Post by: wolfbait on December 24, 2014, 03:41:08 PM
Why Other States Should Be Alarmed
by Cat Urbigkit, Pinedale Online!
December 22, 2014
A federal judge in Washington, D.C. issued a decision Friday, Dec. 19, 2014 that reinstituted federal protections for wolves in Great Lake states of Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin. It’s the same federal court (but a different judge) that put Wyoming’s wolf population back under federal control in September 2014.
The Great Lakes case was led by the Humane Society of the United States, which was also involved in the case that overturned Wyoming’s management of wolves. This is the fourth time that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has delisted wolves in the Great Lakes region, only to have that decision overturned.
But the 111-page Memorandum Opinion in the Great Lakes wolf case includes statements that should cause officials in states outside that region to take note and ponder whether wolves will ever be delisted.
The Great Lakes Details
The court began: "The D.C. Circuit has noted that, at times, a court "must lean forward from the bench to let an agency know, in no uncertain terms, that enough is enough." This case is one of those times."
Distinct Population Segments
The core issue in the Great Lakes case was the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s use of an Endangered Species Act (ESA) provision for "distinct population segments (DPS)." Although gray wolves have been listed as a protected species throughout the Lower 48 states, FWS specifically changed the listing of wolves in the Great Lakes region (encompassing three-wolf inhabited states as well as parts of six other states) to declare it a DPS, simultaneous with removing federal protections for this DPS. The court found this improper.
The court cited the history of the DPS segment of the ESA, noting that it granted FWS authority to extend protection to discrete population groups within taxonomic species, even when that species was not otherwise endangered – but did not reference a possible use of DPS to remove protection from such population groups within an already listed taxonomic species such as wolves.
The court found: "The FWS’s interpretation is unreasonable on two levels. First, the structure, history, and purpose of the ESA do not permit the designation of a DPS for the purpose of delisting the vertebrates that are members of the DPS. Second, the ESA does not allow the designation of a DPS made up of vertebrates already protected under the ESA at a more general taxonomic level."
This point was made repeatedly by the court: "The FWS’s interpretation of the ESA as authorizing the simultaneous designation and delisting of DPSs—or the designation of a DPS solely for the purpose of delisting—directly conflicts with the structure of the ESA and, consequently, this interpretation is entitled to no deference …. The ESA is remarkably clear: the FWS must identify "species" that are "threatened" or "endangered," afford them the protections necessary to help them "recover," and then re-evaluate the listed entities once such "species" are recovered."
Which leads to the next issue – listing decisions should be examined at the species level.
Must Consider Entire Species
The court continued: "Even if the designation of the DPS were valid, the protections afforded the wolves encompassed by this DPS are controlled by the listing of the entire Canis lupus species and may not be reduced below that level through manipulation of the definition of "species" to treat the DPS’s members as if they were a different, unlisted species when they are not. This principle is inherent in the purpose and structure of the ESA."
"Instead of considering the status of the listed entity, the Canis lupus species, as a whole, the Final Rule purposely avoids a comprehensive evaluation of this endangered species throughout its historical range, focusing solely on the viability of a single population of gray wolves in only a part of that range."
The Court reflected back on the history of wolf protection in America: "By designating the species Canis lupus as endangered throughout its entire range of the conterminous United States, with the exception of Minnesota, in which the species was threatened, in 1978, the FWS sacrificed regulatory flexibility for protection. The agency did so because "the entire species Canis lupus is Endangered or Threatened to the south of Canada, and . . . [management] can be handled most conveniently by listing only the species name."
The court stated, "Simply put, once an entity is identified and listed, that entity is afforded protection under the ESA, and the agency’s actions must address that entire listed entity, regardless of whether the entity is a DPS, a subspecies, or a taxonomic species."
"For species such as the gray wolf, which have vast historic ranges, extending endangered species protection at the taxonomic species level, rather than at the subspecies or DPS level, may pose significant obstacles for subsequent delisting decisions, since any "review" must take into account the "status of the species" throughout "all or a significant portion of its range." When the FWS designated the entire species Canis lupus as "endangered" or "threatened" in the conterminous United States, it assumed that burden. To reclassify or delist Canis lupus, the FWS must review the status of Canis lupus, the listed entity, throughout its range, which the listing rule defined as the conterminous United States, and decide whether it is still threatened with extinction throughout "all or a significant portion of its range."
In summary, by listing the gray wolf at the general taxonomic level of species, the FWS obligated itself to address the gray wolf in the conterminous United States as a general species in any future decisions regarding reclassification or delisting of members of the species.
Range
An "endangered species" is, according to the ESA, "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range," the court noted, thus: "To reclassify or delist Canis lupus, the FWS must review the status of Canis lupus, the listed entity, throughout its range, which the listing rule defined as the conterminous United States, and decide whether it is still threatened with extinction throughout "all or a significant portion of its range."
This provision has specific impacts. According to the court, "The Final Rule defines the western Great Lakes DPS as encompassing all of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, and portions of six other States. This territory represents a small portion of the area once occupied by the gray wolf, even within the western Great Lakes DPS, since the Final Rule notes that this population of "gray wolves historically occupied the entire Midwest."
Although the FWS had included a detailed description of suitable habitat in the Tri-State area of the Great Lakes, the court found fault in limiting this discussion to "suitable habitat," stating, "The ESA itself would seem to preclude such a limitation, since the first factor the Secretary must analyze in determining whether a species is threatened or endangered is ‘the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range.’ If anything, the ESA requires the FWS to draw the opposite conclusion from a finding that suitable habitat has disappeared: such ‘curtailment’ of habitat is a contributing factor to the threatened nature of a species." The court indicated that FWS must consider the historic range of the species when making listing and delisting decisions.
The court continued, "The challenged rule in this case contains no justification for why the lost historical range of the gray wolf population in the Midwest is not a significant portion of its range and need not be considered in evaluating the listing status of the gray wolf in the DPS. A single sentence declaring that territory previously occupied by the western Great Lakes wolves are "too small or too fragmented to be suitable for maintaining a viable wolf population," is insufficient and, indeed, immaterial because the ESA does not limit the range subject to consideration to only "suitable habitat." Rather, the ESA would appear to mandate that the loss of suitable habitat cuts in favor of extending protections, since it would represent a "present . . . curtailment of [the species’] habitat or range."
Even If Wolves Are Absent, They Must Be Protected
The court criticized FWS reasoning calling for delisting wolves in the Great Lakes region, noting, "The FWS’s reasoning appears to proceed as follows: despite acknowledgment that humans are the biggest threat to the continued viability of the wolf, followed closely by habitat destruction and disease, and that the management of habitat destruction and the prohibition on the killing of wolves has allowed the wolf to recover to some extent, somehow the ending of federal management and elimination of the taking prohibition is no longer necessary. This conclusion is disconnected from and belied by the record."
The court noted that FWS minimizes any concern over increased mortality rates due to human killing of wolves because of the purported sufficiency of state management plans to maintain wolf populations through disease monitoring and limits on wolf hunting. But the court found fault, citing "non-existent state regulatory schemes."
The FWS is required by the ESA to consider whether the "inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms" renders a species "threatened" or "endangered." Regarding this factor, FWS concluded that existing regulatory mechanisms present no threat to the gray wolf in the western Great Lakes. The court noted that although the FWS detailed the regulatory mechanisms present in the Tri-State Area, the agency did "not adequately address the threat posed to the gray wolf by the virtual absence of any regulations to protect the species in the other six states that make up the western Great Lakes DPS. This failure renders the agency’s finding on this factor contrary to the evidence in the record."
The court named the states and their deficiencies: "In North and South Dakota, the gray wolf is subject to a "closed season," where no hunting licenses are issued for the wolf, but otherwise the two states have no other regulations protecting the species. Indeed, North Dakota "lacks a State endangered species law or regulation," and in South Dakota, "wolves . . . are not State listed as threatened or endangered." Similarly to North Dakota, in Iowa wolves are the subject of a "closed season," but are not otherwise protected. No protections are afforded to wolves in Indiana or Ohio, where the gray wolf is listed as "extirpated." Of the six states outside the Tri-State Area in the western Great Lakes DPS, only Illinois has endangered species regulations in place that protects gray wolves. Still, the FWS avers that any wolves in those six states ‘will not make a meaningful contribution to the maintenance of the current viable, self-sustaining, and representative metapopulation of wolves in the {Great Lakes region},’ meaning the near total lack of protection for wolves in the Dakotas, Iowa, Indiana, and Ohio has no bearing on whether the western Great Lakes wolves are threatened by the inadequacy of state regulatory mechanisms. The fact that few, if any, wolves are currently present in the six states outside the Tri- State Area does not foreclose the possibility of an increased presence there, since the Final Rule makes clear that wolves show ‘a high degree of mobility,’ and, indeed, many wolves have been identified and killed western Great Lakes States other than Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin."
Finding Fault With State Plan
Not only did the court criticize the "near total lack of regulatory mechanisms to protect the gray wolf in five of the nine states in the Great Lakes DPS," the court slammed FWS for its failure to explain "how a state plan to allow virtually unregulated killing of wolves in more than 50 percent of the state does not constitute a threat" to the species. The court was referring to Minnesota’s two wolf zones. Zone A, where most wolves reside, includes the northern 1/3rd of the state and strict controls on killing wolves would apply in that zone. Zone B, the remaining 2/3rds of the state, wolves would be subject to much more control – to the extent that they could be eliminated from this zone.
"Consequently, merely stating that a state plan allowing the virtually unregulated killing of nearly one-sixth of all wolves in the state, and the ability to kill any wolf that wanders into sixty-five percent of the State is "consistent with the Recovery Plan" is an unreasonable justification as to why the Minnesota Plan represents an adequate regulatory mechanism to prevent gray wolves from being extirpated again."
The 111-page Memorandum Opinion from the court was scathing about removal of federal protections for wolves, and it leaves both federal and state officials with plenty to contemplate as they look to the future and wonder whether wolves can ever be successfully delisted under the present language of the Endangered Species Act.
The court concluded: "While the FWS and the defendant-intervenors may have practical policy reasons for attempting to remove the gray wolf in the western Great Lakes from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, those policy reasons cannot overcome the strictures imposed by the ESA. The ESA offers the broadest possible protections for endangered species by design. This law reflects the commitment by the United States to act as a responsible steward of the Earth’s wildlife, even when such stewardship is inconvenient or difficult for the localities where an endangered or threatened species resides."
The Judge
The Great Lakes wolf case was decided by federal judge Beryl A. Howell. Howell was nominated to the position in 2010 by President Obama, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. She is married to Michael Rosenfeld, who served as an executive producer at National Geographic for decades.
The Wyoming case
The Wyoming case was brought by the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Fund for Animals, Humane Society of the United States, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club.
The rub of the court decision focuses on the fact that Wyoming’s commitment to manage for a wolf population above minimum management targets was spelled out in an Addendum to the Wyoming Wolf Management Plan – instead of regulation. The Court concluded that it "was arbitrary and capricious for the {U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service} to rely on the state’s nonbinding promises to maintain a particular number of wolves when the availability of that specific numerical buffer was such a critical aspect of the delisting decision."
The State of Wyoming promptly promulgated rules to make the provisions of the Addendum binding, and filed an appeal of the legal decision, and is also seeking wolf delisting in Wyoming via Congressional action (the same method used to achieve and retain wolf delisting in Idaho and Montana). With the legal decision in the Great Lakes case, perhaps other states will begin to look for Congressional action to delist wolves in their states as well.
Wolves in Wyoming are currently managed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service under 1994 rules designating wolves in the state as a nonessential, experimental population. Wyoming wolves have twice been removed from federal protection: for four months in 2008, and again from September 2012 through September 2014.
Wolf Management In Minnesota
Wolves now revert to the federal protection status they had prior to being removed from the endangered species list in the Great Lakes region in January 2012. That means wolves now are federally classified as threatened in Minnesota and endangered elsewhere in the Great Lakes region. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, "Wolves in Minnesota can only be killed in defense of human life. Only agents of the government are authorized to take wolves if pets or livestock are threatened, attacked or killed."
Wolf Management In Wisconsin
Things are more dire in Wisconsin, where wolves are back to endangered status.
According to state officials:
• Permits which allow lethal removal of wolves issued to landowners experiencing wolf conflicts are no longer valid. The department will contact permit holders to alert them.
• The department is not authorized to use lethal control as part of its conflict management program. Non-lethal tools and depredation compensation remain available.
• Wisconsin’s law allowing landowners or occupants of the land to shoot wolves that are in the act of depredating domestic animals on private property is no longer in force
• Landowners may not kill wolves in the act of attacking domestic animals.
Wolf Management In Michigan
Under endangered species status, wolves may be killed only in the immediate defense of human life.
• Two state laws allowing livestock or dog owners to kill wolves in the act of depredation are suspended by the ruling.
• Additionally, lethal control permits previously issued by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to livestock farmers to address ongoing conflicts with wolves are no longer valid; permit holders have been contacted regarding this change.
• The return to federal endangered species status also means DNR wildlife and law enforcement officials no longer have the authority to use lethal control methods to manage wolf conflict.
http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2014/12/TheGreatLakesWolfDec.htm (http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2014/12/TheGreatLakesWolfDec.htm)
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml)
Post by: timberfaller on December 26, 2014, 10:32:39 AM
Post by: wolfbait on December 29, 2014, 12:04:43 PM
By now we expect absurdity and fantasy in our wolf-management programs, but last week’s federal court ruling that returned Great Lakes wolves to the Endangered Species List is likely the silliest decision yet.
In effect, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell in Washington, D.C., declared that although gray wolves aren’t biologically endangered in the Western Great Lakes, they remain legally endangered. In other words, she found reality illegal.
Is nothing easy with wolves? The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service first removed the Western Great Lakes’ wolf population from the ESL in 2007, but court rulings have since forced the F&WS to restore federal protection four times.
In this most recent dismissal of science, Judge Howell held the F&WS to its original 1978 decision to protect the gray wolf “species” in the entire Lower 48. Therefore, she found that most of the area specified as Western Great Lakes wolf range didn’t offer wolves enough protection.
Specifically, Howell cited Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Illinois, North and South Dakota, and two-thirds of Minnesota as unsafe for wolves. No matter that those states and most of Minnesota lie outside the region’s best wolf habitat – northeastern Minnesota, northern Wisconsin and Michigan’s Upper Peninsula – which wolves recolonized the past 30 years.
Basically, Judge Howell said it’s not enough that Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan have healthy wolf populations in their Northern forests. By her interpretation, the states still haven’t done enough to meet the Endangered Species Act’s legal requirements. She noted that wolves sometimes wander far from their birth range, and state laws do little to protect them.
She also said Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan are “deficient” in addressing the possibility that disease and illegal kills could interact with each other and threaten the species.
Are we really supposed to write laws to protect individual animals or entire species from every eventuality? We can’t even do that for ourselves, judging by recent protests from Ferguson to Milwaukee to New York.
And at what point do we just end all funding for other “endangered” species and put everything into wolves to meet judicial edicts? Should we consider suing the F&WS to restore bison, moose, cougars and woodland caribou across their native range, too?
Of course not. Most of us realize such wildlife populations can’t live in our urban and agricultural shadows any more than wolves can. At least that’s what wolf experts, such as Dave Mech of the U.S. Geological Survey in Minnesota, keep saying.
Speaking in a conference call by the International Wolf Center in Ely, Minnesota, Mech said Monday that some wolves might leave Minnesota and eventually set roots in parts of North Dakota and South Dakota, but beyond that? Forget it.
“I don’t think for a minute that wolves are going to repopulate Iowa or Indiana or Illinois because people just won’t let them,” Mech said.
For example, wolves from the region are occasionally shot or road-killed in states from Kentucky to New York.
And that shouldn’t surprise us. Wolves often do the unexpected. But they remain mortal, no matter how much some folks mythologize them. As Mech has written: “The wolf is neither a saint nor a sinner except to those who want to make it so.”
We see examples of the wolf’s fabled influence in reactions to Howell’s ruling. Without bothering to read the ruling, some wolf worshipers declared that outdoors-folks “brought this on themselves” by hunting and trapping wolves, and pursuing them with hounds.
Granted, Wisconsin lawmakers and our Department of Natural Resources did not – and do not – work with wolf advocates, or even listen to their concerns. But nowhere in Howell’s decision did she mention Wisconsin’s hunting and trapping seasons to justify her stance. She did, however, fault Minnesota for being too lax in protecting wolves in its wolf Zone B, which covers two-thirds of the state and holds little suitable wolf habitat.
Unfortunately, Howell’s ruling could have unintended consequences, such as turning wolves into symbols of outside interference and overreaching government. Poaching could increase if locals think the federal government favors wolf interests over theirs. In contrast, new research by Erik Olson at UW-Madison found that illegal behavior could be moderated with “responsible and effective wildlife management programs,” which includes regulated hunting and trapping.
Meanwhile, don’t be surprised if Howell’s decision so infuriates lawmakers that Congress passes legislation to remove wolves from the Endangered Species Act nationwide. After all, Congress delisted wolves in Idaho and Montana in April 2011 after similar court rulings.
Some might call that an end-around, but others say it’s simply Congress’ way of clarifying what it originally intended when creating the ESA in 1973: to restore endangered populations and return their management to individual states.
Of course, if Congress must again go to such troubles to legalize reality, let’s hope they stop there. Otherwise, instead of celebrating the wolf’s recovery from near-extinction in the Western Great Lakes, we might be discussing whether Howell’s ruling triggered the gutting of the Endangered Species Act itself.
No animal besides the wolf could inspire such an emotional, yet realistic, possibility.
Read more: http://host.madison.com/sports/recreation/outdoors/patrick-durkin-wolf-ruling-disregards-reality-on-the-ground/article_644899bb-c41a-5d24-ab59-0bc5cc281052.html#ixzz3NJkmSE7I (http://host.madison.com/sports/recreation/outdoors/patrick-durkin-wolf-ruling-disregards-reality-on-the-ground/article_644899bb-c41a-5d24-ab59-0bc5cc281052.html#ixzz3NJkmSE7I)
Post by: mfswallace on December 29, 2014, 12:48:40 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on December 29, 2014, 12:56:09 PM
Post by: wolfbait on December 29, 2014, 01:10:45 PM
Odd reversal. In the past few years it's been the courts surprisingly coming to the rescue of the Constitution when the pin headed administration makes stupid decisions, not the other way around.
The Judge
The Great Lakes wolf case was decided by federal judge Beryl A. Howell. Howell was nominated to the position in 2010 by President Obama, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. She is married to Michael Rosenfeld, who served as an executive producer at National Geographic for decades.
Post by: Bean Counter on December 29, 2014, 03:56:24 PM
Post by: huntnphool on December 29, 2014, 04:28:18 PM
I seriously hope we never reach 15 BP's. :twocents:
Post by: AspenBud on December 29, 2014, 04:43:47 PM
As I've said before, all that hate you guys have for WDFW would be better directed towards HSUS. The Michigan DNR has supported wolf hunting for a while now but their opinion has been pushed aside by HSUS over and over and they will do the same when WDFW is willing and able to support it as well.
Post by: villageidiot on December 29, 2014, 09:11:35 PM
Post by: huntnphool on December 29, 2014, 11:43:09 PM
"The Great Lakes case was led by the Humane Society of the United States"
As I've said before, all that hate you guys have for WDFW would be better directed towards HSUS. The Michigan DNR has supported wolf hunting for a while now but their opinion has been pushed aside by HSUS over and over and they will do the same when WDFW is willing and able to support it as well.
I sat and listened to the ignorance being spewed by WDFW during the meetings, my anger is directed right where it deserves to be!
Post by: AspenBud on December 30, 2014, 09:12:09 AM
Are these two groups not one and the same?
Guess you'll find out when restrictions finally loosen here and HSUS goes to work to stop it. You're not paying attention if you haven't noticed that state agencies' stances for or against wolf hunting don't matter. HSUS can just get a judge to turn everything around for them or push a ballot measure. The DNR's in the lake states have tended to have a favorable view of wolf hunting, you can see how much that mattered once HSUS was done. They are the enemy you should worry about.
Post by: wolfbait on December 30, 2014, 09:43:50 AM
Are these two groups not one and the same?
Guess you'll find out when restrictions finally loosen here and HSUS goes to work to stop it. You're not paying attention if you haven't noticed that state agencies' stances for or against wolf hunting don't matter. HSUS can just get a judge to turn everything around for them or push a ballot measure. The DNR's in the lake states have tended to have a favorable view of wolf hunting, you can see how much that mattered once HSUS was done. They are the enemy you should worry about.
Don't panic and jump the gun A-bud, Things could go in a totally different direction>>Meanwhile, don’t be surprised if Howell’s decision so infuriates lawmakers that Congress passes legislation to remove wolves from the Endangered Species Act nationwide. After all, Congress delisted wolves in Idaho and Montana in April 2011 after similar court rulings. :tup:
Of course we would still have to deal with the fake WDFW endangered wolf plan, yep even if congress delisted the wolves, the famed WDFW would still have a listing for them.
Post by: AspenBud on December 30, 2014, 10:09:32 AM
Are these two groups not one and the same?
Guess you'll find out when restrictions finally loosen here and HSUS goes to work to stop it. You're not paying attention if you haven't noticed that state agencies' stances for or against wolf hunting don't matter. HSUS can just get a judge to turn everything around for them or push a ballot measure. The DNR's in the lake states have tended to have a favorable view of wolf hunting, you can see how much that mattered once HSUS was done. They are the enemy you should worry about.
Don't panic and jump the gun A-bud, Things could go in a totally different direction>>Meanwhile, don’t be surprised if Howell’s decision so infuriates lawmakers that Congress passes legislation to remove wolves from the Endangered Species Act nationwide. After all, Congress delisted wolves in Idaho and Montana in April 2011 after similar court rulings. :tup:
Of course we would still have to deal with the fake WDFW endangered wolf plan, yep even if congress delisted the wolves, the famed WDFW would still have a listing for them.
And if the wolf plan went away tomorrow HSUS would still go to court to restore and if Congress delisted wolves fully they would simply go to the state level and push ballot measures. You get rid of that hydra and you eliminate a lot of problems.
Post by: idahohuntr on December 30, 2014, 10:52:32 AM
They don't get it all right, and I don't know what you heard at meetings from them, but there is no bigger and more important ally to sportsmen in Washington State than WDFW when it comes to wolf management. Being our biggest ally and being angry at them are not mutually exclusive. :twocents:"The Great Lakes case was led by the Humane Society of the United States"
As I've said before, all that hate you guys have for WDFW would be better directed towards HSUS. The Michigan DNR has supported wolf hunting for a while now but their opinion has been pushed aside by HSUS over and over and they will do the same when WDFW is willing and able to support it as well.
I sat and listened to the ignorance being spewed by WDFW during the meetings, my anger is directed right where it deserves to be!
Post by: bearpaw on December 30, 2014, 11:28:23 AM
They don't get it all right, and I don't know what you heard at meetings from them, but there is no bigger and more important ally to sportsmen in Washington State than WDFW when it comes to wolf management. Being our biggest ally and being angry at them are not mutually exclusive. :twocents:"The Great Lakes case was led by the Humane Society of the United States"
As I've said before, all that hate you guys have for WDFW would be better directed towards HSUS. The Michigan DNR has supported wolf hunting for a while now but their opinion has been pushed aside by HSUS over and over and they will do the same when WDFW is willing and able to support it as well.
I sat and listened to the ignorance being spewed by WDFW during the meetings, my anger is directed right where it deserves to be!
WDFW spit in the face of hunters, ranchers, and rural citizens ignoring impacts on game herds, livestock, and rural economies proven in other states and instead siding with wolf propaganda in their management plan and in meetings. It appeared they refused to listen to or consider any info or testimony except from wolf advocates.
I will give WDFW kudos when they have it coming, with this wolf fiasco about half of the WDFW management involved should be fired for gross mismanagement in the face of facts proven about wolves in other states. When the different options for wolf packs were considered for the wolf plan there were no real options, all options were for 15 BP's. It will take a long time for Washingtonians to forget this wolf fiasco. I see no allies regarding wolves in WDFW! Any WDFW allies we may have are afraid to say anything due to reprisal from upper management who are in control of wolf management. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on December 30, 2014, 11:35:47 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on December 30, 2014, 11:44:22 AM
Post by: Coastal_native on December 30, 2014, 12:05:08 PM
You have to consider the landscape WDFW is dealing with...huge urban liberal population that easily passes initiatives restricting hunting methods, wildlife management tools, gun rights etc. Given the political constraints they must deal with it is my opinion senior WDFW wildlife staff are being very strategic in how they are pursuing wolf management. I doubt any of us even see on a daily basis the stuff they are working to be successful in managing wolves in balance with prey species like deer and elk. :dunno:
That doesn't sound like management guided by science. I thought you promised me sound science from WDFW. I feel betrayed. Not sure I can find it in my heart to forgive you.
Post by: bearpaw on December 30, 2014, 12:08:06 PM
You have to consider the landscape WDFW is dealing with...huge urban liberal population that easily passes initiatives restricting hunting methods, wildlife management tools, gun rights etc. Given the political constraints they must deal with it is my opinion senior WDFW wildlife staff are being very strategic in how they are pursuing wolf management. I doubt any of us even see on a daily basis the stuff they are working to be successful in managing wolves in balance with prey species like deer and elk. :dunno:
What on earth are you talking about, there is no wolf management until dozens of livestock are killed and there is no other alternative and definitely no management to keep them in balance with prey species! :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Coastal_native makes his point well!
Post by: AspenBud on December 30, 2014, 12:08:18 PM
Michigan's DNR and the state's Natural Resource Council supported wolf hunting, but HSUS did successfully convince the voters of that state to pass an initiative against it. It had no teeth thanks to the legislature and the governor, but we have no such protections in Washington and if that vote happened today...
Some of the leadership at WDFW may or may not be a problem but changing any of that is really irrelevant once HSUS gets involved.
Post by: bearpaw on December 30, 2014, 12:19:50 PM
If HSUS parachutes in, pushes a ballot measure against wolf hunting and/or lethal force in protecting livestock from them, is it still WDFW's fault?
Michigan's DNR and the state's Natural Resource Council supported wolf hunting, but HSUS did successfully convince the voters of that state to pass an initiative against it. It had no teeth thanks to the legislature and the governor, but we have no such protections in Washington and if that vote happened today...
Some of the leadership at WDFW may or may not be a problem but changing any of that is really irrelevant once HSUS gets involved.
So far HSUS hasn't done a ballot measure in WA, so far the damage regarding wolves and the insane wolf plan has been done by WDFW supporting the agenda of wolf activists and ignoring rural Washington concerns and science from other states. :twocents:
I applaud MI and several other state F&G for attempting to manage wolves. There is nothing to applaud WDFW for regarding wolves! Thus the reason you see no lawsuits yet. If WDFW ever tries to manage wolves then perhaps HSUS will become an issue. But, thus far WDFW is the enemy in WA wolf management. The will not even hire people who are capable enough to find the wolves that are here. The only time wolves get confirmed is when ranchers lose livestock or when public proof of wolves becomes so great it can no longer be ignored.
Post by: AspenBud on December 30, 2014, 12:35:17 PM
If HSUS parachutes in, pushes a ballot measure against wolf hunting and/or lethal force in protecting livestock from them, is it still WDFW's fault?
Michigan's DNR and the state's Natural Resource Council supported wolf hunting, but HSUS did successfully convince the voters of that state to pass an initiative against it. It had no teeth thanks to the legislature and the governor, but we have no such protections in Washington and if that vote happened today...
Some of the leadership at WDFW may or may not be a problem but changing any of that is really irrelevant once HSUS gets involved.
So far HSUS hasn't done a ballot measure in WA, so far the damage regarding wolves and the insane wolf plan has been done by WDFW supporting the agenda of wolf activists and ignoring rural Washington concerns and science from other states. :twocents:
I applaud MI and several other state F&G for attempting to manage wolves. There is nothing to applaud WDFW for regarding wolves! Thus the reason you see no lawsuits yet. If WDFW ever tries to manage wolves then perhaps HSUS will become an issue. But, thus far WDFW is the enemy in WA wolf management. The will not even hire people who are capable enough to find the wolves that are here. The only time wolves get confirmed is when ranchers lose livestock or when public proof of wolves becomes so great it can no longer be ignored.
There is no perhaps, they are already here and they are an issue.
http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2012/08/hsus_hswlt_combat_wildlife_poaching_080712.html (http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2012/08/hsus_hswlt_combat_wildlife_poaching_080712.html) <-- look who is one of the backers
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/mar1714a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/mar1714a/) <-- look who is coughing up money
http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/wag/WAG_MemberRoster.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/wag/WAG_MemberRoster.pdf) <-- See Dan Paul, Humane Society of U.S., Washington State Director
https://www.facebook.com/HSUSWashington (https://www.facebook.com/HSUSWashington) <-- key word search wolves
If anything, HSUS is directly influencing WDFW. WDFW is just a pawn they use whenever they can to advance their goals.
Post by: Special T on December 30, 2014, 01:36:43 PM
Are these two groups not one and the same?
Guess you'll find out when restrictions finally loosen here and HSUS goes to work to stop it. You're not paying attention if you haven't noticed that state agencies' stances for or against wolf hunting don't matter. HSUS can just get a judge to turn everything around for them or push a ballot measure. The DNR's in the lake states have tended to have a favorable view of wolf hunting, you can see how much that mattered once HSUS was done. They are the enemy you should worry about.
Which is why WY has it right, and why Wa NEVER will. WY understands the "Game" being played. Divided strategies to force large wolf populations onto states. Unlike all the othere states it would appear that WY has a unified front. Citizens, enforcement, state and federal representatives all support pushing back at the Feds infringing on thier states rights. It is because so many other states are divided (within the state) that they cannot force a reasonable plan.
The WDFW has failed to do even even symbolic gestures for sportsmen. Only under pressure have they relented allowing people to protect thier property. It is foolish for the WDFW (or any other agency) to that appeasing these anti hunting groups will some how reduce the departments conflict with these Anti's. The reality is that the department has so few allies in the hunting community BECAUSE of thier failure to support us and thier favortisim tword anti hunting groups.
The only way to fight this back effectivly is to have a state Gov and legislature that is willing to use ALL its influence to stop this insanity. Wa is lost on this issue. Our Federal reps and our Gov are not united on this issue and because of it this issue wont be resolved.
Post by: stromdiddily on December 30, 2014, 01:48:16 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 30, 2014, 02:10:51 PM
If HSUS parachutes in, pushes a ballot measure against wolf hunting and/or lethal force in protecting livestock from them, is it still WDFW's fault?
Michigan's DNR and the state's Natural Resource Council supported wolf hunting, but HSUS did successfully convince the voters of that state to pass an initiative against it. It had no teeth thanks to the legislature and the governor, but we have no such protections in Washington and if that vote happened today...
Some of the leadership at WDFW may or may not be a problem but changing any of that is really irrelevant once HSUS gets involved.
So far HSUS hasn't done a ballot measure in WA, so far the damage regarding wolves and the insane wolf plan has been done by WDFW supporting the agenda of wolf activists and ignoring rural Washington concerns and science from other states. :twocents:
I applaud MI and several other state F&G for attempting to manage wolves. There is nothing to applaud WDFW for regarding wolves! Thus the reason you see no lawsuits yet. If WDFW ever tries to manage wolves then perhaps HSUS will become an issue. But, thus far WDFW is the enemy in WA wolf management. The will not even hire people who are capable enough to find the wolves that are here. The only time wolves get confirmed is when ranchers lose livestock or when public proof of wolves becomes so great it can no longer be ignored.
There is no perhaps, they are already here and they are an issue.
http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2012/08/hsus_hswlt_combat_wildlife_poaching_080712.html (http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2012/08/hsus_hswlt_combat_wildlife_poaching_080712.html) <-- look who is one of the backers
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/mar1714a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/mar1714a/) <-- look who is coughing up money
http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/wag/WAG_MemberRoster.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/wag/WAG_MemberRoster.pdf) <-- See Dan Paul, Humane Society of U.S., Washington State Director
https://www.facebook.com/HSUSWashington (https://www.facebook.com/HSUSWashington) <-- key word search wolves
If anything, HSUS is directly influencing WDFW. WDFW is just a pawn they use whenever they can to advance their goals.
I didn't say they are not here, they probably have a huge membership base in WA. Currently they are not an issue with wolf management because WDFW has no wolf management.
Are these two groups not one and the same?
Guess you'll find out when restrictions finally loosen here and HSUS goes to work to stop it. You're not paying attention if you haven't noticed that state agencies' stances for or against wolf hunting don't matter. HSUS can just get a judge to turn everything around for them or push a ballot measure. The DNR's in the lake states have tended to have a favorable view of wolf hunting, you can see how much that mattered once HSUS was done. They are the enemy you should worry about.
Which is why WY has it right, and why Wa NEVER will. WY understands the "Game" being played. Divided strategies to force large wolf populations onto states. Unlike all the othere states it would appear that WY has a unified front. Citizens, enforcement, state and federal representatives all support pushing back at the Feds infringing on thier states rights. It is because so many other states are divided (within the state) that they cannot force a reasonable plan.
The WDFW has failed to do even even symbolic gestures for sportsmen. Only under pressure have they relented allowing people to protect thier property. It is foolish for the WDFW (or any other agency) to that appeasing these anti hunting groups will some how reduce the departments conflict with these Anti's. The reality is that the department has so few allies in the hunting community BECAUSE of thier failure to support us and thier favortisim tword anti hunting groups.
The only way to fight this back effectivly is to have a state Gov and legislature that is willing to use ALL its influence to stop this insanity. Wa is lost on this issue. Our Federal reps and our Gov are not united on this issue and because of it this issue wont be resolved.
:yeah: couldn't agree more
Post by: AspenBud on December 30, 2014, 02:14:34 PM
Are these two groups not one and the same?
Guess you'll find out when restrictions finally loosen here and HSUS goes to work to stop it. You're not paying attention if you haven't noticed that state agencies' stances for or against wolf hunting don't matter. HSUS can just get a judge to turn everything around for them or push a ballot measure. The DNR's in the lake states have tended to have a favorable view of wolf hunting, you can see how much that mattered once HSUS was done. They are the enemy you should worry about.
Which is why WY has it right, and why Wa NEVER will. WY understands the "Game" being played. Divided strategies to force large wolf populations onto states. Unlike all the othere states it would appear that WY has a unified front. Citizens, enforcement, state and federal representatives all support pushing back at the Feds infringing on thier states rights. It is because so many other states are divided (within the state) that they cannot force a reasonable plan.
The WDFW has failed to do even even symbolic gestures for sportsmen. Only under pressure have they relented allowing people to protect thier property. It is foolish for the WDFW (or any other agency) to that appeasing these anti hunting groups will some how reduce the departments conflict with these Anti's. The reality is that the department has so few allies in the hunting community BECAUSE of thier failure to support us and thier favortisim tword anti hunting groups.
The only way to fight this back effectivly is to have a state Gov and legislature that is willing to use ALL its influence to stop this insanity. Wa is lost on this issue. Our Federal reps and our Gov are not united on this issue and because of it this issue wont be resolved.
The problem is the entire population of Wyoming is smaller than that of King County let alone Washington as a whole. More people, more division.
In 2013 Wyoming had around 143,000 paid license holders. Washington had about 188,000. Or put another way, a quarter of Wyoming's population had a hunting license and only 2% of Washington's did. That is the beginning, middle, and end of the problem.
Post by: Special T on December 30, 2014, 02:21:45 PM
Post by: AspenBud on December 30, 2014, 02:34:11 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 30, 2014, 03:01:55 PM
The problem is the entire population of Wyoming is smaller than that of King County let alone Washington as a whole. More people, more division.
In 2013 Wyoming had around 143,000 paid license holders. Washington had about 188,000. Or put another way, a quarter of Wyoming's population had a hunting license and only 2% of Washington's did. That is the beginning, middle, and end of the problem.
I'd go one step farther than your statement. It's not just how many people Washington has, but where hey live. The bulk of Washington's population lives in large cities, disconnected from wildlife. Meanwhile, Wyoming is still largely rural and therefore more connected to wildlife.
Post by: huntnphool on December 30, 2014, 05:10:23 PM
They don't get it all right, and I don't know what you heard at meetings from them, but there is no bigger and more important ally to sportsmen in Washington State than WDFW when it comes to wolf management. Being our biggest ally and being angry at them are not mutually exclusive. :twocents:"The Great Lakes case was led by the Humane Society of the United States"
As I've said before, all that hate you guys have for WDFW would be better directed towards HSUS. The Michigan DNR has supported wolf hunting for a while now but their opinion has been pushed aside by HSUS over and over and they will do the same when WDFW is willing and able to support it as well.
I sat and listened to the ignorance being spewed by WDFW during the meetings, my anger is directed right where it deserves to be!
WDFW spit in the face of hunters, ranchers, and rural citizens ignoring impacts on game herds, livestock, and rural economies proven in other states and instead siding with wolf propaganda in their management plan and in meetings. It appeared they refused to listen to or consider any info or testimony except from wolf advocates.
I will give WDFW kudos when they have it coming, with this wolf fiasco about half of the WDFW management involved should be fired for gross mismanagement in the face of facts proven about wolves in other states. When the different options for wolf packs were considered for the wolf plan there were no real options, all options were for 15 BP's. It will take a long time for Washingtonians to forget this wolf fiasco. I see no allies regarding wolves in WDFW! Any WDFW allies we may have are afraid to say anything due to reprisal from upper management who are in control of wolf management. :twocents:
Spot on right there!
Post by: idahohuntr on December 30, 2014, 05:27:27 PM
Wildlife Management is almost entirely social...the 15 bp's of wolves in 3 recovery regions in WA state is based on the risk tolerance of the public and population viability models of wolves. The first part is social (how much risk are we willing to accept that wolves go extinct in the next 100 years in WA...1%, 5%, 50%???), the second part is science (how many bp's do we need to attain the level of risk the public desires?) The vast majority of Washingtonians do not want to accept much risk of wolves going extinct and therefore the risk of extinction threshold is quite low, so WDFW uses science to determine what is a fairly low risk for de-listing and they come up with 15 bps in 3 regions. This is just a classic example of management being guided by science, even if most of us don't like the low extinction thresholds for wolves.You have to consider the landscape WDFW is dealing with...huge urban liberal population that easily passes initiatives restricting hunting methods, wildlife management tools, gun rights etc. Given the political constraints they must deal with it is my opinion senior WDFW wildlife staff are being very strategic in how they are pursuing wolf management. I doubt any of us even see on a daily basis the stuff they are working to be successful in managing wolves in balance with prey species like deer and elk. :dunno:
That doesn't sound like management guided by science. I thought you promised me sound science from WDFW. I feel betrayed. Not sure I can find it in my heart to forgive you.
A much better example of management not being guided by science would be proclaiming herbicides cause hoof rot and therefore we can solve hoof rot if we just stop spraying herbicides.
Post by: CementFinisher on December 30, 2014, 06:00:06 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on December 30, 2014, 06:07:26 PM
Wildlife Management is almost entirely social...the 15 bp's of wolves in 3 recovery regions in WA state is based on the risk tolerance of the public and population viability models of wolves. The first part is social (how much risk are we willing to accept that wolves go extinct in the next 100 years in WA...1%, 5%, 50%???), the second part is science (how many bp's do we need to attain the level of risk the public desires?) The vast majority of Washingtonians do not want to accept much risk of wolves going extinct and therefore the risk of extinction threshold is quite low, so WDFW uses science to determine what is a fairly low risk for de-listing and they come up with 15 bps in 3 regions. This is just a classic example of management being guided by science, even if most of us don't like the low extinction thresholds for wolves.You have to consider the landscape WDFW is dealing with...huge urban liberal population that easily passes initiatives restricting hunting methods, wildlife management tools, gun rights etc. Given the political constraints they must deal with it is my opinion senior WDFW wildlife staff are being very strategic in how they are pursuing wolf management. I doubt any of us even see on a daily basis the stuff they are working to be successful in managing wolves in balance with prey species like deer and elk. :dunno:
That doesn't sound like management guided by science. I thought you promised me sound science from WDFW. I feel betrayed. Not sure I can find it in my heart to forgive you.
A much better example of management not being guided by science would be proclaiming herbicides cause hoof rot and therefore we can solve hoof rot if we just stop spraying herbicides.
I think I understand it now. Wildlife management is 99% social, 100% scientific, and 100% political...depending on whether you ask a concerned citizen, a scientist, or a politician. :chuckle:
Wait a second, you assured us that nothing is guiding the hoof rot work other than science, but when it comes to wolves we have to cut the department some slack because of the "political constraints they're dealing with." I'm lost again. Just razzing you.
Post by: Humptulips on December 30, 2014, 06:59:15 PM
If HSUS parachutes in, pushes a ballot measure against wolf hunting and/or lethal force in protecting livestock from them, is it still WDFW's fault?
Michigan's DNR and the state's Natural Resource Council supported wolf hunting, but HSUS did successfully convince the voters of that state to pass an initiative against it. It had no teeth thanks to the legislature and the governor, but we have no such protections in Washington and if that vote happened today...
Some of the leadership at WDFW may or may not be a problem but changing any of that is really irrelevant once HSUS gets involved.
So far HSUS hasn't done a ballot measure in WA, so far the damage regarding wolves and the insane wolf plan has been done by WDFW supporting the agenda of wolf activists and ignoring rural Washington concerns and science from other states. :twocents:
I applaud MI and several other state F&G for attempting to manage wolves. There is nothing to applaud WDFW for regarding wolves! Thus the reason you see no lawsuits yet. If WDFW ever tries to manage wolves then perhaps HSUS will become an issue. But, thus far WDFW is the enemy in WA wolf management. The will not even hire people who are capable enough to find the wolves that are here. The only time wolves get confirmed is when ranchers lose livestock or when public proof of wolves becomes so great it can no longer be ignored.
Ahem, Who do you think brought us I-655 and I-713?
Post by: idahohuntr on December 30, 2014, 09:42:35 PM
Identifying the cause of hoof rot is not social, it is not political, it is 100% science. Identify the cause using sound scientific principles...that is what WDFW is doing. It is not a debatable matter...there are no social values to consider. Is the cause toxicity? Is it Treponeme spp. bacteria? Is it Leptispirosis?? It doesn't matter what politicians or the public WANTS it to be...or thinks it might be...WDFW will use data and scientific process to identify the cause.Wildlife Management is almost entirely social...the 15 bp's of wolves in 3 recovery regions in WA state is based on the risk tolerance of the public and population viability models of wolves. The first part is social (how much risk are we willing to accept that wolves go extinct in the next 100 years in WA...1%, 5%, 50%???), the second part is science (how many bp's do we need to attain the level of risk the public desires?) The vast majority of Washingtonians do not want to accept much risk of wolves going extinct and therefore the risk of extinction threshold is quite low, so WDFW uses science to determine what is a fairly low risk for de-listing and they come up with 15 bps in 3 regions. This is just a classic example of management being guided by science, even if most of us don't like the low extinction thresholds for wolves.You have to consider the landscape WDFW is dealing with...huge urban liberal population that easily passes initiatives restricting hunting methods, wildlife management tools, gun rights etc. Given the political constraints they must deal with it is my opinion senior WDFW wildlife staff are being very strategic in how they are pursuing wolf management. I doubt any of us even see on a daily basis the stuff they are working to be successful in managing wolves in balance with prey species like deer and elk. :dunno:
That doesn't sound like management guided by science. I thought you promised me sound science from WDFW. I feel betrayed. Not sure I can find it in my heart to forgive you.
A much better example of management not being guided by science would be proclaiming herbicides cause hoof rot and therefore we can solve hoof rot if we just stop spraying herbicides.
I think I understand it now. Wildlife management is 99% social, 100% scientific, and 100% political...depending on whether you ask a concerned citizen, a scientist, or a politician. :chuckle:
Wait a second, you assured us that nothing is guiding the hoof rot work other than science, but when it comes to wolves we have to cut the department some slack because of the "political constraints they're dealing with." I'm lost again. Just razzing you.
Now, when you get into wolves (or the management objectives of any wildlife species for that matter) a big part of the equation is identifying public desires like risk extinction tolerance, how much crop damage the public will tolerate, how harvest should be managed (trophy v. quantity) etc.. In all of these instances, yes, it is absolutely critical for successful management that wildlife staff are attune to the political landscape which in a democracy is dependent upon the people who make up said democracy. This all seems pretty basic and easy to follow to me...but maybe I'm not explaining it well. :dunno:
Bottom line...things like the cause of hoof rot or a population estimate of the number of deer in a particular GMU...those are not debatable, social, political whatever issues....there is one right answer. Not saying WDFW always gets that answer right, but there is a right answer (sometimes it can be a complex one though!)
Science does not give you a "right" answer for things like...should we manage bull harvest for quantity or quality? Should we have low or high risk tolerance for the extinction of a particular species? Those are social/political issues...once/if those are decided then we go back to science to implement them...population modeling to determine risk of extinction or the impact to a population of elk under different harvest strategies.
Anyways, long answer...but overall your insinuations are not at all accurate. I hope this makes it more clear why I would say WDFW is using science to solve the cause of hoof rot but that they must navigate a difficult political landscape when it comes to wolf management...its because the wolf management issues are largely social...extinction risk, depredations, human interactions....what is acceptable to the public? Cause of hoof rot...not the least bit political...it is what it is. If it were herbicides then it could get political...how much herbicide application and hoof rot is acceptable to the public? Some, none, a lot??? :dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on December 30, 2014, 10:42:12 PM
If HSUS parachutes in, pushes a ballot measure against wolf hunting and/or lethal force in protecting livestock from them, is it still WDFW's fault?
Michigan's DNR and the state's Natural Resource Council supported wolf hunting, but HSUS did successfully convince the voters of that state to pass an initiative against it. It had no teeth thanks to the legislature and the governor, but we have no such protections in Washington and if that vote happened today...
Some of the leadership at WDFW may or may not be a problem but changing any of that is really irrelevant once HSUS gets involved.
So far HSUS hasn't done a ballot measure in WA, so far the damage regarding wolves and the insane wolf plan has been done by WDFW supporting the agenda of wolf activists and ignoring rural Washington concerns and science from other states. :twocents:
I applaud MI and several other state F&G for attempting to manage wolves. There is nothing to applaud WDFW for regarding wolves! Thus the reason you see no lawsuits yet. If WDFW ever tries to manage wolves then perhaps HSUS will become an issue. But, thus far WDFW is the enemy in WA wolf management. The will not even hire people who are capable enough to find the wolves that are here. The only time wolves get confirmed is when ranchers lose livestock or when public proof of wolves becomes so great it can no longer be ignored.
Ahem, Who do you think brought us I-655 and I-713?
Agreed but those are not the issue now with wolves, so far WDFW has pretty much appeased the wolf groups. This will not matter when WDFW decides wolves need managed, the wolf groups will turn on them. By trying to appease the wolf groups it has only strengthened the wolf groups position with a more liberal wolf plan than any other western state.
Post by: huntnphool on December 31, 2014, 12:47:57 AM
Identifying the cause of hoof rot is not social, it is not political, it is 100% science. Identify the cause using sound scientific principles...that is what WDFW is doing. It is not a debatable matter...there are no social values to consider. Is the cause toxicity? Is it Treponeme spp. bacteria? Is it Leptispirosis?? It doesn't matter what politicians or the public WANTS it to be...or thinks it might be...WDFW will use data and scientific process to identify the cause.Wildlife Management is almost entirely social...the 15 bp's of wolves in 3 recovery regions in WA state is based on the risk tolerance of the public and population viability models of wolves. The first part is social (how much risk are we willing to accept that wolves go extinct in the next 100 years in WA...1%, 5%, 50%???), the second part is science (how many bp's do we need to attain the level of risk the public desires?) The vast majority of Washingtonians do not want to accept much risk of wolves going extinct and therefore the risk of extinction threshold is quite low, so WDFW uses science to determine what is a fairly low risk for de-listing and they come up with 15 bps in 3 regions. This is just a classic example of management being guided by science, even if most of us don't like the low extinction thresholds for wolves.You have to consider the landscape WDFW is dealing with...huge urban liberal population that easily passes initiatives restricting hunting methods, wildlife management tools, gun rights etc. Given the political constraints they must deal with it is my opinion senior WDFW wildlife staff are being very strategic in how they are pursuing wolf management. I doubt any of us even see on a daily basis the stuff they are working to be successful in managing wolves in balance with prey species like deer and elk. :dunno:
That doesn't sound like management guided by science. I thought you promised me sound science from WDFW. I feel betrayed. Not sure I can find it in my heart to forgive you.
A much better example of management not being guided by science would be proclaiming herbicides cause hoof rot and therefore we can solve hoof rot if we just stop spraying herbicides.
I think I understand it now. Wildlife management is 99% social, 100% scientific, and 100% political...depending on whether you ask a concerned citizen, a scientist, or a politician. :chuckle:
Wait a second, you assured us that nothing is guiding the hoof rot work other than science, but when it comes to wolves we have to cut the department some slack because of the "political constraints they're dealing with." I'm lost again. Just razzing you.
Now, when you get into wolves (or the management objectives of any wildlife species for that matter) a big part of the equation is identifying public desires like risk extinction tolerance, how much crop damage the public will tolerate, how harvest should be managed (trophy v. quantity) etc.. In all of these instances, yes, it is absolutely critical for successful management that wildlife staff are attune to the political landscape which in a democracy is dependent upon the people who make up said democracy. This all seems pretty basic and easy to follow to me...but maybe I'm not explaining it well. :dunno:
Bottom line...things like the cause of hoof rot or a population estimate of the number of deer in a particular GMU...those are not debatable, social, political whatever issues....there is one right answer. Not saying WDFW always gets that answer right, but there is a right answer (sometimes it can be a complex one though!)
Science does not give you a "right" answer for things like...should we manage bull harvest for quantity or quality? Should we have low or high risk tolerance for the extinction of a particular species? Those are social/political issues...once/if those are decided then we go back to science to implement them...population modeling to determine risk of extinction or the impact to a population of elk under different harvest strategies.
Anyways, long answer...but overall your insinuations are not at all accurate. I hope this makes it more clear why I would say WDFW is using science to solve the cause of hoof rot but that they must navigate a difficult political landscape when it comes to wolf management...its because the wolf management issues are largely social...extinction risk, depredations, human interactions....what is acceptable to the public? Cause of hoof rot...not the least bit political...it is what it is. If it were herbicides then it could get political...how much herbicide application and hoof rot is acceptable to the public? Some, none, a lot??? :dunno:
Blah blah blah, "science" is relative to the intended agenda of the scientific body, or the financier.......PERIOD!