Post by: Little Dave on November 03, 2009, 12:16:00 AM
Here's my rough notes from the November 2 meeting:
Phil L.
Has hunted elk/deer for 20 yrs. Supports wolves, they are native to the state and belong here. Believes wolves keep ungulates healthy. Wolves pressure elk, keep them moving.
Jack Field
Exec. VP for WA Cattlemen's association. Recomends minority opinion requesting fewer breeding pairs with a 3-6-8 delisting schedule. Cited funding shortfalls.
Post by: Little Dave on November 03, 2009, 12:30:25 AM
Why so fast? No all stakeholders are represented in the discussion? This comment period takes place during hunting season. Requested an extended comment period beyond January 8.
Plan is substantially more agressive than ones implemented in neighboring states. Recommend the cattlemen's proposal of the 3-6-8 delisting schedule. Because of our state's smaller size 7 would be compatible with Idaho's plan.
Prefer that instances of "illegal hunting" be changed to "game violations" throughout the document. Described hunting as not illegal, but a noble activity. As a hunter, I bring local lean meat home to my family in much the same way that many people here in Seattle go to the Pike Place market and bring fresh locally grown produce home to their families and feel proud about that.
Questioned the proposed outlay of $300,000 to $800,000 per year when $11 million was just cut for the current year.
Concerned that organizations such as the Defenders of Wildlife promise to support financing damage claims for stockmen suffering losses due to wolf kills might not be a sustainable plan. The group supported Idaho's wolf management plan, however now a few years later they are party to a lawsuit to get the federal government to relist the wolf as endangered in Idaho. Will they also decide to end the damage payments in Idaho? Can they be trusted in Washington?
Requested that comments about erosion and forage patterns in Yellowstone and Olympic parks in the proposal disclose the whole truth about the erosion. The document should disclose that hunting is also significantly restricted or prohibited in these areas and may have influenced the excess growth of the herds in those areas.
Post by: Little Dave on November 03, 2009, 12:36:36 AM
Hiker
Prefers to have more wolves. Recommends alternative 3
50 breeding pairs to sustain population at adequate levels. Urges more funding.
Sonny
Feels strongly about wolves.
They are beautiful. Rather not have stockmen kill wolves.
Ed Wilson
National park ranger prefers plan 3
Short number of viable pairs, need to bring in wolves from Canada for genetic diversity.
Denise Jones read a prepared statement from one of the lobby groups
Wants even more wolves. Doesn't like to see the discussion couched as wolves vs. people or settle for political compromises. Thousands are needed to reduce genetic threats.
Post by: Little Dave on November 03, 2009, 12:42:14 AM
David A.
In the summer of 1981 he was on the Nahani River in the Northwest Territories. The wolf followed the river as he drifted by and he was overcome with emotion, a life changing event like watching St. Helens erupt, or birth of a child. Figures 15 breeding pairs is too low.
A. Lawson
Appreciates the proactive and collaborative plan. Thinks plan 3 is best. Likes the beautiful environment around Seattle, wants wolves.
Theona Clog
Has British accent, but has since become a citizen. Likes plan 3, wants more than 15, thinks 30 breeding pairs would be better. Needs support of ranchers to make it work. She thinks tourisim revenues will increase because people will come here to see the wolves. People spend a lot of money to go to places like Yellowstone to see the wolves. They might as well stay in Washington and spend the money here.
Post by: Little Dave on November 03, 2009, 12:57:32 AM
R. Nelson
From Olympia area. Family has been in livestock for 150 years. Predators are a serious problem for cattlemen. Lethal take is needed so that assets can be protected. Despite reports that wolves have been gone longer, last wolves were shot in the 1970's. He prefers the 3-6-8 delisting schedule. He'd really rather have no wolves at all. He's concerned about reports of lost sheep, and expensive pyrenees herd dogs. Hikers will also be at risk.
R.C.
Read some post cards sent in from Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife solicitations. Requests legislation, sound science. Goals should be met for five years rather than three years before engaging management activities. Prefers alternative 3 and introduction of wolves from other areas like Canada.
R. Champlain
He's a volunteer. Refrenced wolf killed recently in Okanogan County. Said that it is written that "In the beginning we are all created equal." This should not be a Cattlemen's Association recovery plan. Wolf howls are beautiful and will inspire children.
Believe it or not... I stayed for the whole meeting.
Post by: Little Dave on November 03, 2009, 01:03:16 AM
Ralph T.
Cattlemen will shoot a wolf regardless of law. Suggest that 300 wolves are needed. Should be an emphasis on Olympic Park. He turned with much drama to address the rancher from Olympia and said that he has a private farm with pigs, goats, and chickens next to the Olympic Forest and not far from Olympic Park and he is not concerned about wolves.
Next
Thinks the breeding pairs figure is low. Concerned about how wolves in Pend Oreille county have affected the endangered woodland caribou there.
Next
Wolves are native. Ecosystems are incomplete without them. Wolves kill coyotes Figures that 15 breeding pairs are too low.
J. Rundall
Supports plan 3. No cash for cattlemen.
Post by: Little Dave on November 03, 2009, 01:06:29 AM
Ben
Supports Olympic Park introduction.
Next
Where's the money coming from? Populations are unsustainable. Hunters know that for any species large populations are needed for health.
L. Myrtfelt
As a citizen she owns the public land. Supports wolves on her public land. Supports alternative 3. Supports livestock compensation and recommends that cattlemen use techniques such as timed birthing.
Post by: Little Dave on November 03, 2009, 01:13:05 AM
How is it funded?
Seeking multi-faceted funding. We're looking for sources. It's an important question.
What about the caribou?
USFWS is looking into it. It's a concern. Mentioned in the draft plan.
Will the Idaho delisting and hunt affect Washington?
Yes, it will influence dispersal and slow natural migration to our state. It's mentioned in the draft plan.
Why not include re-introduction from out-of-state locations?
Expensive, contraversial, wolves are coming in on their own anyway. Translocation is an option in the future once the wolves are here. Help them get to places like Olympic Park.
How would translocation be done?
Can be difficult for the wolves. Probably better to locate a whole pack at once rather than select a few from the pack.
Post by: cle elum bowhunter on November 03, 2009, 01:19:06 AM
Post by: Little Dave on November 03, 2009, 01:21:10 AM
Q: Is the DFW coordinating with the USFWS?
A: Yes.
Q: How is carcass analysis done?
A: Depends on listing status. For areas like Western Washington USFWS is the lead agency and their criteria are used. Once de-listed DFW is lead agency, DFW criteria are used.
Q: What is the current flexibility for use of lethal take for property damage?
A: Unsure. That will be the decision of the DFW commission.
Q: What is the basis for the wolf/ungulate model? Why not consider Minnesota and Wisconsin where there are already well integrated wolf and ungulate populations as a model rather than adjacent states?
A: There are some comments in the plan.
Q: Are these plans final and fixed in stone? If there is consensus that we need more breeding pairs, how does the group respond?
A: All questions will be considered.
Q: Can the plan be set up to prohibit wolf hunting?
A: It will be a DFW decision open to public discussion at a later time.
Post by: Little Dave on November 03, 2009, 01:28:49 AM
Little Dave, thanks for the update. Here at the firehouse working a 24 and just got back from an arson fire.
Hope nobody got hurt in that. Hope you figure out who's behind the fire. Got a few friends with cabins out that way. Saw a huge fire off of U Peoh Sunday night. Probably just a brush pile though.
Post by: Little Dave on November 03, 2009, 01:46:55 AM
1. Reduce game violations.
2. Do better game management.
I asked... how do you quantify "do better game management" and measure results? I offered that the DFW is already managing the game on a increasingly limited budget. How are we going to do better game management and support hunters and wolves with more game?
She admitted that this is a challenging question. She touched on habitat improvement and monitoring of game populations.
This point in particular is a very weak component of the plan and needs more thought and discussion. What this means then is that there is a plan to delist wolves. A substantial component of this plan is hope. Hope that the wolves will cause huge swings in ungulate populatoins. Hope that money will be available for the program.
There seems to be an emphasis from the wolf group on protecting the state from lawsuit. It seems as though they would like to have the option to handle the matter conservatively, but in order to avoid a meddling lawsuit they are making huge concessions to the likely plantiffs.
Post by: Little Dave on November 03, 2009, 01:53:29 AM
Another comment from Phil L (has hunted deer/elk in WA last 20 years).
Q: What is the DFW doing to educate hunters about wolves? Many say "shoot, shovel, and shut-up"?
A: There's an education and outreach section in the plan.
Somebody else...
Q: Can you clarify why there is a 2:1 payout based on ranch size?
A: It's a new concept. Idea is that if a livestock kill is found on a large property, there might be another which will be difficult to locate. For smaller properties, it is easier to know the location of all stock.
Q: What happens if a population is wiped out?
A: Re-listing would take place.
Post by: Little Dave on November 03, 2009, 02:13:03 AM
So I cautioned that the 1990 film "Dances With Wolves" may have inspired many to become interested in wolves, conservation and so forth... and I noted that the Defenders of Wildlife group uses the music from that film in some of their promotial materials, but the movie is a poor model for living with wolves. The movie shows the main character habituating or befriending a wolf. It will be important for people to come out of this fog where wolves are thought of as friends and instead respect wolves for what they are... wild animals, and know that habituated wolves are dangerous.
The plan does make such statements about the risks of habituation. So we ended the discussion there. It will be important in the next few meetings to insist that the plan is completed to the point where it can actually be implemented. Do better game management is an unsatisfactory description of how ungulate populations will be increased to support new demand. We're searching for multi-faceted funding sources is an unsatisfactory description of how this plan is financially sustainable.
Post by: wolfbait on November 03, 2009, 06:20:26 AM
Post by: haus on November 03, 2009, 12:38:55 PM
Post by: Curly on November 03, 2009, 12:45:03 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on November 03, 2009, 12:47:04 PM
Post by: JoeVon on November 03, 2009, 12:52:51 PM
Post by: Special T on November 03, 2009, 01:01:39 PM
Post by: Curly on November 03, 2009, 01:50:51 PM
Thats so depressing... I guess out of state apps start soon. I dont think there is a future in washington for hunters.
That is what I am starting to think as well. I was thinking about giving up on applying in Oregon becuase of their increased fees, but maybe I'll have to start thinking about giving up on hunting in WA.......and save my money for Oregon.... :dunno:
Post by: wolfbait on November 03, 2009, 04:04:21 PM
Post by: Curly on November 03, 2009, 04:20:33 PM
Post by: Little Dave on November 04, 2009, 12:20:55 AM
The plan is way off track due in large part I figure to two outspoken stakeholder groups capitalizing the development of the plan. The financing proposal is crude. What kind of financial estimate is "somewhere between $300,000 to $800,000 per year?" What does it mean to "do better management?" This sounds more like a plan that was put together at the last minute rather than the result of two years of thoughtful discussions with peer state wildlife departments, the state auditor, and all stakeholder groups.
The does state needs a plan.
A plan that it can afford to implement.
A plan that is flexible and will adapt to unknown problems and succeses.
A plan that represents and respects all stakeholders.
Wolf enthusiasts and stockmen are represented in the current documentation.
Missing from the plan is evidence that there were substantial discussions considering the needs of hunters, small business owners that depend on hunting, the tribes, law enforcement, the state attorney general, and the state auditor.
My recommendation is to take some of the structure produced from this draft, thank the wolf group for their work, dismiss them, and form a new group representing all stakeholders which will consider matters of finance, monitoring, specific habitat improvements, coordination with agencies, and adjustments to the law which are needed (such as eliminating firearms restricted areas where potentially habituated wolves will be a safety threat and serious penalties for individuals found to be habituating wolves).
Post by: wolfbait on November 04, 2009, 09:22:25 AM
I don't like going into town, but I felt that I should for this. You are right it was a bit of a disappointment.
The plan is way off track due in large part I figure to two outspoken stakeholder groups capitalizing the development of the plan. The financing proposal is crude. What kind of financial estimate is "somewhere between $300,000 to $800,000 per year?" What does it mean to "do better management?" This sounds more like a plan that was put together at the last minute rather than the result of two years of thoughtful discussions with peer state wildlife departments, the state auditor, and all stakeholder groups.
The does state needs a plan.
A plan that it can afford to implement.
A plan that is flexible and will adapt to unknown problems and succeses.
A plan that represents and respects all stakeholders.
Wolf enthusiasts and stockmen are represented in the current documentation.
Missing from the plan is evidence that there were substantial discussions considering the needs of hunters, small business owners that depend on hunting, the tribes, law enforcement, the state attorney general, and the state auditor.
My recommendation is to take some of the structure produced from this draft, thank the wolf group for their work, dismiss them, and form a new group representing all stakeholders which will consider matters of finance, monitoring, specific habitat improvements, coordination with agencies, and adjustments to the law which are needed (such as eliminating firearms restricted areas where potentially habituated wolves will be a safety threat and serious penalties for individuals found to be habituating wolves).
(The financing proposal is crude. What kind of financial estimate is "somewhere between $300,000 to $800,000 per year?" What does it mean to "do better management?")
I am sure that 800,000 plus per year will be more like it., quite sure that they know this also. Washington will be a more costly state to manage wolves in do to the fact that we do not have as much open space, more people pupulation, more conflicts with the wolves.
(What does it mean to "do better management?")
Does any one here have any idea what better management means? Take the Methow Valley for instance, when we no longer have a deer herd large enough to support the wolves, what then will they be managing? When the elk herd down on in the Blue's is gone, what will be the better management? In Idaho, lolo pass where the wolves have slaughtered the elk herds there, where was the better managment.
The wolf groups already have a damn good idea of what a lot of wolves in Washington will be like, they aren't going into this blind, this started in Yellowstone back in 1995. The defenders of wildlife don't give a damn about the wolves, wildlife or people that will be going through the changes that the the wolves will bring.
When they went and got these wolves up in Canada, Bangs said they wanted a wolf that could really kill the elk. Bangs and defenders of wildlife were and still are very proud of their Canadian wolves, not for the sake of the wolves, but for the damage that they have done and will do. The more controversy over the wolves the more money defenders of wildlife can suck out of the ignorant. In the end the predator phase is all about $$$$$$. As you have seen wdfw don't seem to be concerned about the game herds.
Post by: luvtohnt on November 04, 2009, 09:29:32 AM
(such as eliminating firearms restricted areas where potentially habituated wolves will be a safety threat and serious penalties for individuals found to be habituating wolves).I don't know a farmer alive today who bothers with the firearm restriction when it comes to their stock. They all just shoot what ever needs to be shot and go on with their day. I don't think they would hesitate to kill wolves either, once they are legal of course.
I especially like your last paragraph about reforming the group. Maybe not dismissing the current one but adding to it to encompass the other stakeholders also. Something I have wondered is there a financial gain to having a management plan in place or are they just trying to jump the gun?
Brandon
Post by: Little Dave on November 04, 2009, 10:37:17 AM
I believe the urgency stems from the concern about keeping the cattlemen engaged in the discussion. With no wolf plan in place, there will be few or no state payouts either. It is likely that without some minimal accommodation for the cattlemen, the cattlemen's lobby would be too formidable to overcome. So this is the most cost-effective way they have to meet their objective here.
I wouldn't be too surprised if part of the research component of an approved plan is outsourced to this group. It will be handy for them to bring in at least a quarter million dollars a year to help them with their fundraising and lawsuit activities here and elsewhere.
Back to the money issue, there's no reason at all to engage hunters. So far, we do not pose a threat. There's no legal challenge and there's no lobby. Instead, their plan is to use our money for their purpose preservation rather than conservation activity. The P-R excise taxes that we pay, and a substantial part of our hunting license fees will be used for this wolf program.
Ideally, I would like to see the law changed so that all hunting license revenue and excise taxes collected are prioritized for conservation of game species. The fees that we pay should not be used for any part of the wolf plan unless wolves are classified as a big game species with a plan in place to hunt the wolves.
Post by: Special T on November 04, 2009, 01:13:16 PM
Post by: wolfbait on November 04, 2009, 04:18:58 PM
(such as eliminating firearms restricted areas where potentially habituated wolves will be a safety threat and serious penalties for individuals found to be habituating wolves).I don't know a farmer alive today who bothers with the firearm restriction when it comes to their stock. They all just shoot what ever needs to be shot and go on with their day. I don't think they would hesitate to kill wolves either, once they are legal of course.
I especially like your last paragraph about reforming the group. Maybe not dismissing the current one but adding to it to encompass the other stakeholders also. Something I have wondered is there a financial gain to having a management plan in place or are they just trying to jump the gun?
Brandon
You mean when its legal us folks that are having livestock problems with wolves, we will then shoot them? I tell you right now, there are a whole bunch of ranchers that have been taking care of their wolf problems on their own for along time, the new wolf pack of 08 is mostly for people who live in the city. Washington has had wolves for quite a few years now. This bullsh$t that we have to put up with an animal that is not endangered, is just that bullsh$t.
As far as reforming the group, I think it's only fair since most of them are pro-wolf anyway. Why not form an unbiase group and take input from everyone then write the plan from that. I would think that would be a bit more fair. The wolf plan that we end up with the way it is going, will only mean that we will have more wolves before they sue to stop delisting.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on November 04, 2009, 04:25:57 PM
Post by: wolfbait on November 04, 2009, 04:33:17 PM
This thred just gets more depressing by the day...800k for wolf management? what a disaster.
Wait till the lawsuits start because their wolves killed someone, or personal injuries, its just a matter of time. $$$$$$$$$$
Post by: mulehunter on November 05, 2009, 05:27:56 PM
Next year my whole family will not support wdfw.
7 in our family each paid 200 dollar worth of tags, permits, and Etc it would be 1400.00 short for them. :chuckle:
I rather save my money and not for Wolves management Tools.
That's how Wdfw use money to pay wolves pack to kill half amount worth of animals Tags that u all will not be filled.
I noticed hunting season 2009 there is a lot of permits plus combo tags.
Sucking all ur money to build more wolves.
No thanks wdfw. That's how we can control them....
Mulehunter ;)
Post by: Little Dave on November 06, 2009, 08:42:37 AM
If many hunters are benched for a few years, those of us that are will not be losing our interest in conservation. We will have more time to expose the wolf introduction for the fraud that it is.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 06, 2009, 03:52:26 PM
When they went and got these wolves up in Canada, Bangs said they wanted a wolf that could really kill the elk. Bangs and defenders of wildlife were and still are very proud of their Canadian wolves, not for the sake of the wolves, but for the damage that they have done and will do. The more controversy over the wolves the more money defenders of wildlife can suck out of the ignorant. In the end the predator phase is all about $$$$$$. As you have seen wdfw don't seem to be concerned about the game herds.The wolves in the Methow were not brought in by the WDFW of Bangs. We can extend that $1000 bet to encompass the supposed illegal introduction in WA. It hasn't happened and there is no credible evidence that it has.
Post by: wolfbait on November 06, 2009, 04:15:37 PM
When they went and got these wolves up in Canada, Bangs said they wanted a wolf that could really kill the elk. Bangs and defenders of wildlife were and still are very proud of their Canadian wolves, not for the sake of the wolves, but for the damage that they have done and will do. The more controversy over the wolves the more money defenders of wildlife can suck out of the ignorant. In the end the predator phase is all about $$$$$$. As you have seen wdfw don't seem to be concerned about the game herds.The wolves in the Methow were not brought in by the WDFW of Bangs. We can extend that $1000 bet to encompass the supposed illegal introduction in WA. It hasn't happened and there is no credible evidence that it has.
I understand that you don't believe the wolves have or will do much damage to our big game herds. I also know that you think saveelk.com is mostly BS, because you wrote and told me so,, I still have that letter, case you would like me to prove it. So how bout this you just keep saying what you have been saying and when what has happened in Idaho happens in Washington then you can write back an say it is because of What??? The wolves in the Methow are Canadian wolves and they did get released in the Methow, maybe not by wdfw, but wdfw knew about it because 3 years ago all the road kill in the Methow was going to some new wolves in the Methow. You always come up with "we will manage our wildlife better or habitat" what wildlife will you be managing once you have wolves? Come on get real!!!! We all know how much the wolves have been managed ;) If I was you, I would go back an talk to fitkin and rethink what you just said, because at some point in time I am sure the Methow will be going to court on wolves being released in the Methow, and those people who have seen this happen will be in court testifying.
Post by: MtnMuley on November 06, 2009, 04:21:06 PM
Post by: huntnphool on November 06, 2009, 04:34:14 PM
Quote
Ideally, I would like to see the law changed so that all hunting license revenue and excise taxes collected are prioritized for conservation of game species. The fees that we pay should not be used for any part of the wolf plan unless wolves are classified as a big game species with a plan in place to hunt the wolves
Get Tim Iman on it.
Post by: remington300mag on November 06, 2009, 04:49:01 PM
Q: What is the DFW doing to educate hunters about wolves? Many say "shoot, shovel, and shut-up"?
Now this sounds like a GREAT plan to me!!!!!! I would suggest all hunters in this state follow this management tool!!!!
Post by: wolfbait on November 06, 2009, 06:20:43 PM
Q: What is the DFW doing to educate hunters about wolves? Many say "shoot, shovel, and shut-up"?
Now this sounds like a GREAT plan to me!!!!!! I would suggest all hunters in this state follow this management tool!!!!
I think it is a good plan also, but I also think we are a bit to late, like Idaho and Montana, if you gave everyone a gun in Wa. and said go kill every wolf you see it would not stop what has already happened here in Washington. The one hope that we have now that wdfw will start stacking wolves in Wa., is that people send their wolf sightings to http://washingtonwolf.info/ or wolfbait here on Wa. Hunting, we will make sure it is made public, and perhaps the 15 bps will be discovered a bit quicker then 13 years from now. The sooner that we can convince the rest of Washington that we already have the wolves for delisting the better off we will be. I say we have 15 bps plus right now.
Post by: bearpaw on November 06, 2009, 09:27:17 PM
Post by: Little Dave on November 06, 2009, 10:39:32 PM
Arguments for wolves as you see here are very shallow. I sat with a DFW employee for a few minutes, at the meeting and discussed other business. Next day he left a note that the other meetings have not been as "bad" as this one. To me, it means that there is hope. Statewide, there's really a lot of concern about this plan substantiated with genuine concern for safety, and economic hardship. Seattle's plea for wolves is noise from people loving nature, but out of touch with the reality of nature.
I do get a sense from the DFW personnel that they realize this, and they also realize that their jobs are on the line with this change.
So this is my pep talk. I'll say it again this way...
Each one of us can outperform these shallow comments recorded in Seattle. Will you please send in a comment before January?
Here's a link to their Internet comment form:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=_2b0vnE3WLkHBoFZolPT9rsA_3d_3d (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=_2b0vnE3WLkHBoFZolPT9rsA_3d_3d)
Post by: Special T on November 07, 2009, 11:26:43 AM
Post by: Axle on November 08, 2009, 08:19:45 AM
I've said it before too - all those pages of "special permits" are not really special permits except for a few. They represent "lost opportunity" and those pages will get drastically increased with the increased predation.
Wolfbait is right - what will be left to manage once the big game is eaten up?