Free: Contests & Raffles.
I think it's great that you are involved and well informed, also passing on views that are not on the wdfw side of things. My only concern is that wdfw think that any breeding pairs are good for WA. I'm sure we are a minority but a few of us think there should be no breading pairs. I don't believe we can control wolves numbers as well as most think. My question to you is, How many breeding pairs do you think we should have? I don't want to give you the wrong idea, I'm not trying to step on your toe's. I'm just curious what you think the number should be. Again thanks for being a voice.
Great job, Dale. I can't wait to hear it. If it's got a webcast option, please send the link.
Quote from: trophyhunt on October 04, 2011, 02:05:24 PMI think it's great that you are involved and well informed, also passing on views that are not on the wdfw side of things. My only concern is that wdfw think that any breeding pairs are good for WA. I'm sure we are a minority but a few of us think there should be no breading pairs. I don't believe we can control wolves numbers as well as most think. My question to you is, How many breeding pairs do you think we should have? I don't want to give you the wrong idea, I'm not trying to step on your toe's. I'm just curious what you think the number should be. Again thanks for being a voice.Good questions trophyhunt, I didn't specify how many wolves are suitable. I detailed facts regarding Washington being the smallest of the NRM states that has wolves, Washington has the highest human population, Washington less than half the state and federal lands as ID, MT, or WY, Washington has the highest human population density across the countryside with 2 to 6 times more human population than ID, MT, or WY living in our rural areas, and Washington has the smallest game herds of the states. I detailed the fact that after experiencing wolves the management objectives of ID/MT/WY ranges from 10 to 15 bp's and that Washington simply does not have the habitat or game herds to support as many wolves as these other states and therefore the proposal for 15 BP's is ludicrous. I explained that wolves have never been endangered there were 60,000 wolves in north America before wolves were introduced in the NRM and I mentioned how the WDFW has distorted facts about wolves and their impacts in the proposed wolf plan. I commented that I was optimistic the Commission would review the current science coming out of the other states and the facts regarding Washington and approve a better plan than has been proposed by WDFW._______________________________You asked my opinion so here it is. Washington's management of our game herds is already stressed by development, liberal management, and too many predators. The last thing we need in Washington are more predators when the last remaining caribou in the lower 48 are barely surviving, our moose and sheep are limited in number, many deer and elk herds are below objective, and excessive populations of cougar and bear are already causing problems for residents and ranchers around the state. WE DON'T NEED ANY WOLVES IN WASHINGTON!However, Federal Law has dictated we must come up with a management plan to delist wolves so the state can manage them. Washington is in the same position as the other states, we are stuck with wolves. I only hope it will be a reasonable number that will not have excessive impacts, or we'll experience the same problems we have seen in the other states.
Dang, I missed this whole thread till just now. Was it posted on the WFW website? Is there anyway to find a link to listen to it for those of us....or me...that missed it? Thanks Dale for all you are doing.
Here's the link to the specific interview. Nice job, Dale!http://www.outdoortalknetwork.com/100811_1274_hr1.MP3
Quote from: pianoman9701 on October 12, 2011, 10:29:29 AMHere's the link to the specific interview. Nice job, Dale!http://www.outdoortalknetwork.com/100811_1274_hr1.MP3Where did you find that at? I have been looking in the archived section for the last week.
