Email the House Ag & Nat. Resources Committee Now!! Re: HB 2214

[silverdalesauer]

Sent this reply:

Mr. Orcutt,

The current Wolf Management Plan requires wolves to be spread across the 3 recovery zones before de-listing.  Eastern WA is currently home to 5 packs and that number will grow very quickly when the WDFW really gets serious about a population survey.  The bill (2214) will allow wolves to be managed in Eastern WA despite their recovery status in Western WA and the South Cascades. 

This is important because Eastern WA will be dealing with wolf conflicts in the near future and are likely to meet recovery goals and support far more wolves than we need (or desire) before Western WA or the South Cascades meets requirements for delisting and management. 

This bill will allow regional management of wolves based on localized populations.  This is the method used for all of the big game species in Washington- including bear, deer, elk, moose, sheep, goats, and cougars.  It only makes sense to manage wolves in the same manner, by which WA state already manages.

Please consider this as you make your decisions... the state of Washington game management and the people of Washington are depending on our representatives to do so.

[WAcoyotehunter]

it was nice of him to reply and continue dialogue with us.  I have sent a similar message.  I bet he's buried in them already!

[silverdalesauer]

I just got home from the meeting. I feel like we have a better than average chance to win this. Of course the Wildlife Program got a half hour to review the plan for all attendees. The same person also gave a negative testimony. The next person was a Representative that gave Pro-pass testimony, dodn't get his name clearly but he was an eastsider. Then myself, fishinmike, Jack Fields(Cattlemans Association) and another person that Represented Hunters Heritage gave Pro-pass testimony. Mark Pigeon was there but had to leave because his wife was re-hospitableized. Next came 4 no-pass testimonys, followed by 4 more that were 2 pass and 2 no-pass. that was it.

Total testimonies: 14
6 no pass
8 pass

On the receiving end of things, several of the committee members asked some very pointed (pro-pass) type of questions and did not get what I would recognize as mind changing questions. Many comments from the committee suggested that regionalized de-listing had been suggested all along and ignored. One of the Committee (rep) was definately concerned that his eastside district could have 14 BPs while another region(zone) had none...

I think it is leaning our way, I am sure the e-mails have been a very positive influence. I also saw that at least 4 of the no pass folks were touchy-feely whiners without any facts or data....

Thanks, Killbilly, for the update and for going to the meeting. Those of us who can't leave our jobs appreciate you and the others that speak on behalf of Hunting Washington Forum members.

[Gringo31]

Got the same one.....left me scratching my head....


Can someone explain what this means?

That means passage of the bill will then require that wolves be reintroduced in Western Washington before recovery is deemed to be achieved.

[Machias]

Got the same one.....left me scratching my head....


Can someone explain what this means?

That means passage of the bill will then require that wolves be reintroduced in Western Washington before recovery is deemed to be achieved.

It means he sat through the hearing and has no clue what he just listened too.

[pianoman9701]

Got the same one.....left me scratching my head....


Can someone explain what this means?

That means passage of the bill will then require that wolves be reintroduced in Western Washington before recovery is deemed to be achieved.

It means he sat through the hearing and has no clue what he just listened too.

I think it may mean he doesn't know what's in the approved wolf plan, which would put wolves where he's talking about.

[et1702]

I received the following response from Ed Orcutt -

"We just had a hearing on this bill in the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee (AGNR). I left with very mixed feelings on the bill. I feel for my colleagues in eastern Washington who are concerned that they will bear all of the weight of the recovery and that wolf recovery may be deemed achieved with all breeding pairs being located in Eastern Washington and none in Western Washington. That means passage of the bill will then require that wolves be reintroduced in Western Washington before recovery is deemed to be achieved. This guarantees that my constituents will bear the burden of wolf recovery and suffer all of the consequences. I am not sure I can support that…

Ed
Representative Ed Orcutt
18th Legislative District"

Looks like eastside vs westside politics!

My Response follows -

Hello Mr. Orcutt,
 
I didn't think that this was the intent of HB 2214.  My understanding is that the intent of the bill is to stop WDFW from listing the wolves as protected or endangered in the state of WA, which would stop them from implementing their current wolf recovery plan (which is very short sighted, and will do a lot more financial damage to our state). 
 
I too live in western WA and I do not want to see additional wolf recovery anywhere (east or west side).  They are doing fine on their own.  However, I also do not want to see WDFW implement their current plan, which will decimate our wildlife (deer & Elk) populations without any chance of limiting the wolf populations (or limiting the spread of the wolf populations). 
 
How do you interpret that passage of this bill would require introduction of wolves in western WA?  I understand that one of the deficiencies of the WDFW plan is the management of breeding pairs, and that it is likely that the numbers listed would occur in eastern WA before they spread to the west side.  But, this is one of many short-sighted problems with the current plan, and additional justification to require the WDFW to cease and desist!
 
With the financial difficulties this state has currently, including the WDFW, any wolf recovery plan is a waste of time and monies.  By stopping the current WDFW plan, any future effort to create a new "state" plan (by following the Federal requirements) would be quashed again for the very reasons that you appear to be hesitant now.  The chance to stop them from going forward is now.
 
Therefore, my understanding and interpretation of the bill would be to stop WDFW from listing wolves as protected or endangered in the state of WA, which would be beneficial to all parties (east and west).  Additionally, there are a lot of your constituents that live on the west side and have businesses and/or recreate on the east side (like myself).  Therefore, this is not an eastside vs. westside issue.  It is an issue that affects all WA residents!
 
Thanks for your consideration.
 
ET

[Cascade_fisher]

 

[KillBilly]

Orcutt actually asked a couple of very good questions today but there were several erroneous pieces of information that were spouted by a couple of wolf lovers in an attempt to defend the wold plan. Orcutt did not at all come across as someone who was confused. In addition, Hans Dunshee also ask a couple of pointed questions about elk and deer consumption and then went on-line and came back at a couple of the folks with a fact or two. I thought he did well.

Based on his questions during the meeting, my response to him was fairly simple... I told him his concerns were very real and that he should help assure that the bill got moved to the floor and and approved.

[Caseyd]

I sent a similar reply that NWbowhunter did (well i changed his a little  )

Ed just got back to me:


I am getting clarification from WDFW on this. I will then determine my position following the meeting with WDFW.
 
Ed

[silverdalesauer]

I sent a similar reply that NWbowhunter did (well i changed his a little  )

Ed just got back to me:


I am getting clarification from WDFW on this. I will then determine my position following the meeting with WDFW.
 
Ed

I got the same clarification email from him.

[KillBilly]

The video is now viewable. go to this link and pick the top one.

http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwsearch&acronym=AGNR&biennium=2011-12

[Skyvalhunter]

I just recieved this e-mail reply back

Keith,

We just had a hearing on this bill in the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee (AGNR). I left with very mixed feelings on the bill. I feel for my colleagues in eastern Washington who are concerned that they will bear all of the weight of the recovery and that wolf recovery may be deemed achieved with all breeding pairs being located in Eastern Washington and none in Western Washington. That means passage of the bill will then require that wolves be reintroduced in Western Washington before recovery is deemed to be achieved. This guarantees that my constituents will bear the burden of wolf recovery and suffer all of the consequences. I am not sure I can support that…

 

Ed

 

 

Representative Ed Orcutt

18th Legislative District

 

Olympia Office:

408 John L. O’Brien Building

PO Box 40600

Olympia, WA 98504

* ed.orcutt@leg.wa.gov
( 360.786.7812

[tmike]

Here's my reply to his first response. He must have been sitting by his computer because he got right back to me. I thanked him again for working hard on this issue.

Thanks Ed,
       Please educate yourself as much as possible. This is an important issue and from the sound of your reply you don't fully understand all of the issues involved with this bill. I know it's complicated, keep fighting for ALL of Washington's wildlife that will be adversly effected by the wolf reintroduction. Please take a look at Idaho and Montana and don't think the same won't happen here. Sincerely Tom

From Ed
I am trying to educate myself on this. We had confusing testimony today – which is why I am researching further. And I did ask the question about how much other wildlife -- deer, elk, rabbits, consulting foresters -- will be killed by wolves…

[Machias]

One nice thing, he's the only guy out of the whole bunch who has e-mailed us all back.