Post by: Kain on May 27, 2011, 12:04:08 PM
Quote
May 27, 2011
Contact: Rocky Beach (360) 902-2510
or Madonna Luers, (509) 892-7853
Draft state wolf plan revised; review process planned
OLYMPIA —The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has revised a draft plan for state wolf recovery and management, and will conduct more public review later this year.
The draft state Wolf Conservation and Management Plan was revised after scientific peer review and an earlier public input process, which concluded last year.
The revised draft plan is available on the WDFW website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/. (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/.) The website also contains information on the wolf plan development process, including past public input and scientific peer review. The public-comment process included 19 public meetings, three surveys and a comment period that drew nearly 65,000 responses.
The plan is intended to guide state wolf management while wolves naturally disperse and re-establish a sustainable breeding population in the state. The plan contains recovery objectives that would allow the state to eventually remove wolves from protection lists, as well as management strategies to address wolf-livestock conflicts.
The revised draft plan affirms 15 successful wolf breeding pairs as the goal for statewide wolf recovery. Among the revisions are proposals regarding lethal control of wolves observed attacking livestock and dogs, and WDFW management options if wolf predation limits at-risk populations of elk, deer or other ungulates.
The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission—the citizen panel that guides WDFW policy— will be briefed on the draft plan and review process during its June 4 meeting at the Natural Resource Building in Olympia.
The 17-member citizen Wolf Working Group, which helped draft the plan, will meet June 8-9 to review the proposed revisions. The meeting will be held at the Heritage Center of the Kittitas Valley Event Center, 512 N. Poplar St., in Ellensburg, and will run from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., June 8, and from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m., June 9. As with past meetings of the advisory group, the working group’s meeting is open to the public but it is not a public-comment opportunity.
WDFW will consider guidance from the working group and may release further draft plan revisions, with an updated environmental impact statement, before the Fish and Wildlife Commission takes public comments on the draft plan during its Aug. 4-6 meeting in Olympia.
Two commission workshops on the draft wolf plan are scheduled in eastern and western Washington in September and October. Those workshops will be open to the public. The commission is scheduled to consider adoption of the plan during its Dec. 2-3 meeting in Olympia.
Post by: denali on May 27, 2011, 12:31:47 PM
Well is anybody surprised by this ?? the other alternative plans were nothing more than a CYA
I would like to quote an Oregon rancher "Wolf plans are fine...till you have wolves"
Post by: Kain on May 27, 2011, 12:36:58 PM
Post by: bearpaw on May 27, 2011, 12:49:42 PM
The only recourse I see is to try to get legislators involved. :twocents:
Post by: denali on May 27, 2011, 12:54:59 PM
Post by: rtspring on May 27, 2011, 02:00:47 PM
Post by: lastmk8 on May 28, 2011, 10:26:54 AM
Post by: 3nails on May 28, 2011, 10:32:25 AM
It's nice to have a "plan", so the state moves forward on theirs. Good for them, I have a plan also, the difference in our plans will most likely be in the "execution" of the plan!!!:chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: asl20bball on May 28, 2011, 10:37:44 AM
Post by: bigcountry on June 02, 2011, 09:54:35 AM
After hosting 19 public meetings and reviewing more than 65,000 comments, the state released its revised plan to recover gray wolves in Washington that should both please and upset cattlemen, hunters and conservationists.
By K.C. MEHAFFEY
The Wenatchee World
Related
Top comments Hide / Show comments
No comments have been posted to this article.
Start the conversation >
WENATCHEE, Wash. —
After hosting 19 public meetings and reviewing more than 65,000 comments, the state released its revised plan to recover gray wolves in Washington that should both please and upset cattlemen, hunters and conservationists.
Some aren't happy that the plan still requires 15 packs of wolves for three consecutive years in order to remove protections required under the Endangered Species Act.
Others might not like the agency's plan to seek higher penalties for poaching wolves.
Scheduled for final review in August by the Washington Wildlife Commission, the plan will guide state strategies for recovering gray wolves in Washington. Wolves are listed as federally endangered in the western two-thirds of the state, where the only known pack is the Methow Valley's Lookout Pack. The federal government recently delisted Rocky Mountain gray wolves, including lands east of Highway 97 where the state's two other known packs reside. Additional unconfirmed packs may exist in the Blue Mountains, North Cascades National Park, and Kittitas County, according to the draft document.
Rocky Beach, wildlife diversity manager for the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, said overall, the plan is largely the same as the state's draft proposal, although many parts were "tweaked" to reflect comments and scientific peer reviews.
One of the biggest changes has to do with the numbers of breeding pairs needed to remove wolves from federal protections, he said. The draft plan required two successful breeding pairs in the Eastern Washington region, two in the North Cascades, and five in the Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast. Six additional breeding pairs in any part of the state were also needed.
Now, six breeding pairs are required in Eastern Washington, four in the North Cascades and five altogether in Southern Cascades and the Northwest Coast to delist them. Beach said the change allows wildlife managers more certainty in recovery before delisting, and more flexibility in managing wolves in the separate areas. Fifteen successful breeding pairs is equal to between 97 and 361 wolves, the plan says.
One of the most controversial changes will likely be allowing landowners or state Wildlife officers to kill a wolf in the act of killing livestock, guard animals or domestic dogs while on private or leased property. The wolf must be caught "in the act" of attacking the animal. "It's a very rare event, as we know from the Rocky Mountain states," Beach said.
The plan also gives Wildlife managers new options to kill or move wolves that threaten at-risk populations of deer, elk or caribou. Beach said it's also unlikely that wolves will be plentiful enough to harm the state's elk or deer herds while they're still endangered, but it gives wildlife managers more options. Approximately 300 wolves will kill between 6,700 and 10,000 deer and elk each year, the plan states.
The plan also:
- Adds new recommendations for homeowners who own dogs and live in areas with wolves, including not leaving dogs outside overnight unless they are in a sturdy kennel, and not allowing dogs to run at large.
- Adds new recommendations for people who hike with dogs, including considering leaving dogs at home while hiking in areas with wolves, keeping dogs on a leash when hiking in known wolf habitat and placing a bell on the dog's collar to alert wolves that people are present.
- Adds information about parasitic tapeworms, which have recently been found in more than half of the wolves tested in Idaho and Montana. Beach said the parasite can also make its way into the state from traveling coyotes, fox, deer, elk or other ungulates.
The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission will review the new draft plan during its June 4 meeting in Olympia, and a 17-member citizens group which helped draft the plan will look at changes before the state releases its updated Environmental Impact Statement to the public. The Commission will hear public comments on the final plan in August before considering adoption in December.
:bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: huntnfmly on June 02, 2011, 10:03:55 AM
Post by: rebal69972 on June 02, 2011, 10:09:30 AM
Post by: ribka on June 02, 2011, 10:13:41 AM
Whenever the word "diversity" is used you know there will be big damage and harm will be done
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 02, 2011, 10:15:13 AM
Post by: KNOPHISH on June 02, 2011, 10:45:26 AM
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on June 02, 2011, 11:40:38 AM
Post by: rebal69972 on June 02, 2011, 11:50:48 AM
Post by: gunnarnewt on June 02, 2011, 12:02:18 PM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on June 02, 2011, 12:24:12 PM
Post by: spookgus on June 02, 2011, 12:34:13 PM
Sarcasm!!
Post by: bearpaw on June 02, 2011, 12:46:55 PM
There is no doubt WA is on the same road as Idaho, and probably will end up even worse. Be sure and go hunting this fall and for the next couple years, this will be the last of the good old days. :twocents:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 02, 2011, 04:41:35 PM
Idaho MT and WY was supposed to each get 100 wolves, now they have many times more than that confirmed, many people beleive the real wolf population is 2 or 3 times the confirmed population.
There is no doubt WA is on the same road as Idaho, and probably will end up even worse. Be sure and go hunting this fall and for the next couple years, this will be the last of the good old days. :twocents:
Sad but true.
Remember to laugh at the Public Sector when they run out of our money. They did it to themselves.
Post by: gaddy on June 02, 2011, 05:13:38 PM
Post by: Dave Workman on June 02, 2011, 05:15:25 PM
You got a URL for this story?
Washington wolf plan calls for 15 packs in state
After hosting 19 public meetings and reviewing more than 65,000 comments, the state released its revised plan to recover gray wolves in Washington that should both please and upset cattlemen, hunters and conservationists.
By K.C. MEHAFFEY
The Wenatchee World
Related
Top comments Hide / Show comments
No comments have been posted to this article.
Start the conversation >
WENATCHEE, Wash. —
After hosting 19 public meetings and reviewing more than 65,000 comments, the state released its revised plan to recover gray wolves in Washington that should both please and upset cattlemen, hunters and conservationists.
Some aren't happy that the plan still requires 15 packs of wolves for three consecutive years in order to remove protections required under the Endangered Species Act.
Others might not like the agency's plan to seek higher penalties for poaching wolves.
Scheduled for final review in August by the Washington Wildlife Commission, the plan will guide state strategies for recovering gray wolves in Washington. Wolves are listed as federally endangered in the western two-thirds of the state, where the only known pack is the Methow Valley's Lookout Pack. The federal government recently delisted Rocky Mountain gray wolves, including lands east of Highway 97 where the state's two other known packs reside. Additional unconfirmed packs may exist in the Blue Mountains, North Cascades National Park, and Kittitas County, according to the draft document.
Rocky Beach, wildlife diversity manager for the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, said overall, the plan is largely the same as the state's draft proposal, although many parts were "tweaked" to reflect comments and scientific peer reviews.
One of the biggest changes has to do with the numbers of breeding pairs needed to remove wolves from federal protections, he said. The draft plan required two successful breeding pairs in the Eastern Washington region, two in the North Cascades, and five in the Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast. Six additional breeding pairs in any part of the state were also needed.
Now, six breeding pairs are required in Eastern Washington, four in the North Cascades and five altogether in Southern Cascades and the Northwest Coast to delist them. Beach said the change allows wildlife managers more certainty in recovery before delisting, and more flexibility in managing wolves in the separate areas. Fifteen successful breeding pairs is equal to between 97 and 361 wolves, the plan says.
One of the most controversial changes will likely be allowing landowners or state Wildlife officers to kill a wolf in the act of killing livestock, guard animals or domestic dogs while on private or leased property. The wolf must be caught "in the act" of attacking the animal. "It's a very rare event, as we know from the Rocky Mountain states," Beach said.
The plan also gives Wildlife managers new options to kill or move wolves that threaten at-risk populations of deer, elk or caribou. Beach said it's also unlikely that wolves will be plentiful enough to harm the state's elk or deer herds while they're still endangered, but it gives wildlife managers more options. Approximately 300 wolves will kill between 6,700 and 10,000 deer and elk each year, the plan states.
The plan also:
- Adds new recommendations for homeowners who own dogs and live in areas with wolves, including not leaving dogs outside overnight unless they are in a sturdy kennel, and not allowing dogs to run at large.
- Adds new recommendations for people who hike with dogs, including considering leaving dogs at home while hiking in areas with wolves, keeping dogs on a leash when hiking in known wolf habitat and placing a bell on the dog's collar to alert wolves that people are present.
- Adds information about parasitic tapeworms, which have recently been found in more than half of the wolves tested in Idaho and Montana. Beach said the parasite can also make its way into the state from traveling coyotes, fox, deer, elk or other ungulates.
The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission will review the new draft plan during its June 4 meeting in Olympia, and a 17-member citizens group which helped draft the plan will look at changes before the state releases its updated Environmental Impact Statement to the public. The Commission will hear public comments on the final plan in August before considering adoption in December.
:bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: denali on June 02, 2011, 05:18:33 PM
In the future, there could be revenue generated for WDFW if wolves recover to the point that they are delisted, reclassified as a game species, and eventually become a hunted species. Revenue could be generated through special permit application sales, auctions, and raffles. It is unknown how much revenue would be generated from these sources. Such sales might be similar to those obtained for bighorn sheep, moose, and mountain goats during most of the past decade an estimated $50,000 to $150,000 per year, or could be substantially higher.
pg 226
As with the other economic outcomes discussed in this chapter, Washington’s ability to develop a viable wolf-related tourism industry will depend on where and how many wolves eventually become reestablished in the state, their behavior, and human behavior in response to them. However, Washington appears to have potential for receiving at least modest economic benefits from wolf watching for the following reasons
see... nothing but positives, wolves will generate revenue, increase tourism and make you more attractive to the opposite sex. :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: rebal69972 on June 02, 2011, 07:42:40 PM
please some one tell me I'm wrong or i read this wrong
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on June 02, 2011, 08:35:43 PM
The people in charge of the wolf plan at WDFW are wolf lovers, of course they want the most liberal plan of any state. The WDFW initially weighted the wolf working group heavy to wolf lovers. Every part of the wolf plan has been orchestrated to promote wolves and new information coming out of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Canada, and Michigan is being ignored.Well Dale I wish I had more faith in the legislators !!!if they save the pilot program then I WILL LOVE THEM ... HAHAHAHA
The only recourse I see is to try to get legislators involved. :twocents:
Post by: Dave Workman on June 03, 2011, 05:38:59 AM
The Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission meets tomorrow at the Natural Resources building in Olympia to unveil and review the current version of a proposed wolf recovery program, an effort this state’s big game hunters see as a plan that will ultimately doom their hunting tradition.
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/alarmed-wa-hunters-doing-the-math-on-wolf-program (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/alarmed-wa-hunters-doing-the-math-on-wolf-program)
Post by: villageidiot on June 03, 2011, 06:14:03 AM
Post by: KNOPHISH on June 03, 2011, 09:33:45 AM
Post by: Kain on June 03, 2011, 09:35:44 AM
if i understand this right the state says 1000 wolfs to have a sustained huntable population. 300 wolfs will kill and eat between 6,700 and 10,000 deer and elk a year. if 1000 wolfs are the goal that would be between 20,100 and 30,000 deer and elk. my math may be very wrong i hope I'm wrong. With 1000 wolfs it wouldn't be very long and there would be no prey and no hunting opportunity's. then we become the prey right. i hope someone with power has Little common seance.
please some one tell me I'm wrong or i read this wrong
Sounds close to me and if you count the numbers killed by cougars we are all screwed.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/management/2009-2015/final_game_management_plan_2009-2015.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/management/2009-2015/final_game_management_plan_2009-2015.pdf)
Quote
Cougars are effective and efficient predators and average about one deer
kill (or deer equivalent) every 10 days (Ackerman et al. 1986).
pg 91
According to the new cougar population numbers which are 2000-2500 cats that would be 73000-91250 deer or elk per year on top of what the wolves will kill. No telling how many fawns are killed by bobcats, coyotes and bears.
Post by: Glockster on June 03, 2011, 09:47:23 AM
Here's my worst case crystal ball if we don't fight this BS with everything we got:
1) Wolves: Once a recovery plan is passed into policy the anti's will float a voter initiative that aims to severely limit big game hunting in "wolf recovery sensitive areas" (or I'm sure the dept will come up with some clever acronym). My greatest fear is that the general dumb voting public will sign on to this in droves once the first tearjerker TV & internet spots hit. Don't think the other side doesn't have the war chest to do it...."stars" give them millions to 'save' the whales, they will surely pony up to further "wolf recovery".
It will be a simple case to make: Humans must not compete with wolves for food until they're "recovered".
2) Watchable Wildlife Economic Impact Study: The message: 'Hunters just aren't that much of an economic benefit to WA's economy compared to the vast sums that a new watchable wolf industry will bring.' In simpler terms; hunting is a dying "sport" and just doesn't matter much.
I'm not much into conspiracy theories, but these two circumstances are lining up too nicely.
Post by: Kain on June 03, 2011, 09:53:43 AM
Post by: Dave Workman on June 03, 2011, 11:32:02 AM
I simply can't use the word "Boolsheet" in my Examiner columns, but this is precisely what the WDFW and the USFWS are shoveling, and it's about waist deep at the moment.
Twenty five years ago, we put a couple of thousand angry sportsmen on the Capitol Steps. The state, under Booth Gardner, pretty much ignored the anger because Booth & Co had cut secret deals with the tribes and timber companies.
The state adopted 'Resource Allocation' to keep hunting groups split and at each other's throats.
The state adopted antler restrictions to reduce harvest and reduce opportunity (for everyone but tribes and predators, anyway)
The WDFW pretty much sat on the bench during the ugly and ill-advised campaign to ban hound hunting for cougars and bears (state agencies in Oregon and Idaho didn't take that CS approach)
Yet there are hunters in this state...and even on this forum...who think that restrictive management is just peachy because it cuts down on competition.
Well, you people are going to soon be competing with wolf packs.
Well, this Bud's for you: :crap:
I don't believe the data on "watchable" wildlife. How the hell does USFWS and WDFW establish this economic impact? They don't sell licenses for watching wildlife.
Well, actually, they do: We all have gotten to watch lots of wildlife that would have been hanging in camp 25 years ago. I got to watch a 5-point bull elk trot right through my camp two years ago up on the LT Murray. I've gotten to watch 2-point muleys walk right past my stand on the Teanaway (and I've seen a few of them left in the woods to rot). Over on the "other forum," this is the popular sentiment:
:bfg: Shovel and :stfu:
Post by: Dave Workman on June 03, 2011, 11:35:31 AM
Good one Dave. Where in the heck does $1.5 Billion & 26K jobs come from wildlife watching? Oh I know, they pulled a number out of a hat. No really.
I sorta think they pulled that number out of somewhere else, but then reconsidered. It's too crowded in there for numbers, because they have their heads stuck up in there so far....
They are simply:
:liar:
Post by: bearpaw on June 03, 2011, 03:39:39 PM
chapter 14 pg. 222 of draft plan
In the future, there could be revenue generated for WDFW if wolves recover to the point that they are delisted, reclassified as a game species, and eventually become a hunted species. Revenue could be generated through special permit application sales, auctions, and raffles. It is unknown how much revenue would be generated from these sources. Such sales might be similar to those obtained for bighorn sheep, moose, and mountain goats during most of the past decade an estimated $50,000 to $150,000 per year, or could be substantially higher.
pg 226
As with the other economic outcomes discussed in this chapter, Washington’s ability to develop a viable wolf-related tourism industry will depend on where and how many wolves eventually become reestablished in the state, their behavior, and human behavior in response to them. However, Washington appears to have potential for receiving at least modest economic benefits from wolf watching for the following reasons
see... nothing but positives, wolves will generate revenue, increase tourism and make you more attractive to the opposite sex. :bash: :bash: :bash:
This makes no sense at all, what kind of idiot wrote that.
Government studies have indicated that 1 wolf eats 17 elk or 44 deer per year (page 73 wolf plan). At that rate the target population of 361 wolves in Washington could eat as many as 6,137 elk or 15,884 deer per year. Please explain how a few wolf tags can replace the revenue lost by removing that many deer and elk and all the business from hunters who like pursueing them. Ask a few towns in central Idaho what wolves have done for them. :bash:
And this rubbish about wldlife watching bring in big dollars....
I have said this before, I have never seen a sign in Stevens County that says "Welcome Wildlife Watchers". :chuckle:
But come hunting season you will see signs throughout the county that say "Welcome Hunters". Local businesses know exactly where the tourist dollars are coming from. :twocents:
Post by: Dave Workman on June 03, 2011, 06:31:44 PM
How about C-A-N-A-R-D?
Maybe this'll work; L-I-E
Post by: bearpaw on June 03, 2011, 06:49:37 PM
Bearpaw, does the term F-R-A-U-D ring a bell?
How about C-A-N-A-R-D?
Maybe this'll work; L-I-E
totally agree....
Post by: Little Dave on June 03, 2011, 07:00:49 PM
Good one Dave. Where in the heck does $1.5 Billion & 26K jobs come from wildlife watching? Oh I know, they pulled a number out of a hat. No really.
They write a survey like this:
Do you own binoculars?
Do you watch birds?
Do you go camping?
Do you hunt?
Do you fish?
The result is:
I respond yes to each question. I own seven pairs of binoculars and have a few riflescopes and range finders.
My two sisters respond yes to each question except the one about hunting.
My brother likes to shoot but he doesn't hunt, so he answers the same way.
On the other side of the counter that's ten pairs of binoculars and other optical gear. There's two bird books, and a whole lot of camping gear but that's generally just me and my oldest sister, the other two mooch.
Put all that on the table...
One of four that hunts.
Lots of optical gear purchased, camping gear.
Brilliant conclusion is:
More wildlife watchers than hunters, a really big industry.
Now go see the $2 Million WDFW Beebe Springs Wayside at Chelan Falls on a three day weekend. Three cars there on Sunday afternoon, I saw one car in there on Saturday. First time I've seen anyone in there at all. Probably just dumping their Memorial Day weekend trash from camp.
Wenatchee World: Beebe Springs Now Has Loop Trail (http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2010/feb/27/beebe-springs-now-has-loop-trail-side-channel/)
Post by: Dave Workman on June 03, 2011, 07:12:14 PM
"The more I read Dave's stuff the more I think he is off his rocker. He honestly doesn't understand how "wildlife viewing" brings in $1.5 billion? Hey Dave if you read this...two words...WHALE WATCHING. It's a huge market. HUGE. Plus the Skagit area eagle tours. Common sense Dave. Use it. The state makes a killing on taxes and business licenses from the tour companies.
And do I care if 6,700 extra deer are killed every year? No.
Cougars kill way more than that. All they have to do is bring back hound hunting (which will probably happen) and more cougars will be killed. Less cougars + more wolves = the same number of dead deer. Plus we get the benefit of having wolves back in nature which I am fine with.
Misinformed people making a big deal about nothing."
You can find this at: http://wash-hunters.com/general-discussion/washington-wolf-recovery-plan/ (http://lame.wash-hunters.com/general-discussion/washington-wolf-recovery-plan/)
Yep, it's whale watching and eagle watching. $1.5 billion worth, or close. 26,000 jobs related to whale charter and eagle watching on the Skagit.
Let's say he's right about whale watching. Since all these whale watching *censored*s aren't out there looking at elk and sheep and deer, we don't need to make sure there are so many elk, sheep and deer for them to watch at the feed stations by racheting down the regs and cutting opportunity, so I have a grand idea. Let's expand the seasons and put a few more of them in the meat locker. :chuckle:
Let's wish this guy good luck with wolves. He doesn't care about deer.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 03, 2011, 07:41:44 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 03, 2011, 07:51:03 PM
Post by: Dave Workman on June 03, 2011, 08:02:04 PM
Hey Dave- for some reason your link to that other site doesn't work. :dunno: :chuckle:
Oh, crap, never mind
google Washington-hunters
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 03, 2011, 08:16:37 PM
Post by: Dave Workman on June 04, 2011, 07:30:28 AM
click on this:
http://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=19324 (http://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=19324)
It runs for 77 pages so far, and it's been going on since 2007
I have weighed in a few times to bring some balance, and so have a few other people.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 04, 2011, 07:57:44 AM
" Really????? Misinformed?? Someone definately is!!"
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 05, 2011, 07:21:12 PM
My response to Casc.
" Really????? Misinformed?? Someone definately is!!"
And it is gone today
Gunners mate?
Great people, my father was a chief gunners mate in the in the Pacific in WWII!
Some of you will get my drift on my last statement.
Must have come over and checked this out