Post by: wolfbait on November 08, 2014, 10:56:39 AM
October 31, 2014 1:56PM
With Washington's wolf population growing, talk about delisting the species has already started.
Washington will have a plan by 2018 for managing wolves after they’ve been taken off the state’s endangered species list, according to a Department of Fish and Wildlife proposal.
The agency sets the date in its 2015-21 game management plan, which has yet to be approved by the Fish and Wildlife Commission.
The document outlines objectives for managing game animals. WDFW received comments urging it to address wolf predation of deer and elk now.
Instead, the game management plan defers to the state’s wolf recovery program, which calls for establishing wolves in Washington before considering the effects on deer and elk.
The agency did for the first time set a time frame for developing a plan in anticipation the wolf population will outgrow endangered species status.
The department projects wolf-recovery goals could be met by 2021, the year the game management plan expires.
Washington Cattlemen’s Association Executive Vice President Jack Field said he was disappointed wolves didn’t get more attention in the game management plan.
“We’re going to achieve our recovery objective in Washington state,” said Field, who’s on the state’s Wolf Advisory Group. “There’s going to be an impact on ungulates.”
Field said WDFW also should open discussions about setting an upper limit on the wolf population.
“There’s got to be a top number. We can’t let an apex predator grow unchecked,” he said.
WDFW Game Division Manager Dave Ware said wildlife managers have not seen a decline in deer and elk populations in northeast Washington, where the state’s 52 wolves are concentrated.
The state projected in 2011 that once the population reached 50, wolves would take up to 630 elk and 1,500 deer a year, a fraction of the 7,900 elk and 38,600 deer killed by hunters annually.
Ware said the 2018 deadline will ensure the department has a plan ready if recovery-goals are met sooner than expected.
The head of a wolf sanctuary in Tenino, Wash., said WDFW appears set to start working on a post-recovery plan prematurely.
“It doesn’t make any sense to us,” said Diane Gallegos, executive director of Wolf Haven International. “Our focus should be on recovery and working with people who are most effected by recovery.
“We don’t know what the impacts of wolves are going to be in Washington,” Gallegos said. “We’re going to know so much more in five years that anything we do know, we’re going to have to redo.”
Conservation Northwest Executive Director Mitch Friedman agreed talks on managing an established wolf population can wait.
“It’s not a bridge we have to cross now,” he said. “It would create more smoke than light in the near term, and we would have to repeat it in the long term.
http://www.capitalpress.com/Washington/20141031/washington-peeks-ahead-to-life-after-wolves-recover?utm_source=Capital+Press+Newsletters&utm_campaign=ac0278a542-Top_Stories_of_the_Week&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4b7e61b049-ac0278a542-69636365 (http://www.capitalpress.com/Washington/20141031/washington-peeks-ahead-to-life-after-wolves-recover?utm_source=Capital+Press+Newsletters&utm_campaign=ac0278a542-Top_Stories_of_the_Week&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4b7e61b049-ac0278a542-69636365)
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. s: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml)
Post by: Toptwo on November 08, 2014, 11:00:02 AM
Really? Then besides sheep, cattle and domestic dogs what are these wolves eating?
Post by: wolfbait on November 08, 2014, 11:00:52 AM
"WDFW Game Division Manager Dave Ware said wildlife managers have not seen a decline in deer and elk populations in northeast Washington, where the state’s 52 wolves are concentrated."
“We don’t know what the impacts of wolves are going to be in Washington,” Gallegos said. “We’re going to know so much more in five years that anything we do know, we’re going to have to redo.”
"Conservation Northwest Executive Director Mitch Friedman agreed talks on managing an established wolf population can wait.
“It’s not a bridge we have to cross now,” he said. “It would create more smoke than light in the near term, and we would have to repeat it in the long term."
Post by: jasnt on November 08, 2014, 11:23:34 AM
WDF&Wolves
"WDFW Game Division Manager Dave Ware said wildlife managers have not seen a decline in deer and elk populations in northeast Washington, where the state’s 52 wolves are concentrated."
“We don’t know what the impacts of wolves are going to be in Washington,” Gallegos said. “We’re going to know so much more in five years that anything we do know, we’re going to have to redo.”
"Conservation Northwest Executive Director Mitch Friedman agreed talks on managing an established wolf population can wait.
“It’s not a bridge we have to cross now,” he said. “It would create more smoke than light in the near term, and we would have to repeat it in the long term."
because they plan to fight tooth and nail to not allow us to manage them. If they state it now they know the outrage and direction that will go! I think we need to have a max number as well. We need to start laying grounds for management now. We need to have a plan and get people thinking about it now! Wolf plan goals are going to be met,its just a matter of verifying them. We need to make our expectations known. There is a lot of people on my side of the state that already realize management is needed. Before long so will SW and se and NC. Our deer and elk herds and livestock owners can only take so much. 5 years after delist is way too late!
Post by: buckfvr on November 08, 2014, 11:35:15 AM
Post by: 4fletch on November 08, 2014, 02:29:05 PM
Post by: wolfbait on November 09, 2014, 07:21:13 AM
What are wolves eating when they aren't killing livestock?
Back to the 52 wolves BS, remember the lie of one wolf in one year but there could be more? Wolf numbers change to fit the agenda.
52 divided by 6 comes to just a hair over 81/2 wolves a year increase for WA's wolves. Doesn't quite add up when you compare the numbers and the rapid increase and dispersal of wolves in 1995/96 of the illegal wolf introduction into the Yellowstone and Idaho.
1995
15 Canadian wolves relocated to Yellowstone NP
1996
17 more Canadian wolves and 10 wolf pups from NW Montana relocated to Yellowstone NP. 20 wolves relocated to Central Idaho
2000
USFWS determines their are 30 breeding pairs in tri-state area of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. First year of 3 year
countdown to meet recovery goals
2001
Estimated 550 wolves including 35 breeding pairs in 51 packs in tri-state area. 2001 is second year of countdown
2002
Estimated 663 wolves including 43 breeding pairs in tri-state area. Third year of 3 year countdown. USFWS announces
wolves are recovered in tri-state area.
HIDDEN AGENDAS
As University of Wyoming geography professor James Thompson (1993:165) recently noted, "wolf recovery is [only] a ‘stalking horse’ for the larger issue of land use change." Even environmentalists have admitted that "on the deepest level the issue of…wolf recovery is not about wolves. [Instead] it is about control of the west" (Askins 1993:5). Simply put, environmentalists are using wolf recovery and the Endangered Species Act to run ranchers out of the country and to thwart multiple use of public lands. It is also a way for animal-rights and antihunting groups to ban all hunting and use of wildlife. Is this what Congress had in mind when it passed the Endangered Species Act? There is no evidence to even remotely suggest that it is.
http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/endangered/wolf.htm (http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/endangered/wolf.htm)
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on November 09, 2014, 07:35:06 AM
"WDFW Game Division Manager Dave Ware said wildlife managers have not seen a decline in deer and elk populations in northeast Washington, where the state’s 52 wolves are concentrated."
Really? Then besides sheep, cattle and domestic dogs what are these wolves eating?
Of course there has been no decline in deer and elk populations. It's easier to eat cattle and sheep! :bash:
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on November 09, 2014, 07:36:12 AM
Post by: bearpaw on November 09, 2014, 08:18:06 AM
"WDFW Game Division Manager Dave Ware said wildlife managers have not seen a decline in deer and elk populations in northeast Washington, where the state’s 52 wolves are concentrated."
Really? Then besides sheep, cattle and domestic dogs what are these wolves eating?
Of course there has been no decline in deer and elk populations. It's easier to eat cattle and sheep! :bash:
This was a purposefully misleading statement by WDFW. I will challenge WDFW to tell us what the big game populations are in NE WA before the wolves or after the wolves moved in. WDFW don't know what they have for game out there so how can they gauge if populations are up or down other than by hunter harvest and a few whitetail counts done mostly in farm fields which are not in the areas currently being impacted by wolves?
Idaho hunters had the same problem with IDFG, at first IDFG claimed they had no wolf impacts on herds, then after citizens started showing photos of all the sport killed dead elk left by wolves and hunter harvest started dropping off in impacted areas IDFG was forced to do population studies and they found out wolves were having a significant impact in many units.
Even after IDFG has published studies showing the impacts of wolves, there are some people who will still deny that wolves will impact herds. :bash:
Post by: idahohuntr on November 09, 2014, 06:17:53 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01557/wdfw01557.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01557/wdfw01557.pdf)"WDFW Game Division Manager Dave Ware said wildlife managers have not seen a decline in deer and elk populations in northeast Washington, where the state’s 52 wolves are concentrated."
Really? Then besides sheep, cattle and domestic dogs what are these wolves eating?
Of course there has been no decline in deer and elk populations. It's easier to eat cattle and sheep! :bash:
This was a purposefully misleading statement by WDFW. I will challenge WDFW to tell us what the big game populations are in NE WA before the wolves or after the wolves moved in. WDFW don't know what they have for game out there so how can they gauge if populations are up or down other than by hunter harvest and a few whitetail counts done mostly in farm fields which are not in the areas currently being impacted by wolves?
Idaho hunters had the same problem with IDFG, at first IDFG claimed they had no wolf impacts on herds, then after citizens started showing photos of all the sport killed dead elk left by wolves and hunter harvest started dropping off in impacted areas IDFG was forced to do population studies and they found out wolves were having a significant impact in many units.
Even after IDFG has published studies showing the impacts of wolves, there are some people who will still deny that wolves will impact herds. :bash:
I think this report has some good information on relative game abundance in Wa across many years.
I am equally confused about the quote attributed to Dave Ware...there were obvious declines in deer numbers after the hard winters in '08 and '09. I've personally heard Dave discuss these declines repeatedly...I suspect somebody misinterpreted something he said or left out key parts that provide appropriate context...or Mr. Ware mis-spoke :dunno: