 pair crap will be.  We need some people with some ANIMAL HUSBANDRY skills in charge of management biologists are great and all for research and study but they have no hands on experience managing animals dog breeders would be best since they actually understand the species

my 13 cents

[Skyvalhunter]

I see 5 pages of people online. Lets start voting.

[gaddy]

WOW run, most only put in 2 you really up'd the bar

[KillBilly]

For those of you that haven't read or seen the "FINAL RECOMMENDED WOLF CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR WASHINGTON" click on the link and have it... it is long and some of it is boring. You could focus on Chapter 3 as many of our current discussions are covered there.
Chapter 4 is about Wolf-Livestock Conflicts and Chapter 5 is about Wolf-Ungulate Interactions.... It is a tedious read but very worthwhile.

[sled]

  If you add wolves to the area we hunt wich is 340 I know that the deer and elk populations will tank for sure!  The cougars are already taking a toll on the populations.  In the last three years we have seen four, and killed one.  I dont know how many there are that we dont see. 
  On an average summer camping and hiking we see about twelve cougar kills in the woods.  They cant even manage them right.  We need to bring back hounds.

    I voted!

[norsepeak]

Washington has the smallest area and largest population of all of the western states.  We absolutely cannot support that many wolves and hunters as well.  Why can't wdfw learn from Idaho and Montana, why do they have to do things the hard way all the time.  Absolutely against the wolf plan.

[JimmyHoffa]

Washington has the smallest area and largest population of all of the western states.  We absolutely cannot support that many wolves and hunters as well.  Why can't wdfw learn from Idaho and Montana, why do they have to do things the hard way all the time.  Absolutely against the wolf plan.

I think it is the bios.  They used a method of overlays to determine suitable wolf habitat.  They mostly copied the model used by the feds for Idaho and Montana, but changed a few things.  The one the feds used included sheep grazing land.  WDFW assumes that sheep grazing is negligible in WA, so they omitted that overlay.  The result if I remember correctly is that they used forested land and major population areas.  They might have included major hiways too (don't recall).  In the end they came up with WA having more suitable wolf habitat than ID or even more than WY and MT combined.   The chart they had said WA had the most of all the western states.