Post by: Skillet on September 28, 2011, 11:59:29 AM
An Alternate Wolf Plan
Stated Goal:
To allow wolf populations in Washington State to exist with a definable and limited impact on the livelihood and recreational opportunities of Washington State citizens while allowing for no uncompensated damages sustained by those who are affected by wolf presence.
Assumptions:
• There are those who desperately want wolves in Washington, and those who desperately do not.
• There are a large number of people who do not care either way.
• Wolves do not prefer to eat apples. They prefer to eat meat on the hoof.
• Nearly every game animal that a wolf kills is a game animal that is unavailable for harvest during hunting seasons by license holders.
• The remaining game animals killed by wolves will have died of other causes (old age, starvation, hit by car, killed by cougars).
• There is a natural ecological prey/predator balance that would be achieved if wolves were left to propogate unchecked. This balance leaves little room for hunting opportunities and would cause ranching operations to sustain significant losses.
• Game animals in Washington State are owned by the people of Washington State.
• Washington has the right to manage its own wolf populations by exercising Washington State government authority without regard for other state’s laws. The federal government is allowed only to concern itself with overall wolf numbers in the US, not within each state.
This would begin by assessing what our “maximum allowable wolf population” per defined Wolf Area would be. Wolf Areas will be identified by the Wolf Panel made up of equal numbers of “Wolf Advocate” and “Wolf Restricting” association members. These members will be appointed by recognized representative interest groups. The groups will here on be referred to as “Wolf Advocate” and “Wolf Restricting”. The Wolf Panel will ensure all Wolf Areas will be designed to meet the following criteria:
• Wolf Areas will have a population of deer (and elk, if present) that are “sustainable” and are not continually over hunting harvest goals.
• Wolf Areas will be entirely confined to within the borders of Washington State.
• Wolf Areas will not share a border with another Wolf Area.
• The minimum area between two Wolf Areas will be equal to or greater than the average of the two nearest Wolf Areas. These areas will be known as Wolf Free Areas.
• A straight line segment drawn from the geographical center of one Wolf Area to the geographical center of another Wolf Area must pass through the geographical center of a Wolf Free Area.
• Both Wolf Areas and Wolf Free Areas must be designed to maximize the Isoperimetric Quotient (largest land area possible relative to border length).
• A wolf will be defined as a yearling or older. Pups are not wolves for this purpose.
• No Wolf Area will exceed the minimum amount of land required to support two separate packs.
• A Pack will be defined as a single breeding pair and their related offspring that haven’t yet left the family group. The defined maximum size for a Pack is ten wolves.
• Wolf Areas will be re-evaluated by the Wolf Panel for sustainability by holding public hearings in areas adjacent to each Wolf Area on an annual basis. Wolf Areas may be enlarged or reduced based on testimony, damage and harvest reports.
• Private land ownership within the boundary of a Wolf Area will be counted for its acreage, but will be operated as a Wolf Free Area. The private land within a Wolf Area cannot be counted towards adjacent Wolf Free Areas.
• All Wolf Areas will be populated by wolves naturally. Transplanting is not permitted.
You can see that we would be able to define a maximum number of wolves this way – not simply breeding pairs. If we had five legitimate wolf areas, and all five were able to support two 10-wolf packs, we would allow a maximum of 100 wolves in the State of Washington.
Management
This is where the wolf management gets interesting in this scenario.
• Each Wolf Area will have an easily identified colored collar associated with it.
• For each Wolf Area, the appropriate number of collars will be issued (a one-pack Wolf Area gets up to 10 collars, a two-pack Wolf Area gets up to 20).
• All yearling or older wolves that are wearing collars in their appropriate Wolf Area are protected.
• All yearling or older wolves that are not wearing the appropriate colored collars are considered transient and are able to be shot on sight.
• All wolves in a Wolf Area wearing a collar of a different color than those that are allowed in that area are considered transient and are able to be shot on sight.
Licensing & Hunter Effort
• Wolf tags will be issued by the WDFW.
• Wolf tag fees (paid by hunters who are losing other opportunities) will be placed in a fund to enhanced hunting opportunities in Washington State. It may not be used for any other purpose.
• Any wolf not in a Wolf Area is authorized game.
• Any wolf that is on privately held property within the boundaries of a Wolf Area is authorized game.
• Wolves may be killed by any weapon year around.
• There is no limit to the number of wolf tags a hunter may purchase.
• Upon killing a wolf, the successful hunter must report the kill and have the hide sealed within 48 hours by the WDFW. Returning the collar of any collared wolf to the Wolf Panel is mandatory.
• Upon arrival of the wolf at the WDFW office, tissue samples will be taken and testing for transmittable diseases will be conducted.
• If a collared wolf that has tested positive for a transmittable disease is brought in for hide sealing, it will initiate the immediate open season on all wolves in that Wolf Area it originated from, as well as the Wolf Area it was shot in if different than it's original Wolf Area.
• If a non-collared wolf that was shot in a Wolf Area and has tested positive for a transmittable disease is brought in for hide sealing, it will initiate the immediate open season on all wolves in the Wolf Area it was shot in.
Program Funding and Damage Payments
There are two separate tangible costs associated with wolves in Washington. They include management expenses and damage payments.
Management Expenses
• Tracking and Equipment
o Collars will be initially paid for by Wolf Advocate.
o All costs associated with maintaining and replacing collars will be paid for by Wolf Advocate.
o Collars will be durable, radio transmitter and GPS-enabled collars with a battery life of one year. Every year, a team consisting of equal members of Wolf Advocate and Wolf Restricting will perform the following operation: Each collared wolf will be tracked down and sedated, at which point the batteries will be changed out, GPS tracks downloaded, and it will be tested for disease. In the event the wolf is found to have a transmittable disease, it will initiate open season on all wolves in its respective Wolf Area, as above. A collared wolf tracked and found outside of its designated Wolf Area will be killed instead of sedated. All other tests and recording will occur. The costs of this operation will be paid for by Wolf Advocate.
o The number of collars is limited at the beginning by the number of wolves determined suitable for each Wolf Area. Collars lost due to a lack of ability to find the wolf to change the batteries are considered as being worn by an active wolf in its appropriate Wolf Area for a period of 10 years following the loss of the collar. After 10 years, the wolf is presumed deceased and a replacement collar may be issued at that time.
o If no packs inhabit a Wolf Area at the outset, or if only one pack of a possible two packs inhabit a Wolf Area, it will be the responsibility of the Wolf Advocate to identify and confirm a new pack. Validation of the new pack will be determined by convening the Wolf Panel and hearing the evidence. If a pack is confirmed, the Wolf Advocate is responsible for the costs of affixing collars to the members of the new pack. The act of locating, sedating, and affixing collars to the wolves will be done by a team consisting of both Wolf Advocate and Wolf Restricting members.
Damage Payments
• An Escrow account for the purposes of paying damages on legitimate claims will be set up by Wolf Advocate prior to the program getting underway. The damage fund will be equal to $2500 per wolf allowed per the plan at the outset. The maximum funding must be maintained whether or not the actual number of wolves in Washington State meets the plan objectives. In the event that Wolf Advocate is unable or unwilling to replace funds in the Escrow account paid out for legitimate damage claims within 180 days of the claim being approved, all wolves in the Wolf Areas from where the pack(s) responsible for the most accrued damages will be immediately declared in open season, and the number of wolves removed will continue throughout the next highest damage Wolf Area until the total number of collared wolves does not exceed the amount in the escrow account as allowed by a $2500 per wolf allowance. All wolves killed will be tested per the above procedure and have the collars returned to the Wolf Panel. In the event another verified pack takes up residence in the Wolf Area(s) after the maximum funding has been restored, the Wolf Panel will re-issue the collars at that time.
• Damage payments may be applied for by any citizen of Washington State, or adjacent states/countries, that believe they have suffered a loss of any kind from wolf activity.
• A panel consisting of equal numbers of Wolf Advocate and Wolf Restricting will convene as soon as possible to determine the merit of the claim. In the event they cannot arrive at a majority decision, a previously-agreed upon arbitration process will be enacted.
• If the panel decides the wolf damage claim is legitimate, payment for fair market value of damage will be made immediately to the injured party by the Wolf Advocate Escrow Account.
• If the panel decides the wolf damage claim is illegitimate, payment will not be made at that time. If, however, the GPS tracking downloads prove that a wolf was at the location of the damage at the right time, payment in full with interest accrued will be immediately made to the injured party by the Wolf Advocate Escrow Account.
• If it has been determined by the Wolf Panel that the wolves from a Wolf Area have made repeated livestock kills as opposed to pursuing game animals, it will be considered a “learned behavior” and all wolves in the offending pack in question, or Wolf Area if the pack is unable to be determined definitively, will have an open season declared upon them immediately.
It seems a little complex, but it really is pretty easy. Responsibility falls on the shoulders of those who advocate for wolves. Damages are paid to those who suffer them. Max wolf numbers are defined, therefore max game loss is as well, and the revenue from tags goes towards offsetting that loss of opportunity (while providing a new one - wolf hunting).
Feel free to heap praise, blast away, read and ignore - whatever your pleasure. It is a rough draft, and I'm sure you folks more in the know on many details can poke holes in it for me. If you have facts, please do so. In the end, I hope to spur a legitimate discussion about this type of management strategy in co-existing with wolves and raise the discussion to a point where all can join in with their thoughts.
:hello:
Post by: Todd_ID on September 29, 2011, 09:08:41 PM
I like your "No Transplanting" idea in your plan. If they come, then this is how they'll be handled. If they don't come, then there is no need for a plan in that area. However, if there is a food source, then they will come.
Unfortunately, there are a few too many allowable open seasons in your plan to appease those who think the wolves should be brought back. The open season concept doesn't work for a couple reasons: first, the wolf-lovers would never let it fly here (ID - yes (20% of the state lives in Boise), WA - no (60% of the state lives in Seattle)); second, open season doesn't mean any wolves would actually die (unless your collars had a death dart built into them). Idaho is trying to kill as many as they can, and it's not working nearly as well as they want. Limiting the hunters to just one wolf area that they could hunt would further reduce the number of people hunting wolves; people don't take time off work to go wolf hunting like they do elk hunting, and they won't go to an area just because it's open for wolves.
Next, wolves don't know boundaries; they only obey food source boundaries: i.e., no elk in that basin, not going over there. Your Wolf Free Zone would attract deer and elk thereby attracting wolves; too easy for the wolf lovers to nix the plan: they'd call it baiting. Even if it did fly, then you'd still have to deal with how to actually kill the wolves that went in there, and hunters can't do it alone. If the person owning the land inside your Wolf Area has a cattle ranch, then that area is fair game in a wolf's mind. Keep enough cattle and sheep there, and the wolves won't leave. They'd learn to hunt only at night when hunters can't see them, and your fund would quickly run dry from the damage payments; when your plan is implemented I'll buy a cattle ranch because there'd be more money in damage payments than in cattle ranching.
Allowing only a set number of wolves to be in one place is not possible. There's no way to count what you can't see; Idaho's wolf population is only a guess based on under-funded studies. Collaring them all is a good idea, but it is also not feasible unless you only release captive ones that are sterile. Once one pair breeds, then you have no way to know how many wolves are in the area. Let the next generation breed, and your plan is shot.
All in all I like your plan very much, because the nature of wolves is such that every one of them in the state would violate your parameters quite quickly and become available targets. We wouldn't be able to do much to get rid of all the violating wolves, but we could have fun trying.
Post by: KillBilly on September 30, 2011, 08:01:19 AM
Now why aren't you a member of WFW? We need folks like you.....
Post by: BIGINNER on September 30, 2011, 08:19:51 AM
Skillet, you have done a lot of work there. It is abvious that you put a lot of thought into it. What you have there is pretty much what we are asking the Commission to require the Game department to do. That would be to put together a clear, concise, Science based document that is understandable and manageable. It may not include some of the items you have included but it should be just as comprehensive.
Now why aren't you a member of WFW? We need folks like you.....
:yeah:
also, i might be wrong,.. but doesn't WFW also have an alternative wolf plan writen? take a look at it, you'll agree with most if not all of the plan.
Post by: bearpaw on September 30, 2011, 01:33:14 PM
I'm not bashing you, but I don't think your plan has any chance of becoming a reality. But as I said, if there was a choice, your plan is better than what they propose.
Post by: Skillet on September 30, 2011, 01:36:12 PM
I like your "No Transplanting" idea in your plan. If they come, then this is how they'll be handled. If they don't come, then there is no need for a plan in that area. However, if there is a food source, then they will come.
Unfortunately, there are a few too many allowable open seasons in your plan to appease those who think the wolves should be brought back. I propose a year-round open season on all wolves that are not collared, no matter where they are, and all uncollared wolves (pups excluded) within the boundaries of their own designated Wolf Area
Limiting the hunters to just one wolf area that they could hunt would further reduce the number of people hunting wolves; The only time hunters would be limited to hunting wolves in only one Wolf Area would be when the wolves in that area have been slated for destruction due to discovery of disease or a determination that they have learned to take rancher's stock.
Next, wolves don't know boundaries; they only obey food source boundaries: i.e., no elk in that basin, not going over there. As above, any wolf in a Wolf Free Area is fair game, collared or not.
Even if it did fly, then you'd still have to deal with how to actually kill the wolves that went in there, and hunters can't do it alone. If the person owning the land inside your Wolf Area has a cattle ranch, then that area is fair game in a wolf's mind. Keep enough cattle and sheep there, and the wolves won't leave. They'd learn to hunt only at night when hunters can't see them, and your fund would quickly run dry from the damage payments; when your plan is implemented I'll buy a cattle ranch because there'd be more money in damage payments than in cattle ranching. I figure the ranchers and bounty hunters took care of the wolf problem once... there would be no restrictions on how it's done above and beyond how coyotes are handled. If a rancher sees any wolf - collared or not - on his ranch (doesn't matter if it's in a Wolf Area or not), he can kill it.
Allowing only a set number of wolves to be in one place is not possible. There's no way to count what you can't see; Idaho's wolf population is only a guess based on under-funded studies. The difference is they are trying to count what is already there, we'd be setting a cap on what we'd allow and the rest is surplused out to the hunters for tags.
Collaring them all is a good idea, but it is also not feasible unless you only release captive ones that are sterile. Once one pair breeds, then you have no way to know how many wolves are in the area. Let the next generation breed, and your plan is shot. Not necessarily. This allows for them to breed. But, if they're not that years pups and not wearing a collar, they are huntable wolves anywhere in the state. The Wolf Areas only protect the collared pack members that are designated to be in that Wolf Area. All other wolves are considered surplus. So, no need to sterilize - with two packs in an area, it almost guarantees hunting opportunity tag holders.
Skillet, you have done a lot of work there. It is obvious that you put a lot of thought into it. What you have there is pretty much what we are asking the Commission to require the Game department to do.
After I drafted and posted this I saw some commentary here on limiting the total number of animals instead of breeding pairs, so I may have doubled up on someone else's hard work. You guys are fighting the good fight - keep on keepin' on!
Post by: Skillet on September 30, 2011, 01:37:17 PM
also, i might be wrong,.. but doesn't WFW also have an alternative wolf plan writen? take a look at it, you'll agree with most if not all of the plan.
I'll take a look at that - always looking to expand my knowledge base.
Post by: hogsniper on September 30, 2011, 01:47:11 PM
Post by: Skillet on September 30, 2011, 01:48:36 PM
Todd_Id is correct about the damage in many areas of Idaho, you have to live it to believe it. While I actually like your plan better than the WDFW plan, it has too many scenarios that can never happen, plus the WDFW does not have the manpower now to track the wolves we already have. They are faced with a budget crisis and it's likely that wolf monitoring will not get the attention it needs.
I'm not bashing you, but I don't think your plan has any chance of becoming a reality. But as I said, if there was a choice, your plan is better than what they propose.
I agree with all of you 100% - there is no way what I've put down will ever get picked up by the WDFW as its plan. I wanted to simply throw some ideas out there that made sense to me, based on an honest and rational assessment dealing with who benefits, and who is hurt, by a new-again apex predator in the mix. Things I'd like to see happen to make sure I knew that we're not hosting wolves just for the wolves sake. Then I could get behind Wolves in Washington. Know that I would never put that plan in front of the WDFW and say "this is the best course of action", as I don't even pretend to know enough to think that. I do think it is appropriate here, though, as a place for throwing ideas against the wall to see what sticks.
Keep in mind a major point of the plan is that the onus and responsibility of paying for tracking, testing, etc. of the wolves falls on the consortium of people who want wolves here and are willing to put up. If they decide to drop their $$ participation, the wolf population is reduced commisserately with their lack of funding... down to zero, if that may be the case. No money in the bank to pay for it, no collared wolves. And, as always, an uncollared wolf is shootable anywhere in the state.
Anyway, I do appreciate the time you guys took to look it over. I've more reading to do myself.
Post by: Skillet on September 30, 2011, 01:54:08 PM
Skillet are you aware of the cost each one of these collars? Also constant monitoring of each animal in each pack would take a massive amount of man power that with current budget cuts probably not going to happen. On a different note I dont think wolves would be 100% bad either. They need managed and better forms of compensation need to be addressed for ranchers and livestock producers that are affected.
I don't know the cost of the collars - couldn't even begin to guess, to be honest. It would fall on the Wolf Advocates to secure collars that meet these needs, up to the amount of collars allowed per the agreed maximum # of wolves per the plan. If they can't produce the collars, they can't collar the wolves. An uncollared wolf is a shootable wolf, even in a Wolf Area - so they'd have the incentive to get those collars.
I actually don't think constant monitoring is required - just an annual download of the GPS tracks would suffice. Most of the monitoring would happen by you and I, the licensed hunters of the State of Washington. No collar? Shoot the wolf. Wrong colored collar in the designated Wolf Area? Shoot the wolf.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on September 30, 2011, 02:12:17 PM
Post by: hogsniper on September 30, 2011, 02:16:37 PM
Post by: Machias on September 30, 2011, 02:24:18 PM
Post by: Skillet on September 30, 2011, 02:34:02 PM
Skillet ....your absolutely correct .. your entitled to your opinion and I do not think anyone is down grading you for it ...but here is where I stand ! Animals loving groups are preying for this to happen .Why? Because of the statement you made in your post ( More wolves - LESS HUNTING OPPORTUNITY) :yike: I am tired of these idiots running over the top of us hunters... We have worked hard to get wildlife population where they are today and So lets just turn these meat eating SOBs and let them eat up the herds....then we should ask ourselves this question ...Who is at the top of the food chain ? The wolves or us !!! My answer is US !!!! So that being said I say no freakin wolves !! Just my :twocents: :bdid: :yike:
You are entitled to your opinion - so post on, brother!
Post by: Skillet on September 30, 2011, 02:35:56 PM
Its great that you have done some research on the issue and great write up by the way. The problem is that the collars are close to 4k a piece and anyone that has invested money like that is going to want to make sure they stay working and such. These collars have to have new batteries about every 12 months. If a problem occurs the collar gives off a signal and then you would have to track down that animal and fix the problem. With all that said a lot of money and monitoring would have to be done to keep a program even remotely close going. Not trying to butt in on this just giving my :twocents:!
I'm actually looking for people to butt in here. That is a ton of dough. It would make the Wolf Advocates think twice about the total number of wolves they'd want in the state, wouldn't it though?
BTW, not sure if I mentioned it before, but great job on an OTC masher bull, man.
Post by: Snapshot on September 30, 2011, 02:58:26 PM
WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/)
September 27, 2011
Contact: Rocky Beach, (360) 902-2510
Tami Lininger, (360) 902-2267
Susan Galloway, (360) 902-2267
CORRECTION: The public meeting scheduled Oct. 6 on the recommended wolf plan will start at 9 a.m. as stated below, rather than 10 a.m. as previously reported.
Fish and Wildlife Commission to
discuss wolf management plan
OLYMPIA - The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission will discuss the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's (WDFW) recommended Wolf Conservation and Management Plan during a special meeting Oct. 6 in Olympia. discuss wolf management plan
The special meeting will be followed by a two-day meeting Oct 7-8, when the commission will receive briefings on issues including the status of north coast steelhead stocks and population goals for deer, elk and other ungulates.
The special meeting, the second of three scheduled on the recommended Wolf Conservation and Management Plan and final Environmental Impact Statement, will begin Oct. 6 at 9 a.m. in Room 172 on the first floor of the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St. S.E. The commission will meet at the same location Oct. 7-8, beginning at 8:30 a.m. both days.
The commission, which sets policy for WDFW, will accept public comments at designated times during both meetings. Agendas for those meetings are available on the commission's website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings.html) .
During the special meeting Oct. 6, the commission will resume its discussion on the recommended Wolf Conservation and Management Plan, focusing on wolves' interaction with livestock and ungulates.
The recommended plan, designed to guide state management as wolves re-establish a sustainable breeding population in the state, was developed after a scientific peer review and extensive public review that drew nearly 65,000 responses.
The plan, posted online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/) , includes recovery objectives that would allow the state to eventually remove wolves from protection lists. The commission has scheduled the third of three special meetings on WDFW's recommended plan Nov. 3 in Olympia.
The commission is expected to take action on the plan in December.
Post by: Skillet on September 30, 2011, 03:05:15 PM
I believe the plan, like contraception for deer and castration for coyotes is completely impossible to put into place and function. Also I don't understand how folks can still say it won't be as bad as people think, when we have perfectly good and real examples right next door in ID, MT and WY. How can it not be as bad as they have it....actually it will end up being worse here, at least in those three states there was tremendous pressure from the population to control the wolves. That will never happen in this state, in fact it will be just the opposite. Endless lawsuits at the state level. If there ever is hunting for wolves in WA State, we are years upon years away from it. :twocents:
To clarify, I never said it won't be as bad as some people think - I said "I believe that I am in a 'silent majority' of people on this site who believe that wolves aren't going to end up being as bad as is commonly represented on this site for the State of Washington." For kicks, type "wolves" into the search function on the forum. You will see that the vast majority of posts are quite ridiculous in their apocalyptic predictions and many lean towards bringing into question the intelligence of anybody who doesn't think they way the posters do. I do not believe that over-hyping the problem helps the discussion. The entire purpose of this thread was not to minimize the threat, as it is real - it is to think outside the box with ways to address it.
Those three states suffered for years with no management plan at all - and they still have deer and elk, though far less. The wolves were federally protected per the ESA before, but they are not now (thanks to the budget bill rider). Therefore, applying today's MT, WY and ID reality is not directly applicable to our situation here. It will be if we don't get out of the blocks soon and cap the total number of animals, but it isn't the same as it stands. They're playing some serious catch-up at this point. We have a chance (albeit a rapidly dwindling one) to get out in front of this problem now.
What I've put out here for public review is not the "best idea" or the "only way". It is looking at the problem through a different light, ie., "Who wants to put up the required resources for wolves to coexist with hunters and ranchers in this state?" Do they want the wolves here enough to put up enough resources?
Folding our arms across our chest, turning our heads to the side and refusing to eat our peas is not going to keep wolves out of the state. They're here, and we have to deal with them.
Post by: Skillet on September 30, 2011, 03:07:23 PM
They've got a plan drafted and if anyone wants to give their input about it they'd best go in person to deliver the message. That is how things are done.
I would go to this, but I'll be in the People's Republic of California on business next week. I do hope we have a good turnout, and I hope we emphasize the importance of capping the total number of animals.
Post by: trophyhunt on September 30, 2011, 03:15:30 PM
Skillet ....your absolutely correct .. your entitled to your opinion and I do not think anyone is down grading you for it ...but here is where I stand ! Animals loving groups are preying for this to happen .Why? Because of the statement you made in your post ( More wolves - LESS HUNTING OPPORTUNITY) :yike: I am tired of these idiots running over the top of us hunters... We have worked hard to get wildlife population where they are today and So lets just turn these meat eating SOBs and let them eat up the herds....then we should ask ourselves this question ...Who is at the top of the food chain ? The wolves or us !!! My answer is US !!!! So that being said I say no freakin wolves !! Just my :twocents: :bdid: :yike::yeah:I love the thought put in to it Skillet but you know how I feel about the wolves.
Post by: Skillet on September 30, 2011, 03:27:17 PM
Yep. You and I are probably on opposite ends of the debate (within this website, anyway - I think we probably still look the same to PETA members :chuckle:), but you are still a good egg in my book. :tup:Skillet ....your absolutely correct .. your entitled to your opinion and I do not think anyone is down grading you for it ...but here is where I stand ! Animals loving groups are preying for this to happen .Why? Because of the statement you made in your post ( More wolves - LESS HUNTING OPPORTUNITY) :yike: I am tired of these idiots running over the top of us hunters... We have worked hard to get wildlife population where they are today and So lets just turn these meat eating SOBs and let them eat up the herds....then we should ask ourselves this question ...Who is at the top of the food chain ? The wolves or us !!! My answer is US !!!! So that being said I say no freakin wolves !! Just my :twocents: :bdid: :yike::yeah:I love the thought put in to it Skillet but you know how I feel about the wolves.
For what it's worth, I have no problem at all with folks who don't want the wolves here under any circumstance... I understand most of their reasons for that and agree with a large number of them. We may disagree on the fringe issues, but on the whole, i still think we all want to minimize the impact of wolves in the state.
Post by: KillBilly on September 30, 2011, 03:56:37 PM
Here is the closing argument in our latest letter to the the Commission:
Washington for Wildlife strongly recommends that the Commission reject the current Wolf Conservation & Management
Plan and direct WDFW managers to consult experienced big game managers in Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana
regarding the sustainability of prey and predator numbers. A New Plan should be developed that includes specific
language describing sound scientific constraints, controls and processes that will ensure rapid and successful delisting
and population growth control in such a manner that maintains sustainable prey and predator numbers that
satisfies the needs of the ESA, Viewers, Listeners, Cattlemen, and Hunters as well as meeting the Departments primary
responsibilities to the People of Washington State outlined in its Mission.
Attached is the entire Letter, please read it all.
Post by: Special T on October 01, 2011, 03:59:49 PM
One of the other reasons i don't trust the WDFW is we DO NOT have to have wolves all over the state to have wolves removed from the ESA protections. We only have to provide protections in the NE corner of the state... There is an agenda here, and i believe getting hunters to debate the finer points of the "kind" of management to take place is a tactic to delay our ability to control wolves. :twocents:
Post by: whuppinstick on October 01, 2011, 04:29:42 PM
Keep in mind a major point of the plan is that the onus and responsibility of paying for tracking, testing, etc. of the wolves falls on the consortium of people who want wolves here and are willing to put up. If they decide to drop their $$ participation, the wolf population is reduced commisserately with their lack of funding... down to zero, if that may be the case. No money in the bank to pay for it, no collared wolves. And, as always, an uncollared wolf is shootable anywhere in the state.
There's no way they would be on board with this plan. Why would they sign themselves up for a plan that costs them tons of money and manpower for a wolf population that will never exceed 100 when the alternative is to output zero dollars and likely get many, many more wolves?