An Alternate Wolf Plan

[Snapshot]

They've got a plan drafted and if anyone wants to give their input about it they'd best go in person to deliver the message. That is how things are done.


WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/
September 27, 2011
Contact: Rocky Beach, (360) 902-2510
Tami Lininger, (360) 902-2267
Susan Galloway, (360) 902-2267
CORRECTION: The public meeting scheduled Oct. 6 on the recommended wolf plan will start at 9 a.m. as stated below, rather than 10 a.m. as previously reported.

Fish and Wildlife Commission to
discuss wolf management plan

OLYMPIA - The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission will discuss the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's (WDFW) recommended Wolf Conservation and Management Plan during a special meeting Oct. 6 in Olympia.
The special meeting will be followed by a two-day meeting Oct 7-8, when the commission will receive briefings on issues including the status of north coast steelhead stocks and population goals for deer, elk and other ungulates.
The special meeting, the second of three scheduled on the recommended Wolf Conservation and Management Plan and final Environmental Impact Statement, will begin Oct. 6 at 9 a.m. in Room 172 on the first floor of the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St. S.E. The commission will meet at the same location Oct. 7-8, beginning at 8:30 a.m. both days.
The commission, which sets policy for WDFW, will accept public comments at designated times during both meetings. Agendas for those meetings are available on the commission's website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings.html .
During the special meeting Oct. 6, the commission will resume its discussion on the recommended Wolf Conservation and Management Plan, focusing on wolves' interaction with livestock and ungulates.
The recommended plan, designed to guide state management as wolves re-establish a sustainable breeding population in the state, was developed after a scientific peer review and extensive public review that drew nearly 65,000 responses.
The plan, posted online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/ , includes recovery objectives that would allow the state to eventually remove wolves from protection lists. The commission has scheduled the third of three special meetings on WDFW's recommended plan Nov. 3 in Olympia.
The commission is expected to take action on the plan in December.

[Skillet]

I believe the plan, like contraception for deer and castration for coyotes is completely impossible to put into place and function.  Also I don't understand how folks can still say it won't be as bad as people think, when we have perfectly good and real examples right next door in ID, MT and WY.  How can it not be as bad as they have it....actually it will end up being worse here, at least in those three states there was tremendous pressure from the population to control the wolves.  That will never happen in this state, in fact it will be just the opposite.  Endless lawsuits at the state level.  If there ever is hunting for wolves in WA State, we are years upon years away from it.   

To clarify, I never said it won't be as bad as some people think - I said "I believe that I am in a 'silent majority' of people on this site who believe that wolves aren't going to end up being as bad as is commonly represented on this site for the State of Washington."  For kicks, type "wolves" into the search function on the forum.  You will see that the vast majority of posts are quite ridiculous in their apocalyptic predictions and many lean towards bringing into question the intelligence of anybody who doesn't think they way the posters do.  I do not believe that over-hyping the problem helps the discussion.  The entire purpose of this thread was not to minimize the threat, as it is real - it is to think outside the box with ways to address it.

Those three states suffered for years with no management plan at all - and they still have deer and elk, though far less.  The wolves were federally protected per the ESA before, but they are not now (thanks to the budget bill rider).  Therefore, applying today's MT, WY and ID reality is not directly applicable to our situation here.  It will be if we don't get out of the blocks soon and cap the total number of animals, but it isn't the same as  it stands.  They're playing some serious catch-up at this point.  We have a chance (albeit a rapidly dwindling one) to get out in front of this problem now.

What I've put out here for public review is not the "best idea" or the "only way".  It is looking at the problem through a different light, ie., "Who wants to put up the required resources for wolves to coexist with hunters and ranchers in this state?"  Do they want the wolves here enough to put up enough resources? 

Folding our arms across our chest, turning our heads to the side and refusing to eat our peas is not going to keep wolves out of the state.  They're here, and we have to deal with them.

[Skillet]

They've got a plan drafted and if anyone wants to give their input about it they'd best go in person to deliver the message. That is how things are done.

I would go to this, but I'll be in the People's Republic of California on business next week.  I do hope we have a good turnout, and I hope we emphasize the importance of capping the total number of animals.

[trophyhunt]

Skillet ....your absolutely correct .. your entitled to your opinion and I do not think anyone is down grading you for it ...but here is where I stand ! Animals loving groups are preying for this to happen .Why? Because of the statement you made in your post ( More wolves - LESS HUNTING OPPORTUNITY)  I am tired of these idiots running over the top of us hunters... We have worked hard to get wildlife population where they are today and So lets just turn these meat eating SOBs and let them eat up the herds....then we should ask ourselves this question ...Who is at the top of the food chain ? The wolves or us !!! My answer is US !!!! So that being said I say no freakin wolves !! Just my  

:yeah:I love the thought put in to it Skillet but you know how I feel about the wolves.

[Skillet]

Skillet ....your absolutely correct .. your entitled to your opinion and I do not think anyone is down grading you for it ...but here is where I stand ! Animals loving groups are preying for this to happen .Why? Because of the statement you made in your post ( More wolves - LESS HUNTING OPPORTUNITY)  I am tired of these idiots running over the top of us hunters... We have worked hard to get wildlife population where they are today and So lets just turn these meat eating SOBs and let them eat up the herds....then we should ask ourselves this question ...Who is at the top of the food chain ? The wolves or us !!! My answer is US !!!! So that being said I say no freakin wolves !! Just my  

:yeah:I love the thought put in to it Skillet but you know how I feel about the wolves.

Yep.  You and I are probably on opposite ends of the debate (within this website, anyway - I think we probably still look the same to PETA members  ), but you are still a good egg in my book. 

For what it's worth, I have no problem at all with folks who don't want the wolves here under any circumstance... I understand most of their reasons for that and agree with a large number of them.  We may disagree on the fringe issues, but on the whole, i still think we all want to minimize the impact of wolves in the state.

[KillBilly]

There will be at least 2 WFW members there on the 6th. It has been mentioned that WFW may have an Alternate Plan... We do not, but what we have done is remind the commission of their responsibilities.

Here is the closing argument in our latest letter to the the Commission:

Washington for Wildlife strongly recommends that the Commission reject the current Wolf Conservation & Management
Plan and direct WDFW managers to consult experienced big game managers in Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana
regarding the sustainability of prey and predator numbers. A New Plan should be developed that includes specific
language describing sound scientific constraints, controls and processes that will ensure rapid and successful delisting
and population growth control in such a manner that maintains sustainable prey and predator numbers that
satisfies the needs of the ESA, Viewers, Listeners, Cattlemen, and Hunters as well as meeting the Departments primary
responsibilities to the People of Washington State outlined in its Mission.

Attached is the entire Letter, please read it all.

[Special T]

Skillet, I think that many of the good ideas i have heard discussed are falling on deaf ears. I don't trust the WDFW... So what they say doesn't mean much to me... What bothers me most about the wolf issue is the $$$. The main part to you suggestion is the pay to play. If you want wolves, great, foot the bill. I am mad that the Pitman-Roberts funds were used for all kinds of wolf related BS. I'm mad as hell that the "Pro Wolf" crowd has so much influence on the commission when it is WA hunters that are footing the bill. How come we seem to have much less influence on the commission when WE are footing the bill? I think your proposal is thoughtful and shows merit plus thought. I think wolves have been in Wa for longer than the WDFW would like to admit. some of the research from a couple of members has shown wolf sitings since the 70's written up in the likes of the Seattle times...
One of the other reasons i don't trust the WDFW is we DO NOT have to have wolves all over the state to have wolves removed from the ESA protections. We only have to provide protections in the NE corner of the state... There is an agenda here, and i believe getting hunters to debate the finer points of the "kind" of management to take place is a tactic to delay our ability to control wolves. 

[whuppinstick]

Keep in mind a major point of the plan is that the onus and responsibility of paying for tracking, testing, etc. of the wolves falls on the consortium of people who want wolves here and are willing to put up.  If they decide to drop their $$ participation, the wolf population is reduced commisserately with their lack of funding... down to zero, if that may be the case.  No money in the bank to pay for it, no collared wolves.  And, as always, an uncollared wolf is shootable anywhere in the state.

There's no way they would be on board with this plan.  Why would they sign themselves up for a plan that costs them tons of money and manpower for a wolf population that will never exceed 100 when the alternative is to output zero dollars and likely get many, many more wolves?