Post by: KillBilly on September 24, 2011, 04:22:10 PM
Email: commission@dfw.wa.gov
USPS
Address: 600 Capitol Way N. Olympia, Wa 98501-1091
Post by: mulehunter on September 24, 2011, 05:13:53 PM
Mulehunter
Post by: bearpaw on September 24, 2011, 06:07:45 PM
Dear Commissioners,
I agree completely with the Washington For Wildlife (WFW) position of scrapping the proposed wolf plan and can only hope you will send the current plan to the recycle bin. Please direct WDFW managers to draft a plan that proposes sustainable numbers of wolves based on experiences in other neighboring states. If ungulate populations drop, predator populations will also drop, this has been proven in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Yellowstone. Any plan short of maintaining current ungulate numbers is tainted science, is unacceptable, is sustainable, and will set Washington up for wildlife management failure.
Why is Washington proposing more wolves than Wyoming when it has 12 times the human population and does not have near the prey base to sustain as many wolves as Wyoming? Does Washington think fewer prey animals in Washington can support more wolves than Wyoming? Wyoming’s plan is for 10 BP’s and 100 wolves and Wyoming has a much larger prey base. I would like to hear a responsible, logical, and intelligent reply from the WDFW managers regarding this issue. It would seem that no more than 8 BP’s should be considered for Washington.
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_22e99014-deed-11e0-9c44-001cc4c03286.html (http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_22e99014-deed-11e0-9c44-001cc4c03286.html)
After experiencing a drop in ungulate populations in numerous elk areas, Idaho is now managing for 15 BP’s of wolves. Do WDFW managers somehow think Washington’s smaller elk herds and smaller remote areas can support as many wolves as Idaho? Idaho has a much larger prey base, the largest wilderness area in the US, and a 1/6 of the human population as Washington. Idaho’s plan calls for 15 BP’s, please see page 18: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/plan02.pdf (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/plan02.pdf)
Oregon Wolf Plan details how small wolf populations are viable:
Because secure habitat is limited in Oregon, biologists predict that fewer wolves will occupy Oregon than are found in similar but much more abundant habitat in Idaho. The federal recovery goal for the Idaho wolf population was 10 breeding pairs in what has been described as the best remaining wolf habitat in the lower 48 states. Oregon, on the other hand, was not selected as a recovery state primarily due to lack of large blocks of contiguous public land habitat.22
Research published in 2003 suggested that the smallest viable wolf populations might be two to three adjacent packs with four wolves each, located 40-60 kilometers apart (Fuller et al. 2003). Each pack might cover 117 square kilometers if the ungulate density averaged eight deer per square kilometer. The authors also wrote that such small populations could persist anywhere if the prey density was at average population levels and productivity, and where wolf production exceeded mortality.
Several notable examples of small wolf populations can be found in the scientific literature. The Isle Royale wolf population began from a single pair of wolves in about 1949. The population has fluctuated between 12-90 individuals.23 This population has persisted for more than 50 years despite being isolated on an island and apparently losing 50 percent of their original genetic diversity. Remnant wolf populations in Europe (i.e., Italy, Spain and Portugal) numbering fewer than 100-200 wolves persisted for decades and have since expanded their numbers and range, and avoided extinction (USFWS 1994).
Please see page 29: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/2010_wcmp_wolf_conservation.pdf (http://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/2010_wcmp_wolf_conservation.pdf)
I thank you for all the time you have invested in this wolf plan, please stand firm and request a responsible and sustainable wolf plan, expereinces in other states clearly indicate the WDFW is misguided in their wolf proposal for 15 BP’s.
Best Regards,
Post by: 3nails on September 24, 2011, 06:48:06 PM
Post by: bearpaw on September 24, 2011, 06:52:00 PM
Post by: KillBilly on September 24, 2011, 07:03:17 PM
They are going to be covering Chapters 4 & 5 as well as Parking Lot items. Mark should have the Livestock Chapter (4) covered. I will focus on the Ungulate topic.
Post by: bearpaw on September 24, 2011, 07:08:51 PM
Hope more members will get involved....
Post by: Elkslayer on September 24, 2011, 07:25:11 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on September 24, 2011, 07:28:38 PM
Post by: bearpaw on September 24, 2011, 08:32:23 PM
From: Blake, Rep. Brian
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 6:15 PM
To: 'Bearpaw Outfitters'; commission@dfw.wa.gov
Cc: Morton, Sen. Bob; Kretz, Rep. Joel; Short, Rep. Shelly; 'Gary Tennison'; 'Al Stover'; 'Ferry County Commissioners'; 'Dave Workman'; 'Jeff Dawson'; jackfield@kvalley.com; lguenther@co.stevens.wa.us; 'Mark Pidgeon'; 'Bobbie Thorniley (HHC Treas)'; inwc@aol.com; 'Don Peay'; 'David M. Allen'; 'Ryan Benson'; 'Chelan CountyCommissioners'; 'Pend Oreille CountyCommissioners'; mlpeterson@co.okanogan.wa.us
Subject: RE:
Dale, I completely agree with your position and intend to communicate to the Department and Commission. Brian Blake
Post by: silverdalesauer on September 24, 2011, 09:44:09 PM
Post by: Machias on September 24, 2011, 10:05:44 PM
Post by: remington300mag on September 24, 2011, 10:37:44 PM