Post by: jackelope on October 06, 2011, 12:09:10 PM
Thanks to those that were able to attend!!
Post by: coachcw on October 06, 2011, 01:15:54 PM
Post by: Special T on October 06, 2011, 01:16:29 PM
Post by: jackelope on October 06, 2011, 01:53:00 PM
This is good stuff.
Quote
Commision just dropped a bombshell on the pro wolf group, saying the actual number estimate of ungulates killed per wolf is double what their numbers represent. Thsi estimate just given to the Washington commission by the Iadho comission. Pro wolf guys backpacking fast. It was made by vice chair Gary Douvia from Kettle Falls.
Post by: jager on October 06, 2011, 01:57:11 PM
Post by: jackelope on October 06, 2011, 01:58:16 PM
Quote
Idaho told the comission they have seen a 70% decrease in out of state hunters since 2002 when the wolves moved in.
Post by: BIGINNER on October 06, 2011, 01:58:48 PM
Post by: jackelope on October 06, 2011, 01:59:01 PM
Quote
Idaho estimates 108 breeding pairs there now
Post by: jager on October 06, 2011, 01:59:47 PM
Post by: jackelope on October 06, 2011, 02:00:41 PM
Sooo..the numbers that WDFW has been using this whole time are not correct? (like we didn't know that) They are admitting this?
From what I am gathering, the pro-wolfers presented a number they came up with and the comission called b.s. on them.
CAN WE WATCH THE MEETING ONLINE??
No clue...Rob is texting me this stuff and I am posting it here.
Post by: jackelope on October 06, 2011, 02:01:46 PM
Quote
According to WDFW numbers, wolves will likely take up to half the elk slotted for hunters
I assume this means "eventually" but I don't know.
Post by: jager on October 06, 2011, 02:02:37 PM
Post by: jackelope on October 06, 2011, 02:06:53 PM
Quote
Gary said Idaho lost $20 million last year from loss of hunting revenue
Post by: bearpaw on October 06, 2011, 02:10:17 PM
Post by: bearpaw on October 06, 2011, 02:13:37 PM
I know that KillBilly, huntnphool, and Pope are there as well as others.
THANKS :hello: :hello: :hello:
Post by: jager on October 06, 2011, 02:15:34 PM
Better late than never, but WTH?
I too would like to offer my sincere appreciation and thanks to everyone from H-W who was able to attend.:brew:
I know that KillBilly, huntnphool, and Pope are there as well as others.
THANKS :hello: :hello: :hello:
Post by: BIGINNER on October 06, 2011, 02:16:06 PM
Post by: Houndhunter on October 06, 2011, 02:16:57 PM
Post by: 6x6in6 on October 06, 2011, 02:18:16 PM
Post by: jager on October 06, 2011, 02:29:25 PM
They're going to loose a sh!t ton of money from the sportsmen in this state!
Post by: jackelope on October 06, 2011, 02:32:42 PM
Jackelope - Tell Phool thanks for the updates and keep 'em rolling. :tup:
Already done!!
Post by: Lowedog on October 06, 2011, 02:34:37 PM
Thanks to those attending and thanks Jackelope for the updates!
Post by: jackelope on October 06, 2011, 02:57:10 PM
Quote
Chuck Perry said costs for management in other startes is 2-3 times higher than WDFW estimates it will cost and wants to know why WDFW thinks they can do it cheaper.
Chuck Perry is one of the Comission members.
Post by: winshooter88 on October 06, 2011, 03:01:00 PM
Edited to insert missed word.
Post by: jackelope on October 06, 2011, 03:04:55 PM
Quote
Phil Anderson says there are 4 choices for the comission. Adopt the plan with 15bp's, adopt an interim plan, delay the plan or do not adopt any plan and just watch what happens
Post by: bearpaw on October 06, 2011, 03:07:09 PM
_________________________________
The WFW position and letter asked the commission to throw out the plan and ask the WDFW to start over. The longer it takes the more new data is coming out of Idaho and Montana. :tup:
meaning more proof wolves are a big problem...
Post by: asl20bball on October 06, 2011, 03:08:08 PM
QuotePhil Anderson says there are 4 choices for the comission. Adopt the plan with 15bp's, adopt an interim plan, delay the plan or do not adopt any plan and just watch what happens
To "just watch what happens" tells alot about the incompetence of the WDFW. WOW!!!
Post by: winshooter88 on October 06, 2011, 03:11:03 PM
Post by: bobcat on October 06, 2011, 03:14:14 PM
Quote
To "just watch what happens" tells alot about the incompetence of the WDFW. WOW!!!
I wouldn't say that comment is a reason they are incompetent. I don't think Phil Anderson was saying that's what he wants to do- he probably wants to adopt the plan they have spent months to come up with.
Post by: 6x6in6 on October 06, 2011, 03:14:41 PM
Sounds like the Commission is listening instead of there typical pre-conceived ideas of management.
Post by: asl20bball on October 06, 2011, 03:17:16 PM
QuoteTo "just watch what happens" tells alot about the incompetence of the WDFW. WOW!!!
I wouldn't say that comment is a reason they are incompetent. I don't think Phil Anderson was saying that's what he wants to do- he probably wants to adopt the plan they have spent months to come up with.
[/quote
I was must trying to make the point that doing nothing should not be an option. The fact that they would say that at all is concerning.
Post by: winshooter88 on October 06, 2011, 03:19:43 PM
Post by: sebek556 on October 06, 2011, 03:20:17 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 06, 2011, 03:40:39 PM
Was it Anderson that said that, he may be relying on data others have provided him. I think much of the problem is the people working in the endangered species department. Just thinking he may not know any different....
:yeah: I remember at one meeting, the chair directly asked the endangered species division a question like this-- 'what was it about wolves and grizzlies that required them to be removed, but black bears and cougars could stay?' The endangered species group said they didn't know why--no idea.
Post by: bearpaw on October 06, 2011, 04:27:13 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on October 06, 2011, 04:37:45 PM
Post by: KillBilly on October 06, 2011, 04:54:02 PM
The commission definitely put them on the spot numerous times. The subject of a management plan for after delisting came up several times. The Chair specifically stated that there was a great amount of interest and worry concerning the lack of such a plan. Phil's boys merely stated that they could not go there yet due to lack of data. That's funny because everything they have done so far appears to lack good sound data. Commissioner Douvia definitely called them out several times as did Commissioners Wecker, Perry and Schmitten. I wont' mention names but it appears that several of them are leaning towards rejection of the plan. David Jennings whose name I won't mention showed his color (grey lobo) today as a pro-wolfer. (just my opinion).
Phil addressed the Commission with a laundry list of potential revisions as well a couple of cornerstone items he said couldn't be changed. 15 BPs was one of them. I am sure that if the Commission rejects the plan, they might find a way to chisel that cornerstone down to size.
There were 70 people on the list to testify today. They will be there until 6:00 or later before they all get done. On the subject of testimony, I have a confession to make. Today's meeting was by far the worst I have attended yet. I was actually supposed to be the first to testify. I was so upset by all the crap that had transpired that I declined my turn and left. The message I was going to deliver was a reiteration of two previous messages and intended to convince we were standing staunch in our position. So they didn't really miss anything. On the bright side, the Commission will still get my stack of 8.5 x 11 colored glossies to read anyway.
Mulehunter and I did get a chance to question a Commissioner about a couple of instances that occurred. Questioned about reaction times and solution, they could only agree it was tough to react in a timely manner and he agreed that it made it hard for citizens to trust the department.
Funniest part of the day... early this morning 7:30 an older lady wearing a fur jacket and could hardly walk signed in to testify. When she finished signing in and turned to walk away, she had a big Wolf on the back of the fur jacket. The gal at the desk turned to me as I turned to her and both of us said simultaneously... doesn't that look like Wolf fur... it really did. But she turned out to be pro-wolf... it was weird.
Post by: silverdalesauer on October 06, 2011, 05:02:50 PM
More--QuoteIdaho estimates 108 breeding pairs there now
What!?!?!? We are in big trouble!
Post by: silverdalesauer on October 06, 2011, 05:10:36 PM
It doesn't sound very promising for WA State, but sounds like hunters are gearing up for quite a battle with the gov't over this.
Post by: KillBilly on October 06, 2011, 05:10:45 PM
3.2.1. Brief Summary of Alternatives
Alternative 1: This alternative has a lower standard for protection and restoration of wolves in the state and a more aggressive lethal control strategy (Table 1). It implements lethal control options at
FINAL EIS/WOLF CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN July 28, 2011
Chapter 3 - Alternatives 20 Washington Dept of Fish & Wildlife
earlier phases of recovery than the other alternatives. It sets a lower standard for geographic distribution of recovery objectives, such that state downlisting and delisting of the species could occur with the majority of animals present in one or two recovery regions. It allows earlier implementation of management tools for addressing livestock conflicts, and it also offers a less generous compensation package for documented incidents of depredation.
Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative; Wolf Conservation and Management Plan): This alternative meets the goals and objectives for establishing a long-term viable wolf population while addressing wolf-livestock conflicts and interactions between wolves and ungulates. It sets a moderate geographic distribution of recovery objectives for downlisting and delisting, with an emphasis on adequate numbers being present in the Southern Cascades/Northwest Coast recovery region, but does not require the establishment of wolves in a fourth Pacific Coast recovery region to achieve delisting. This alternative includes a range of proactive, non-lethal and lethal control options for addressing livestock conflicts, and generous compensation for confirmed and probable depredations on livestock.
This alternative was modified following public review of the Draft EIS, based on comments received from the public, peer review (Appendices E, F), and WDFW review. These modifications are reflected in the revised Preferred Alternative 2 and Final Recommended Wolf Conservation and Management Plan for Washington.
Alternative 3: This alternative places the greatest emphasis on protection and restoration of wolves in Washington. It has a higher standard for the geographic distribution of recovery objectives for downlisting and delisting wolves, including a requirement that they be present in a fourth recovery region, the Pacific Coast Recovery Region (Figure 2), before the species could be downlisted and delisted. This alternative is the most conservative on when management tools for addressing livestock conflicts could be implemented, and also includes the most generous compensation package for documented cases of confirmed and probable depredation.
Alternative 4 – No Action (Current Management): Under this alternative, no wolf conservation and management plan would be prepared for Washington. Protection and restoration of wolves would use existing programs. As a result, there would be no state recovery plan for the species and wolves would continue to be listed as endangered until a recovery plan was completed, with recovery objectives, and the species achieves the recovery objectives. Limited management options would be available for addressing conflicts. It is unknown whether compensation would be available for livestock losses, which would depend on whether any state or private fund sources existed for that purpose.
Post by: KillBilly on October 06, 2011, 05:14:10 PM
Thanks to all of you for going to the meeting.
It doesn't sound very promising for WA State, but sounds like hunters are gearing up for quite a battle with the gov't over this.
Even though the meeting today sucked, I am OPTOMISTIC that the commission will reject or at least postpone the current plan.
Post by: actionshooter on October 06, 2011, 05:20:49 PM
Anderson stated that 15 breeding pairs will be required and that is not on the table for discussion.
I was optimistic about the commision, they seem to be more conservative than I expected.
Post by: actionshooter on October 06, 2011, 05:23:53 PM
Where do they think thier paychecks come from!! :bash:
Post by: Special T on October 06, 2011, 05:38:16 PM
Post by: KillBilly on October 06, 2011, 05:43:59 PM
Is there audio recoding anywhere from this meeting? If there isn't one available from the state we need to start recording these hooligans, and so we can show support for the comishoners that see the light. :twocents: Thanks for going guys!
There may be one.. they had audio issues early in the meeting. It was stated they had to get it fixed so it would record accurately. I don't know if it will be available but it was recorded.
Post by: Kain on October 06, 2011, 06:19:39 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings.html)
Post by: popeshawnpaul on October 06, 2011, 06:42:19 PM
Almost every question was answered with a "we aren't sure" or we don't know but we'll wait and see. That isn't good enough if you want to dive into a wolf pack. 15 breeding pairs is 200-600 wolves depending on your math and to dive into that many without knowing how to deal with them is disaster and just what ID, MT, and WY have found out. That number was adopted over 3 years ago, before all the new information has come to light in ID and the other states. Yet they won't adjust that number. On Youtube Madonna Luers gives a 10+ minute recap of the wolf plan with the 15 breeding pair number in 2009. Now that we have new information and Idaho is going to adopt that number with other states adopting less, we think we know more than them and can sustain 15 breeding pairs in WA? We are stuck on that number and I don't understand why we can't back out and change that number. Phil Andersen clearly told the commission that was not an option for them to consider. Very frustrating.
If we must live with 15 breeding pairs, we need to change the current definition of what a breeding pair is. This is an attainable goal. For example, if we currently have to have successful breeding of a pack for a few years and they must do the breeding in WA, this could be 500+ wolves to get to this number. However, if we defined breeding pair as a pack that has used portions of WA state as their territory in the last 3 years but may not breed in WA...and have breeding that was successful once in the last 3-5 years but maybe not every year that would also count. We could hit our 15 breeding pair goal at that definition better than we could 10 breeding pairs at the current definition and management of the wolves could occur quicker. Maybe it's sneaky attorney speak but when something isn't working for you, modify it so they think they are getting what they want but you are really attaining part or some of your goal.
At the current plan, WA will be in dire straits within 3-10 years with tons of wolves, major impacts, and no plan to do anything about it. We will have not learned from our neighbors but followed their path. Blind leading the blind.
Post by: KillBilly on October 06, 2011, 06:58:52 PM
Post by: KillBilly on October 06, 2011, 07:11:07 PM
During recovery stages, while wolves are listed in Washington, it is unlikely that they will have a significant negative effect on ungulate populations in the state. However, if WDFW determined that wolf predation was a primary limiting factor for an “at-risk” ungulate population, and the wolf population in that wolf recovery region was healthy (i.e., it exceeds the delisting objectives for that recovery region), WDFW could consider reducing wolf abundance in the localized area occupied by the ungulate population before state delisting occurs.
For the purposes of this plan, an at-risk ungulate population is any federal or state listed ungulate population (e.g., Selkirk Mountain woodland caribou, Columbian white-tailed deer), or any ungulate population for which it is determined to have declined 25% or more below management objectives for three or more years and population trend analysis predicts a continued decline.
For populations for which numeric estimates and/or management objectives are not currently available, it will not be possible to use a specific threshold to assess a need for management action. Instead WDFW will use other sources of information related to the population, such as harvest trends, hunter effort trends, sex and age ratios, and others.
Well it only took us three years, now where is that herd?
They had a very difficult time explaining this to the commission.
Post by: sebek556 on October 06, 2011, 07:12:55 PM
I am glad some of the com's called people out on BS, but they need to call WDFW out for its BS as well
Post by: actionshooter on October 06, 2011, 07:15:12 PM
A couple issues I wanted to bring up about today's meeting. It appeared at times that Nathan and Rocky tried to overgeneralize and slip some stuff by the commission.
Most of the day I felt they were trying to manipulate the numbers (facts) to work with their (andersons's) agenda.
I see absolutely no reason why they can't reduce the number of BPs?? Basically Anderson said he would rather do nothing than reduce the number.
Post by: KillBilly on October 06, 2011, 07:15:42 PM
I believe they think the balance of known wolves are coyotes... :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: sebek556 on October 06, 2011, 07:19:19 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 06, 2011, 07:21:00 PM
Post by: asl20bball on October 06, 2011, 07:40:02 PM
Post by: KillBilly on October 06, 2011, 07:48:33 PM
To those that attended...thanks for keeping the rest of us informed. Really wish I could have been there. Keep it up! If anything it appears that some new numbers/FACTS are coming in from other states and hopefully that will help out with a revised plan.
Unfortunately, those numbers from other states have been available for some time. WFDW is just stuck on stupid... they spent time and money and refuse to listen to other and newer information.
Post by: TheHunt on October 06, 2011, 07:59:15 PM
Post by: mulehunter on October 06, 2011, 08:12:55 PM
Sad but the truth. Idaho lost $20 million and lost 50% Elk population.
Its not making me happy today after I listen to all Bs stuff what they BELIEVE. but I am glad I shake Anderson's hand. I said U wont get any Penny from me. :chuckle:
Mulehunter.
Post by: bobcat on October 06, 2011, 08:19:24 PM
Post by: KillBilly on October 06, 2011, 08:30:22 PM
First of all. My major to watch on Anderson and It surprised me after his word come out of his mouth, I found out this state does not give a sh!t about us. They are treehugging liberal granola heads that are Anti hunt/fish to begin with. If Eastern Wa was not a player in our politics we would have no hunting here.......Period.
Sad but the truth. Idaho lost $20 million and lost 50% Elk population.
Its not making me happy today after I listen to all Bs stuff what they BELIEVE. but I am glad I shake Anderson's hand. I said U wont get any Penny from me. :chuckle:
Mulehunter.
Tell us how ya really feel Scott.... :chuckle: When he shook your hand did it make you think of Obama.. :chuckle:
It was good to finally meet you today. I enjoyed your company.
Post by: sebek556 on October 06, 2011, 08:31:20 PM
Post by: TheHunt on October 06, 2011, 08:35:41 PM
Post by: Special T on October 06, 2011, 08:36:15 PM
Post by: KillBilly on October 06, 2011, 08:38:21 PM
So the goal is to get these wolves delisted, which if their plan is adopted will take 15 breeding pairs- well my question is even when they're delisted, what is the plan to keep the overall numbers down? Even if they offered unlimited numbers of over-the-counter wolf tags, would hunters even be able to make a dent in the wolf population? That is my main concern. I mean how much effect does hunting have on keeping coyote numbers down? Not much, correct? And coyotes don't even require a tag and there is no limit and no season.
They were questioned about that several times and the Department did not have an answer. All they could say is it is too early and we have no data to configure an after delisting management plan. Commissioner Conrad Mahnken, PH.D. suggested they use one of the other states management plans as a model and revise it if/and necesary. They were not receptive to that idea.....go figure.
Post by: mulehunter on October 06, 2011, 08:40:05 PM
They said Coyotes 44% kill Fawns and small calfs. 18% killed after born, They also said 1.8% wolves kill Sick weak Herd recently.
Very Diffuclt here to agree everything in Meeting about how to build population herd healthy since four predators, hunter havest, car accident, etc. Its going be huge impact in 3 years. But.....
They want to wait 3 years to see how much kill and how many population expand wolves, loose population on Elk or Deer thats what they are start watching close. Because they dont want to learn from other state.
By the way My Doctor who saved my life last weekend, She did really work walk by me today at meeting and asked me Hey what ur doing here. By the way How u feeling. :yike: Cant believe that.
Mulehunter.
Post by: bobcat on October 06, 2011, 08:43:16 PM
Post by: actionshooter on October 06, 2011, 08:45:59 PM
So the goal is to get these wolves delisted, which if their plan is adopted will take 15 breeding pairs- well my question is even when they're delisted, what is the plan to keep the overall numbers down? Even if they offered unlimited numbers of over-the-counter wolf tags, would hunters even be able to make a dent in the wolf population? That is my main concern. I mean how much effect does hunting have on keeping coyote numbers down? Not much, correct? And coyotes don't even require a tag and there is no limit and no season.
That question was asked, there is no plan after delisting to control population. Their attitude was to worry about the delisting 1st and the rest will fall into place. :bdid:
One of the commisioners (Douvia) even said that hunting wasn't a effective tool for management, 2% was (i believe) he quoted.
Post by: bobcat on October 06, 2011, 08:53:20 PM
Post by: actionshooter on October 06, 2011, 08:56:00 PM
mulehunter is being a little hard on the WDFW. Overall, they are not "anti-hunting". There's no way they could be, that would go against their whole purpose of being. Many of the employees are hunters. My feeling is that they don't want the wolves here anymore than we do. But what are they going to do? They have to follow the laws and all the proper politically correct procedures. I'm pretty sure they know that a good portion of their funding comes from us hunters, but they also have the pro-wolf groups pushing for the wolves, and those groups have money and they are more organized than we are. So I really think what the WDFW is doing is trying to come up with a plan that will be acceptable to both sides. It's a compromise. No matter what they do, hunters are going to demand less wolves and pro-wolf people are going to want more.
While I do agree that the majority of WDFW are not anti hunters, I believe the authors of the wolf plan are not in any way pro-hunters.
Post by: actionshooter on October 06, 2011, 08:58:35 PM
So basically, if there's no way to control the wolf numbers by hunting, what's the point of this whole wolf plan anyway? We know there will never be any trapping or aerial shooting, or any other effective control methods used in this state. So really does it matter if the goal is 15 breeding pairs? They could set the goal at 5 breeding pairs and we could still end up with too many wolves.
That thought has gone through my mind, but I'm not ready to give up yet. ;)
Plus I have room for one in my game room.
Post by: bobcat on October 06, 2011, 08:59:07 PM
Quote
While I do agree that the majority of WDFW are not anti hunters, I believe the authors of the wolf plan are not in any way pro-hunters.
There very well could be some anti-hunters involved, I have no doubt about that. But I just don't think it's fair to say the agency as a whole is anti-hunting.
Post by: sebek556 on October 06, 2011, 08:59:32 PM
Post by: rebal69972 on October 06, 2011, 09:23:44 PM
Post by: rose673 on October 06, 2011, 09:40:03 PM
Post by: Caseyd on October 06, 2011, 09:41:21 PM
Thank you to all who attended today.
Post by: huntnphool on October 06, 2011, 09:41:28 PM
Post by: huntnphool on October 06, 2011, 09:43:17 PM
Post by: bobcat on October 06, 2011, 09:46:14 PM
Post by: HuntNFish on October 06, 2011, 09:58:24 PM
I'd go to the meeting but I've got scouting and hunting to do. This is a bad time of the year to be sitting in meetings. But I'm sure glad some are able to go!I have wondered if WDFW planned it this way, knowing lots of hunters would be in the woods.
Post by: grundy53 on October 06, 2011, 10:18:53 PM
mulehunter is being a little hard on the WDFW. Overall, they are not "anti-hunting". There's no way they could be, that would go against their whole purpose of being. Many of the employees are hunters. My feeling is that they don't want the wolves here anymore than we do. But what are they going to do? They have to follow the laws and all the proper politically correct procedures. I'm pretty sure they know that a good portion of their funding comes from us hunters, but they also have the pro-wolf groups pushing for the wolves, and those groups have money and they are more organized than we are. So I really think what the WDFW is doing is trying to come up with a plan that will be acceptable to both sides. It's a compromise. No matter what they do, hunters are going to demand less wolves and pro-wolf people are going to want more.
Unfortunately I think this is more wishful thinking then anything. Are there hunters and outdoorsman in the wdfw? Yes of course. Are there any in the positions of power? It doesn't seem like it... I would venture to say there are more anti hunters in the wdfw then you think. They are the ones ruining the wdfw and the hunting opportunities in this state.
Post by: actionshooter on October 06, 2011, 10:24:27 PM
I'd go to the meeting but I've got scouting and hunting to do. This is a bad time of the year to be sitting in meetings. But I'm sure glad some are able to go!
Glad we could go to bat for you.
Post by: mulehunter on October 06, 2011, 10:29:53 PM
Mulehunter
Post by: actionshooter on October 06, 2011, 10:41:54 PM
tomorrow meeting for Elk/deer plans??. Are they gonna reduce harvest in future. :yike:
Mulehunter
No, they have to figure out how to increase the population to feed the wolves!
Good meeting you scott.
Post by: mulehunter on October 06, 2011, 11:02:04 PM
30,000 down to 3,000 :yike:
Anderson need think TWICE.
Mulehunter.
Nice meeting u too. actionshoot
Post by: Gringo31 on October 06, 2011, 11:21:32 PM
Sarcasm over...
This is a train wreck from day one. Everyone knew it, most have seen it, and we are still counting the casualties. All of this BS and you wonder why decent guys talk about shooting wolves. If hunting has no effect on populations.....then why would they care if you shot one that appeared to be up to no good?
This is a touchy subject because it is maddening. Some of us rural folks are getting a bit fed up with being told how to make a living and how we need to listen to people who have no clue, have never walked in our shoes on our land and they lack the ability to recognize us for the true conservationists that we are. I just want to maintain healthy populations to share with the public so that WE get the sustainable harvest.
It's a big sh!t sandwitch and you all are supposed to take a bite, ask for seconds, give em a fat tip and thank them for such a wonderful meal.
Gringo
Post by: popeshawnpaul on October 07, 2011, 12:23:48 AM
The point is, that is one example of a handful I can cite that leads me to believe or come to the conclusion that Nathan and Rocky are trying to deceive us with the current proposed wolf plan. Instead of being neutral, they are acting as advocates and trying to convince and sell us on it. When they get caught speaking in mistruths or putting information that is misleading on a slide to convince us to adopt this plan, it makes me think I'm being deceived and now I am skeptical about everything they say. I'm sure they are good at what they do, but advocacy is not one of them. Scary to think what a skilled advocate could do if they led a project like this. Giving facts that support your position but are untrue or misleading is a common tactic to use but it's very risky. If you get caught by someone that is smart enough to know better, the tactic fails miserably.
Post by: grundy53 on October 07, 2011, 05:22:36 AM
I feel I'm really more even keeled about the WDFW than most of you. That being said, I'll now contradict myself. Rocky put a slide up that said hunting is an effective tool to manage wolf populations. When questioned about this, he admitted that hunting can't control a wolf population. When asked what other tools will we have, he responded with "trapping". Yet that method has not proved effective either. There is no management plan once we have wolves and that's one of the major concerns from everyone.
The point is, that is one example of a handful I can cite that leads me to believe or come to the conclusion that Nathan and Rocky are trying to deceive us with the current proposed wolf plan. Instead of being neutral, they are acting as advocates and trying to convince and sell us on it. When they get caught speaking in mistruths or putting information that is misleading on a slide to convince us to adopt this plan, it makes me think I'm being deceived and now I am skeptical about everything they say. I'm sure they are good at what they do, but advocacy is not one of them. Scary to think what a skilled advocate could do if they led a project like this. Giving facts that support your position but are untrue or misleading is a common tactic to use but it's very risky. If you get caught by someone that is smart enough to know better, the tactic fails miserably.
You don't think this has been happening?
Post by: coachcw on October 07, 2011, 06:46:34 AM
Post by: rebal69972 on October 07, 2011, 07:18:06 AM
Post by: rose673 on October 07, 2011, 07:36:36 AM
Post by: BIGINNER on October 07, 2011, 07:38:51 AM
you know what really worries me, earlier this year the cops and animal control where taking our predators out of towns 1 bear was takin out of a school parking lot (if my memory serves me right) now they are helping an apex predator expand its territory. how long will in be till its normal to have bears in our back yards and cougars in the trees around our houses or till a child is attacked because theres no food. we have proven that we can kill the wolves to damn near extinction and the deer and elk will recover it will hurt our hunting but hunting i don't feel is the biggest picture here. WA has the 4 largest predators in the country and all 4 have proven to be very good at killing people again i ask how many people have to get hurt
mainly because poison was used.
Post by: remington300mag on October 07, 2011, 07:57:55 AM
Bobcat is absolutely right! WDFW is not anti hunting! They want you to buy your hunting license every year! They want you to spend the money on going to the woods and everything else involved with the hunt! What the WDFW is, is ANTI Killing....or Harvesting! Once they got your money, they don't want you touching their animals.QuoteWhile I do agree that the majority of WDFW are not anti hunters, I believe the authors of the wolf plan are not in any way pro-hunters.
There very well could be some anti-hunters involved, I have no doubt about that. But I just don't think it's fair to say the agency as a whole is anti-hunting.
Post by: grundy53 on October 07, 2011, 08:26:38 AM
Bobcat is absolutely right! WDFW is not anti hunting! They want you to buy your hunting license every year! They want you to spend the money on going to the woods and everything else involved with the hunt! What the WDFW is, is ANTI Killing....or Harvesting! Once they got your money, they don't want you touching their animals.QuoteWhile I do agree that the majority of WDFW are not anti hunters, I believe the authors of the wolf plan are not in any way pro-hunters.
There very well could be some anti-hunters involved, I have no doubt about that. But I just don't think it's fair to say the agency as a whole is anti-hunting.
Your right!
Post by: KillBilly on October 07, 2011, 09:33:27 AM
The other item that really bothers me is in one of there slides they basically admitted that they were not going to try to help the Caribou or the Columbian white-tail deer when wolves prey on them. Why did we waste millions and millions of dollars on these species just to see them be taken by wolves. I wonder what the employees are going to do on the Julia Butler Hansen Refuge when there are 0 deer to manage :dunno:
I am not disputing the author of the above quote. But I do know what he speaks of. I am inserting a portion of Chapter 5 of the wolf plan that had the slide he speaks of information on it. I actually inserted more than the slide had so you can read more of the para. F. info. It is confusing and in my opinion what rose673refers to is the portion highlighted in green. What I personally gleaned from this slide is that waiting 3 or more years IS just about equal to doing nothing.
Please read it......
During recovery stages, while wolves are listed in Washington, it is unlikely that they will have a significant negative effect on ungulate populations in the state. However, if WDFW determined that wolf predation was a primary limiting factor for an “at-risk” ungulate population, and the wolf population in that wolf recovery region was healthy (i.e., it exceeds the delisting objectives for that recovery region), WDFW could consider reducing wolf abundance in the localized area occupied by the ungulate population before state delisting occurs.
For the purposes of this plan, an at-risk ungulate population is any federal or state listed ungulate population (e.g., Selkirk Mountain woodland caribou, Columbian white-tailed deer), or any ungulate population for which it is determined to have declined 25% or more below management objectives for three or more years and population trend analysis predicts a continued decline. For populations for which numeric estimates and/or management objectives are not currently available, it will not be possible to use a specific threshold to assess a need for management action. Instead WDFW will use other sources of information related to the population, such as harvest trends, hunter effort trends, sex and age ratios, and others.
Authority for the “take” of wildlife exists with the director of WDFW under state law RCW 77.12.240.
Waiting 3 years is too long. It was explained that it was necessary to wait 3 years so they had good data :dunno:
:yike: the herd is gone but I got good data......
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on October 07, 2011, 09:36:43 AM
Post by: KillBilly on October 07, 2011, 09:47:52 AM
I have a high level of Faith and Confidence in several of the Commissioners. They are neither blind nor stupid. I am HIGHLY OPTIMISTIC that the Commission will reject the current plan and send them back to the drawing board.
Don't get me wrong, rejecting the plan doesn't fill the gaps or fix the flaws that exist in the WDFW administration but it will send a clear message to them that we want and expect better from them.
Post by: sebek556 on October 07, 2011, 09:53:46 AM
Post by: 6x6in6 on October 07, 2011, 09:57:21 AM
I like this, for the most part. :)
I have a high level of Faith and Confidence in several of the Commissioners. They are neither blind nor stupid. I am HIGHLY OPTIMISTIC that the Commission will reject the current plan and send them back to the drawing board.
In your opinion and with what you viewed yesterday, would you say that "several" is at or near a majority of the Commissioners?
Post by: KillBilly on October 07, 2011, 10:14:55 AM
killbilly I hope your right, keep up the good work :tup: any word on the spokane meeting? I havent been able to find out anything on it so far, only it is possible.
I hope this doesn't get me in trouble but yesterday I confided in one of the staff and was told the Commission had gotten the word loud and clear that they needed to meet on the eastside. The response was one of those "I can't say but read between the lines" answers. I am thinking that the Commission is leaning heavily towards Spokane in November. They should finalize that deision in the next few days.
Post by: KillBilly on October 07, 2011, 10:19:59 AM
I like this, for the most part. :)
I have a high level of Faith and Confidence in several of the Commissioners. They are neither blind nor stupid. I am HIGHLY OPTIMISTIC that the Commission will reject the current plan and send them back to the drawing board.
In your opinion and with what you viewed yesterday, would you say that "several" is at or near a majority of the Commissioners?
I have crosshairs on 4 that I think that will vote reject and 2 that are borderline but leaning towards reject. This comes from watching them and their reactions both facial and verbal to a multitude of the questionable issues. I have only identified one that I am sure is pro-wolf.... I don't know if that helps you any but that is my observation and opinion.
Post by: 6x6in6 on October 07, 2011, 10:24:55 AM
That sure sounds real positive. Usually one's physical expressions can tell a lot of their story. Thanks KB, keep up the good work. You are doing a helluva good job and I thank you for that!!! :)I like this, for the most part. :)
I have a high level of Faith and Confidence in several of the Commissioners. They are neither blind nor stupid. I am HIGHLY OPTIMISTIC that the Commission will reject the current plan and send them back to the drawing board.
In your opinion and with what you viewed yesterday, would you say that "several" is at or near a majority of the Commissioners?
I have crosshairs on 4 that I think that will vote reject and 2 that are borderline but leaning towards reject. This comes from watching them and their reactions both facial and verbal to a multitude of the questionable issues. I have only identified one that I am sure is pro-wolf.... I don't know if that helps you any but that is my observation and opinion.
Post by: mulehunter on October 07, 2011, 10:40:45 AM
Mulehunter.
Post by: leed on October 07, 2011, 11:28:11 AM
1. Phil has the Gov GRegwhatever at his rear, he has inept staff at his feet, he is fisheries genious but lacks big game, he has thtreats of lawsuits from the left no matter what, and sportsmen in front of him and on his right a very good team of Commisioners with the exception of two. He was put in a bad spot at a bad time. He is a hunter and Nate too!
2. The left is using this to curtail and/or shut down hunting.
3. Most of the so-aclled Pro Wolfers are misinformed. We talked to two gals yesterday and before terstimony started they were seeing our side and agreed with us.
4. If you want to makea difference. Write each Commisioner and copy the Director. USE ONLY FACTS! DO NOT use emotion.
5. Keep calling them and writing.
6. Behind the scenes we are providing the Chair the real facts and have countered every single slip up or misrepresentation Nate or Rocky has provided. They slipped THREE more times yesterday and I have already provided the CORRECT facts and data to the Chair this morning.
7. This plan is full of holes, they know it, the Director now sees it and it is inexcusable for the Dept to have not started the MANAGEMENT PLAN already.
8. Correct, HUNTERS as good as we are CAN'T control the Wolves. Very few will ever get harvested by hunters. They are cunning animals. That is why we need a TOTAL cap on wolves. VERY LOW NUMBERS OF THEM!
9. Breeding pairs is smoke to convlude the real numbers and yes, all the data sets used to project the additive and consumptive harvest of wolves on deer and elk were not correct.
10. KEEP SENDING LETTERS to the Commision, we are SO CLOSE to getting the plan rejected AS IS. What changes they will request is still not known.
11. Every chance you get to talk toa pro wolfer use facts and reason and explain the real problem clearly, we can convert them if we use real facts . Well, convert some. Some are so out of touch with the real world of nature it's scary they breath the same air.
Post by: Special T on October 07, 2011, 11:30:49 AM
Post by: asl20bball on October 07, 2011, 11:38:52 AM
4. If you want to makea difference. Write each Commisioner and copy the Director. USE ONLY FACTS! DO NOT use emotion.
5. Keep calling them and writing.
Is there a list or contact information to write to the members and director? Or perhaps someone could post a list.
*On a side note- IF YOU'RE READING THIS SUBJECT STRING YOU OWE IT TO YOURSELF, FUTURE GENERATIONS OF HUNTERS, AND OUR STATE'S GAME HERDS TO WRITE TO THE MEMBERS AND DIRECTOR. WE NEED OUR VOICE HEARD! Please take the time to do so. I know I will.
Post by: bearpaw on October 07, 2011, 11:57:36 AM
I urge you all to stay motivated and send letters.....
Here are some facts and fuigures I have dug up in the last week, please use any of it in messages to the commission. If everyone on here would send a message each week of October using this data or any other data you can dig up, we may win in the final stretch, if you don't care and don't mind losing on this wolf issue, then do nothing, becuase then we will priobably lose if we don't stay motivated and effective.
ITS YOUR CHOICE, DO YOU WANT TO WIN OR LOSE?
Here's some data with links to the source to verify statistics, please use any of it you like in messages to the Commission: commission@dfw.wa.gov
Comparing Washington to Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Wyoming
By averaging the data for the northern rocky mountain gray wolf recovery states and by comparing the number of Breeding Pairs (BP’s) required by the Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Wyoming wolf plans, we can make a comparison with the proposed Washington Wolf Plan.
• Washington has proposed 15 Breeding Pairs (BP’s). The wolf plans in 4 other Northern Rocky Mountain wolf recovery states is as follows: Idaho 15 BP’s, Montana 15 BP’s, Oregon 4 BP’s, and Wyoming 10 BP’s. That’s 44 breeding pairs or an average of 11 Breeding Pairs (BP’s) per state.
• According to the US Census Bureau with 44 million acres Washington is much smaller than Idaho, Montana, Oregon, or Wyoming. Idaho has 53.4 million acres, Montana 94.1 million acres, Oregon 62.2 million acres, and Wyoming 62.6 million acres. That’s over 272 million acres in the other 4 states which are managing for 44 Breeding Pairs. That’s an average of 6.2 million acres for each Breeding Pair in the other 4 states. Considering that Washington has only 44 million acres the Washington Wolf Plan should require 7 Breeding Pairs. So how can Washington sustain 15 BP’s? http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0369.pdf (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0369.pdf)
• Washington’s human population is 6,725,000 which is almost equal to the population of the other 4 states combined. Idaho has 1,568,000 people, Montana 989,000, Oregon 3,831,000 and Wyoming 564,000. How can Washington sustain 15 BP’s? http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0016.pdf (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0016.pdf)
• According to the Census Bureau statistics, Washington’s smaller size and higher human population results in 3 to 17 times more people per square mile as ID, MT, OR, WY. Washington has 101.2 people per square mile, Idaho 19.0, Montana 6.8, Oregon 39.9, and Wyoming 5.8. How can Washington sustain 15 BP’s? http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0014.pdf (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0014.pdf)
• Census Bureau statistics indicate Washington has 1,063,000 people living on rural private lands. That is 2 to 6 times the human population on rural private lands in the other 4 states. Idaho has only 434,000 rural residents, Montana 414,000, Oregon 727,000, and Wyoming 172,000. How can Washington’s private lands that have a much higher human population sustain more wolves than private lands in these other states? http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0029.pdf (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0029.pdf)
• One of the Most Important Comparisons! According to the National Wilderness Institute, Washington has 15.5 million acres of state and federal public lands for wolves to inhabit. This is less than half of Idaho’s 35.2 million acres, Montana’s 32.5 million acres, or Wyoming’s 34 million acres. Washington even has less public lands than Oregon’s 19.4 million acres and Oregon’s plan only calls for 4 BP’s. The other 4 states have a total of 121 million acres of public lands for 44 BP’s, that’s 2.75 million acres per Breeding Pair in the other states. Washington’s 15.5 million acres at that same rate can only support 6 Breeding pairs. Why does the WDFW think our much smaller amount of public land can support more than twice the wolves the other states can support? http://www.nrcm.org/documents/publiclandownership.pdf (http://www.nrcm.org/documents/publiclandownership.pdf)
• The Final Important Comparison! Washington’s elk herd at the WDFW inflated figure of 61,000, is still much smaller than the herds of Idaho at 103,000, Montana’s 150,000+, Oregon’s 130,000, and Wyoming’s 120,000. In fact the other 4 states herds total 503,000 to support 44 BP’s, that’s 11,430 elk per breeding pair of wolves in the other states. By those standards Washington’s 61,000 elk can support 5 breeding pairs. How can the WDFW think Washington’s elk herds can support 3 times as many wolves as the other 4 states? http://www.rmef.org/Hunting/Features/Articles/ (http://www.rmef.org/Hunting/Features/Articles/)
Post by: Special T on October 07, 2011, 12:12:05 PM
Post by: 6x6in6 on October 07, 2011, 12:13:05 PM
Just fired off a quickie e-mail referencing the acreage per breeding pairs comparison stats.
I like that reference the best. It really puts it in perspective, in my book, that we just simply don't have the land to support 15 BP's when compared to our neighbors.
Post by: 6x6in6 on October 07, 2011, 12:13:57 PM
I've been looking for the e-amil adresses for the commision.. I haven't been able to find it... Any one have it?
Bearpaw's message above has it right above the BOLD
Post by: bearpaw on October 07, 2011, 12:15:00 PM
commission@dfw.wa.gov
Post by: Special T on October 07, 2011, 12:15:33 PM
Post by: bearpaw on October 07, 2011, 12:27:26 PM
I hope to also use these points: (please use any you like in your message)
- The numbers indicate that WDFW's proposal is badly flawed, misleading, and lacking in proven science.
- The numbers further indicate that Washington cannot support 15 BP's, please reduce the number of BP's.
- Washington herds are unlikely to sustain numbers during additional growth of the wolf population for 3 years.
- Any plan that does not sustain the prey herds will not sustain the proposed wolf population either.
- Please reduce the proposed BP's and remove the 3 year waiting period or simply do not accept the wolf plan.
Post by: bearpaw on October 07, 2011, 12:28:59 PM
Post by: CedarPants on October 07, 2011, 12:32:26 PM
We are going to end up with 15+ breeding pairs east of the Cascades alone. Take away all available lands west of the mountains and what is left is the available acreage they should be looking at for delisting and management purposes.
Post by: jackmaster on October 07, 2011, 12:35:46 PM
Post by: Special T on October 07, 2011, 12:41:40 PM
Post by: bearpaw on October 07, 2011, 12:43:42 PM
message sent
well done my westside brother..... :brew: :brew: :brew: :brew: :brew: :brew: :brew: :brew:
anybody else? :dunno:
Post by: CedarPants on October 07, 2011, 12:44:10 PM
Post by: bearpaw on October 07, 2011, 12:44:57 PM
Sent
right on....gitterdun.... :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup:
Remember everyone, in one month there will be no more chance to make a difference, we will have to live with the decision that's made, do you want Phil Anderson and Harriet Allen to win? :dunno: :dunno: :dunno:
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on October 07, 2011, 12:46:50 PM
Post by: asl20bball on October 07, 2011, 12:47:21 PM
Also posted a personal reminder to re-send again every week.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 07, 2011, 12:48:38 PM
Post by: bearpaw on October 07, 2011, 12:49:52 PM
another email sent! I am ure by now they are tired of seeing my email address... LOL
Totally awesome..... we want them to wish you never learned how to send email! :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on October 07, 2011, 12:51:35 PM
email sent
Bravo, now we are :mgun: :mgun: :mgun: :mgun: :brew: :brew: :brew: :brew:
Post by: CedarPants on October 07, 2011, 12:54:02 PM
Well that's convenient. How in the heck is an entire commission out of the office?
Guess I'll just have to send my email once a day to make sure they have several copies to review next week :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on October 07, 2011, 12:56:23 PM
"Your email message to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission has been received. We are currently away from the office preparing for & attending a Commission meeting and will review email messages after we return next week"
Well that's convenient. How in the heck is an entire commission out of the office?
Guess I'll just have to send my email once a day to make sure they have several copies to review next week :tup:
Excellent strategy..... :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup:
Post by: mulehunter on October 07, 2011, 12:57:25 PM
Mulehunter. :tup:
Post by: KillBilly on October 07, 2011, 01:02:22 PM
Post by: KillBilly on October 07, 2011, 01:13:53 PM
I'm sure all of you have times like this... in the next few mili-seconds I was thinking I had been spending too much time on the wolf issues and now I was paying for it.
In the next couple of mili-seconds it came to me that it wasn't a wolf at all but a very large and awesome Siberian Husky. I don't have any idea where it came from or who owned it but it sure scare the bejeesus out of me. I put a leash on it and called animal control to come pick it up. They checked it for micro chip but it wasn't. I'm sure somebody will be looking for it.
Anyway, it provided with all the surprise and humor I can stand for one day.... :chuckle:
Post by: briancorneal on October 07, 2011, 01:14:35 PM
Post by: 6x6in6 on October 07, 2011, 01:42:44 PM
Thank You for providing the public the opportunity to hear the concerns with the proposed Wolf Plan.
My greatest concern is not the existence of wolves in this State. I understand that they are here and will remain. My concerns focus on the wolf densities.
As you know, Washington’s current proposed Wolf Plan allows for 15 breeding pairs. Washington presently has approximately 15.5 million acres of State and Federal Public Land. This equates to a 1:1 million acres breeding pair density. Our neighboring States wolf plans allow for a much less breeding pair per million acre density. Combined; Oregon, Idaho and Montana are at a 1:2.75 million acre density. Specifically, Oregon has 4 breeding pairs for almost 19.5 million acres which is a 1:4.85 million acre density.
Although I certainly would endorse the Commission’s approval of a 4 breeding pair Wolf Plan density similar to Oregon’s, I would be satisfied with a compromise that would match the average of our surrounding States at 1:2.75 or a 6 total breeding pairs for the State of Washington.
Thank You
Post by: 6x6in6 on October 07, 2011, 01:53:04 PM
When I threw the wolf density numbers at her she was "OMG, no way!!! Just look at the population of our surrounding states along with those public land numbers. Are they out of their minds?"
She's firing off a message and she says she will clearly state that she is semi-pro wolf and the proposal for densities is insane!!!!
My conversion of her is making headway. Baby steps. :chuckle:
Post by: jager on October 07, 2011, 01:57:39 PM
Post by: 6x6in6 on October 07, 2011, 02:16:16 PM
I have officially got the Mrs to open her eyes, COMPLETELY. Yes, she is semi-pro wolf.
When I threw the wolf density numbers at her she was "OMG, no way!!! Just look at the population of our surrounding states along with those public land numbers. Are they out of their minds?"
She's firing off a message and she says she will clearly state that she is semi-pro wolf and the proposal for densities is insane!!!!
My conversion of her is making headway. Baby steps. :chuckle:
Wow, she knocked out a pretty good one right here:
I have taken the time to send this to you as I am very concerned about one particular section of language contained in the proposed Wolf Plan.
I have been over the years a pro wolf reintroduction supporter. With that said, under no circumstances can I support a decision by the Commission to allow 15 wolf breeding pairs in this State. Our State’s public land and population density just simply cannot support such numbers. Why does the proposal allow for and how could you ever fathom that this State could support a combined greater wolf density than Oregon, Idaho and Montana? The facts are there; our neighboring States have piles and piles of statistics that you should review and base your density decision likewise. To approve a breeding pair population which is approaching 3 times the combined numbers of our neighboring States is simply a devastating destiny to the ungulate population of our fine State.
I look forward to your response on this matter.
Post by: huntrights on October 07, 2011, 02:18:34 PM
Post by: Caseyd on October 07, 2011, 02:23:14 PM
Post by: Kain on October 07, 2011, 02:25:39 PM
Post by: sebek556 on October 07, 2011, 02:51:52 PM
Post by: KillBilly on October 07, 2011, 03:01:11 PM
Thanks to all of you.
Al
Post by: Caseyd on October 07, 2011, 03:14:51 PM
Post by: grundy53 on October 07, 2011, 03:35:01 PM
Post by: Machias on October 07, 2011, 03:44:37 PM
I am busy today but just wanted to post this for you all to chew on. I think the commission is dicovering the faulty science being presented by WDFW. We hunters must keep firing letters to give the commission support and reason to not accept the plan as written. We are in the final stretch we must give this race our best in the final stretch or we will lose.
I urge you all to stay motivated and send letters.....
Here are some facts and fuigures I have dug up in the last week, please use any of it in messages to the commission. If everyone on here would send a message each week of October using this data or any other data you can dig up, we may win in the final stretch, if you don't care and don't mind losing on this wolf issue, then do nothing, becuase then we will priobably lose if we don't stay motivated and effective.
ITS YOUR CHOICE, DO YOU WANT TO WIN OR LOSE?
Here's some data with links to the source to verify statistics, please use any of it you like in messages to the Commission: commission@dfw.wa.gov
Comparing Washington to Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Wyoming
By averaging the data for the northern rocky mountain gray wolf recovery states and by comparing the number of Breeding Pairs (BP’s) required by the Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Wyoming wolf plans, we can make a comparison with the proposed Washington Wolf Plan.
• Washington has proposed 15 Breeding Pairs (BP’s). The wolf plans in 4 other Northern Rocky Mountain wolf recovery states is as follows: Idaho 15 BP’s, Montana 15 BP’s, Oregon 4 BP’s, and Wyoming 10 BP’s. That’s 44 breeding pairs or an average of 11 Breeding Pairs (BP’s) per state.
• According to the US Census Bureau with 44 million acres Washington is much smaller than Idaho, Montana, Oregon, or Wyoming. Idaho has 53.4 million acres, Montana 94.1 million acres, Oregon 62.2 million acres, and Wyoming 62.6 million acres. That’s over 272 million acres in the other 4 states which are managing for 44 Breeding Pairs. That’s an average of 6.2 million acres for each Breeding Pair in the other 4 states. Considering that Washington has only 44 million acres the Washington Wolf Plan should require 7 Breeding Pairs. So how can Washington sustain 15 BP’s? http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0369.pdf (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0369.pdf)
• Washington’s human population is 6,725,000 which is almost equal to the population of the other 4 states combined. Idaho has 1,568,000 people, Montana 989,000, Oregon 3,831,000 and Wyoming 564,000. How can Washington sustain 15 BP’s? http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0016.pdf (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0016.pdf)
• According to the Census Bureau statistics, Washington’s smaller size and higher human population results in 3 to 17 times more people per square mile as ID, MT, OR, WY. Washington has 101.2 people per square mile, Idaho 19.0, Montana 6.8, Oregon 39.9, and Wyoming 5.8. How can Washington sustain 15 BP’s? http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0014.pdf (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0014.pdf)
• Census Bureau statistics indicate Washington has 1,063,000 people living on rural private lands. That is 2 to 6 times the human population on rural private lands in the other 4 states. Idaho has only 434,000 rural residents, Montana 414,000, Oregon 727,000, and Wyoming 172,000. How can Washington’s private lands that have a much higher human population sustain more wolves than private lands in these other states? http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0029.pdf (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0029.pdf)
• One of the Most Important Comparisons! According to the National Wilderness Institute, Washington has 15.5 million acres of state and federal public lands for wolves to inhabit. This is less than half of Idaho’s 35.2 million acres, Montana’s 32.5 million acres, or Wyoming’s 34 million acres. Washington even has less public lands than Oregon’s 19.4 million acres and Oregon’s plan only calls for 4 BP’s. The other 4 states have a total of 121 million acres of public lands for 44 BP’s, that’s 2.75 million acres per Breeding Pair in the other states. Washington’s 15.5 million acres at that same rate can only support 6 Breeding pairs. Why does the WDFW think our much smaller amount of public land can support more than twice the wolves the other states can support? http://www.nrcm.org/documents/publiclandownership.pdf (http://www.nrcm.org/documents/publiclandownership.pdf)
• The Final Important Comparison! Washington’s elk herd at the WDFW inflated figure of 61,000, is still much smaller than the herds of Idaho at 103,000, Montana’s 150,000+, Oregon’s 130,000, and Wyoming’s 120,000. In fact the other 4 states herds total 503,000 to support 44 BP’s, that’s 11,430 elk per breeding pair of wolves in the other states. By those standards Washington’s 61,000 elk can support 5 breeding pairs. How can the WDFW think Washington’s elk herds can support 3 times as many wolves as the other 4 states? http://www.rmef.org/Hunting/Features/Articles/ (http://www.rmef.org/Hunting/Features/Articles/)
That right there is the meat and potatoes!!!!! Message sent and sent to all my hunting firends as well. Outstanding information!!!
Post by: rebal69972 on October 07, 2011, 04:08:28 PM
Something some of you are missing is that 15 breeding pairs IS NOT the total number of wolves that they want. That is just the minimum that they want to before they can be delisted and a management plan can be started. We will end up with far more than that. Aerial gunning will not work in the heavy cover we have. Steel traps and snares are ILLEGAL in this state. Hunting season will never be opened up enough even if it was effective. We need to remind everyone of these things, especially the Commission.
from what ive been able to find and read, the only way they where killed out many many years ago was poison and in this day and age that will never happen and i dont think it should be aloud to get too that point
Post by: KillBilly on October 07, 2011, 04:24:24 PM
Post by: Kain on October 07, 2011, 04:34:23 PM
Post by: Kain on October 07, 2011, 04:34:52 PM
Post by: leed on October 07, 2011, 04:40:50 PM
I have officially got the Mrs to open her eyes, COMPLETELY. Yes, she is semi-pro wolf.You are my new HERO for today. See how easy it is to convert them with FACTS!
When I threw the wolf density numbers at her she was "OMG, no way!!! Just look at the population of our surrounding states along with those public land numbers. Are they out of their minds?"
She's firing off a message and she says she will clearly state that she is semi-pro wolf and the proposal for densities is insane!!!!
My conversion of her is making headway. Baby steps. :chuckle:
Post by: huntnphool on October 07, 2011, 05:04:36 PM
First off we arrived just after the morning break, it was standing room only but I managed to secure a couple seats for us in the second to last row. We couldn't see the screen at the angle we were at but had the entire commission facing us, the wolf advocates had their backs to us and were facing the commission.
We sat there listening for about 15 minutes and I was already getting heated, I started taking notes of the things that really shocked me. I kept asking Pope where these wolf people were getting their data, the numbers just sounded way low and thankfully Chair Miranda and Vice Chair Gary called them on several of their theoretical stats.
A little after noon we adjurned for lunch, that's when I was really shocked. The "wolf advocates" I had been listening to were not just advocates at all, they were WDFW people. :yike:
I couldn't believe it, without seeing them before they spoke, and just going by what they were telling the commission, I easily came up with fact that they were wolf proponents, how wrong I was. :bash:
Unlike Killbilly and Pope, I have very little faith in the commission shelving this plan and asking WDFW to come up with another one. I do think we, as sportsman, have a few people on the commission that see right through WDFW's agenda, I just don't think they will be able to convince the rest of the board that the proposal is bad science. I also think Phil Anderson will pressure them into adopting it, although I hope I'm wrong.
One of the statements that I had to laugh at was when Nate said this plan started in 2007, before we had any wolves present. He also said currently Washington only has 25-30 wolves statewide.
Nate and Rocky also said that Wolves would have no effect on ungulate numbers. Gary said he disagreed. He said Idaho's Lolo area has seen a 70% cow/calf mortality rate directly attributed to wolves, he asked them how they came up with their conclusion and why they thought Washington would be any different. Get this, they said that with the wolves taking out elk, the elk would start dropping two calves rather than one, there by increasing the numbers of elk. This is what Pope means when he said
Quote
To rebut that, they stated that the wolf predation on the elk would be compensatory so it wasn't a 1:1 wolf taking an elk that could be hunted.
When they put the estimated wolf kill graph on the screen and tired to quickly flip to the next slide, Miranda stopped them and told them to go back. She then wanted them to explain the numbers. I wish I had taken a pic of the slide but it started with 50 wolves, then 100, then 200, then 300 followed by the number of deer/elk killed by hunters each year. According to WDFW estimates, wolves kill an average of 20 deer and 8 elk/ea. per year. Gary again said he disagreed. He went through his papers and said Wyoming, Montana and Idaho now estimate they kill 44 deer and 20 elk/ea. per year. He said according to your chart that is double that of your estimated numbers. Miranda, not to let them off, then looked at the chart and told Nate that even with the low estimate WDFW have, the numbers show that the wolves would kill half of the numbers of elk that are slotted for hunters. :yike: Again they didn't have an answer.
Rocky was throwing out BS statements too, I would really like to see the study or documentation that backs up this statement he made, he said "the decline of ungulates in one unit in Montana resulted in an increase of ungulates in the neighboring units"
Another slide came up showing WDFW's estimate of annual costs involved in wolf management. This was laughable too and Chuck Perry grabbed hold of this one. He told Nate that costs for management in the other states is 2-3 times higher than WDFW's estimates it will cost, he then asked them why WDFW think they can do it so much cheaper, again with no answer!
So in a nut shell folks we have a pro wolf proposal with all kinds of holes in it, no real science, no option to reduce the number of breeding pairs, and a WDFW crew that are not concerned at all with the ramifications for hunters.
Post by: bearpaw on October 07, 2011, 06:51:43 PM
Something some of you are missing is that 15 breeding pairs IS NOT the total number of wolves that they want. That is just the minimum that they want to before they can be delisted and a management plan can be started. We will end up with far more than that. Aerial gunning will not work in the heavy cover we have. Steel traps and snares are ILLEGAL in this state. Hunting season will never be opened up enough even if it was effective. We need to remind everyone of these things, especially the Commission.
Great points Kain, everyone can use these in their next round of emails....
Post by: bearpaw on October 07, 2011, 06:57:15 PM
It looks like Pope did a good job of relaying most of what I was thinking as well. I do have a few points that really hit me though.
First off we arrived just after the morning break, it was standing room only but I managed to secure a couple seats for us in the second to last row. We couldn't see the screen at the angle we were at but had the entire commission facing us, the wolf advocates had their backs to us and were facing the commission.
We sat there listening for about 15 minutes and I was already getting heated, I started taking notes of the things that really shocked me. I kept asking Pope where these wolf people were getting their data, the numbers just sounded way low and thankfully Chair Miranda and Vice Chair Gary called them on several of their theoretical stats.
A little after noon we adjurned for lunch, that's when I was really shocked. The "wolf advocates" I had been listening to were not just advocates at all, they were WDFW people. :yike:
I couldn't believe it, without seeing them before they spoke, and just going by what they were telling the commission, I easily came up with fact that they were wolf proponents, how wrong I was. :bash:
Unlike Killbilly and Pope, I have very little faith in the commission shelving this plan and asking WDFW to come up with another one. I do think we, as sportsman, have a few people on the commission that see right through WDFW's agenda, I just don't think they will be able to convince the rest of the board that the proposal is bad science. I also think Phil Anderson will pressure them into adopting it, although I hope I'm wrong.
One of the statements that I had to laugh at was when Nate said this plan started in 2007, before we had any wolves present. He also said currently Washington only has 25-30 wolves statewide.
Nate and Rocky also said that Wolves would have no effect on ungulate numbers. Gary said he disagreed. He said Idaho's Lolo area has seen a 70% cow/calf mortality rate directly attributed to wolves, he asked them how they came up with their conclusion and why they thought Washington would be any different. Get this, they said that with the wolves taking out elk, the elk would start dropping two calves rather than one, there by increasing the numbers of elk. This is what Pope means when he saidQuoteTo rebut that, they stated that the wolf predation on the elk would be compensatory so it wasn't a 1:1 wolf taking an elk that could be hunted.
When they put the estimated wolf kill graph on the screen and tired to quickly flip to the next slide, Miranda stopped them and told them to go back. She then wanted them to explain the numbers. I wish I had taken a pic of the slide but it started with 50 wolves, then 100, then 200, then 300 followed by the number of deer/elk killed by hunters each year. According to WDFW estimates, wolves kill an average of 20 deer and 8 elk/ea. per year. Gary again said he disagreed. He went through his papers and said Wyoming, Montana and Idaho now estimate they kill 44 deer and 20 elk/ea. per year. He said according to your chart that is double that of your estimated numbers. Miranda, not to let them off, then looked at the chart and told Nate that even with the low estimate WDFW have, the numbers show that the wolves would kill half of the numbers of elk that are slotted for hunters. :yike: Again they didn't have an answer.
Rocky was throwing out BS statements too, I would really like to see the study or documentation that backs up this statement he made, he said "the decline of ungulates in one unit in Montana resulted in an increase of ungulates in the neighboring units"
Another slide came up showing WDFW's estimate of annual costs involved in wolf management. This was laughable too and Chuck Perry grabbed hold of this one. He told Nate that costs for management in the other states is 2-3 times higher than WDFW's estimates it will cost, he then asked them why WDFW think they can do it so much cheaper, again with no answer!
So in a nut shell folks we have a pro wolf proposal with all kinds of holes in it, no real science, no option to reduce the number of breeding pairs, and a WDFW crew that are not concerned at all with the ramifications for hunters.
:tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup:
Very well stated..........................................................
Post by: Machias on October 07, 2011, 07:04:31 PM
So in a nut shell folks we have a pro wolf proposal with all kinds of holes in it, no real science, no option to reduce the number of breeding pairs, and a WDFW crew that are not concerned at all with the ramifications for hunters.
:puke:
Post by: KillBilly on October 07, 2011, 08:17:21 PM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi289.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fll238%2FHannibal47%2FTable13.jpg&hash=46ca1c15ec04b6a5a921e0bab4443542fe55a648)
Post by: mulehunter on October 07, 2011, 09:09:10 PM
Mulehunter. :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on October 07, 2011, 09:12:31 PM
From the Oregon Wolf Plan page 26: 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)
B. Management Phases and Population Objectives
Objectives
Set separate population objectives for two regions of the state: east and west of a line defined by U.S. Highway 97, U.S. Highway 20, and U.S. Highway 395 (see Figure 1: Divide Between East and West Wolf Management Areas).
Set a conservation population objective for eastern Oregon of four breeding pairs of wolves present for three consecutive years.
Set a management population objective for eastern Oregon of seven breeding pairs of wolves present for three consecutive years.
Protect wolves entering western Oregon, following delisting, under a management regime that replicates Oregon ESA protections.
Set a conservation population objective for western Oregon of four breeding pairs of wolves present for three consecutive years.
Set a management population objective for western Oregon of seven breeding pairs of wolves present for three consecutive years.
Strategies
The rulemaking process to consider delisting will be initiated when the conservation population objective for eastern Oregon is
met.
Three management phases (Phase I, Phase II and Phase III) will be delineated to enable the population objectives to be met.
Wolf population status will be expressed as the number of breeding pairs during Phases I and II until the management population objective is achieved in either region. The federal recovery definition for breeding pairs will be used. A breeding pair is an adult male and adult female with at least two pups surviving to the end of December.21
21 USFWS 1994.
When the management population objective is achieved in a region (Phase III), wolf population monitoring in that region will transition to counting the number of wolf packs present in the state. A pack is defined as four or more wolves traveling together in winter.
Management Phases
Phase I management activities will be directed toward achieving the conservation population objective of four breeding pairs of wolves present in eastern Oregon for three consecutive years. During this phase, wolves will continue to be listed under the Oregon ESA. Once the conservation population objective is achieved, the process to consider delisting will be initiated.
A breeding pair of wolves is defined as an adult male and an adult female with at least two pups surviving to the end of December. The number of wolves associated with a breeding pair can vary from six-14 wolves (USFWS 2002, 2003). In Idaho, the number of wolf packs represented by a breeding pair varied between 1.5 - 1.63 packs per breeding pair during the period 2002-2004. The average pack size was reported to be 6.4 - 7.8 wolves per pack. Idaho data applied to Oregon wolf population objectives suggests the following: four breeding pairs equates to 6 - 6.5 packs. This number of packs would be equivalent to 38.4 - 50.7 wolves. Seven breeding pairs equates to 10.5 - 11.4 packs. This number of packs would be equivalent to 67.2 - 89 wolves.
Under the Oregon ESA, either the state may on its own initiate the process to consider delisting, or any entity or person may petition the Commission to consider it. Considering delisting requires a public rulemaking process before the Commission, complete with full public notice, public hearing, and opportunity to submit comments. The law requires the Commission to base any delisting decision on scientific criteria related to the species’ biological status in Oregon and to use documented and verifiable scientific information.
If at the end of the process the Commission decides that delisting is justified, the Commission will specify where the conservation population objectives have and have not been met. After delisting and removal of Oregon ESA protections, if western Oregon has not met the conservation population objective, the Commission will continue to manage wolves in that area under a management regime that replicates Oregon ESA protections for individual wolves. Specifically, such a management regime generally will prohibit take of wolves, except as authorized by the Commission for damage and human safety. That management regime will continue until the Commission determines that western Oregon has achieved the conservation population objective, or until this Plan is amended through a public rulemaking process. The management regime for western Oregon is based upon the Commission’s statutory authority to regulate the take of wildlife. Even when a species is reclassified as a game mammal, the Commission retains the authority to regulate (and, where appropriate, prohibit) take of that species as necessary.
Phase II management activities will be directed toward achieving the management population objective of seven breeding pairs of wolves present in eastern Oregon for three consecutive years. During this phase, the wolf no longer will be listed. This phase provides a buffer whereby management actions would be initiated to prevent an unexpected decline in the wolf population that could necessitate relisting under the Oregon ESA.
Phase III management activities will be directed toward ensuring the wolf population does not decline below Phase II levels and that wolves do not climb to unmanageable levels that cause conflicts with other land uses. This phase provides for maintenance of wolf numbers. Setting a maximum population level for wolves in Oregon during this initial wolf planning effort may be premature. The Phase III management level is not intended as a population cap. As wolves become established in the state, wolf managers will be collecting data on wolf movements, pack home ranges, and other population parameters. This information, coupled with data regarding wolf conflicts, could be used to set maximum population levels in the future, depending on the circumstances at the time. A new planning effort based on wolf information specific to Oregon could be undertaken at that time.
Conservation Population Objective
The conservation population objective for Oregon is defined as four breeding pairs of wolves present for three consecutive years in eastern Oregon. This population objective represents a sufficient number of wolves to ensure the natural reproductive potential of the wolf population is not in danger of failure. This number also represents the point at which the Plan recommends initiating the process to consider delisting. In order to ensure four breeding pairs for three consecutive years, additional wolves would need to be present to replace natural losses of breeding adults. ODFW will use the federal definition of a wolf breeding pair because it provides a higher level of certainty in assessing the population status and documenting successful reproduction.
This conservation population objective is based on the prediction that, if the protections of the Oregon ESA are withdrawn when four breeding pairs have been present for three consecutive years in eastern Oregon, a naturally self-sustaining population of wolves would continue to exist in Oregon. This will support the necessary findings on the delisting criteria, justifying a Commission decision to delist the species.
Management Population Objective
Once the conservation population objective is met, management will be directed toward achieving the management population objective of seven breeding pairs present for three consecutive years. The management population objective is intended to ensure maintenance of the wolf population. Achieving this objective will provide a high level of assurance that the wolf population will not decline. Once this population objective has been achieved, further population goals (higher or lower) will be defined through ODFW’s normal rule-making process based on available data and public input.
The status of wolves in Oregon will be expressed as the number of breeding pairs until the management population objective is met. After the management population objective is met, monitoring methods will transition to enumerating wolf packs rather than breeding pairs to reduce monitoring costs.
General Discussion of Wolf Population Objectives
One of the main challenges for wolf planners in Oregon has been estimating the number and distribution of wolves sufficient to achieve conservation of wolves in Oregon and satisfy state delisting criteria, while protecting the social and economic interests of all Oregonians. Setting population goals too high could foster unrealistic expectations and result in social and biological conflict, and uncertainty regarding the capacity of Oregon to support wolves. Drafters of this Plan relied on information from other state Plans and the scientific literature to develop wolf population objectives.
Uncertainties surrounding the eventual location of dispersing wolves were considered during development of the Plan. One concern was that considerable time could pass before wolves would naturally disperse to western Oregon. In the meantime, wolves would be located primarily in eastern Oregon where human tolerance could be affected as the wolf population increased.
The decision to divide the state into two regions (eastern and western Oregon) with separate but equal population objectives provides the flexibility needed to manage increasing wolf numbers in eastern Oregon while encouraging conservation in western Oregon. The statewide process to consider delisting could be initiated when four breeding pairs of wolves are present for three consecutive years in eastern Oregon. This approach ensures connectivity to the large meta-population of wolves in Idaho, an important factor in achieving conservation of wolves in Oregon.
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).
Because of the proximity of northeastern Oregon to Idaho packs, dispersing wolves initially occupied areas in northeastern Oregon (see Figure 4: Wilderness and Roadless Land in Eastern Oregon and Central Idaho). Wolf breeding pairs in these areas could be considered more secure and stable because of their proximity and connectivity to the Idaho population of wolves. However, other competing factors such as declining ungulate populations, competing carnivore populations and livestock production in those areas will need to be considered. Wolf movement and dispersal between the two populations would allow gene flow between the populations. The large source population of wolves in Idaho will provide a continuing source of dispersing wolves in Oregon. Eventually, the two populations could function as one large population, with the Oregon segment representing a wolf range expansion in North America. Oregon’s close proximity to a population that numbers more than 840 wolves provides certainty that dispersing wolves will continue to enter Oregon at an unknown rate. Over time, a better knowledge of the dispersal and immigration rates may emerge. Fluctuations in the wolf population in Oregon may be minimized to some extent by the presence of dispersing Idaho wolves. State law does not allow the presence of healthy populations of wolves in adjacent states to satisfy delisting criteria, regardless of their importance to wolves located within the state. The number of breeding pairs and their distribution within Oregon must be sufficient to stand alone in determining whether the delisting criteria are met. However, researchers have noted that the establishment of new populations and maintenance of populations that are heavily controlled or harvested rely extensively on a source population of wolves (Fuller et al. 2003).
Post by: TheHunt on October 07, 2011, 09:25:18 PM
Post by: bearpaw on October 07, 2011, 09:27:05 PM
Strategy
• ODFW will request through the legislative process that the “game mammal” definition in ORS 496.004(9) be amended to add the gray wolf, additionally labeled as a “special status mammal” within that definition.
Through a public rulemaking process, the Commission shall define the substantive standards governing this classification to include but not be limited to those below. • Controlled take of wolves would be permitted as a management response tool to assist ODFW in its wildlife management efforts only after the wolf population objectives in the region to be affected have been exceeded and other biological considerations indicate the use of these management tools would not result in the impairment of wolf viability in the region. Controlled take would be authorized as a response to:
1 chronic livestock depredation problems in a localized region where wolf population levels have grown to beyond stable levels; or
2 any wild ungulate population is experiencing population or recruitment declines below MOs in a WMU, or locally, that can be attributed to wolf predation. These scenarios are designed as management response mechanisms should the condition arise where continued growth of a healthy wolf population has proven to impose unacceptable levels of conflict with livestock and/or wild ungulate populations. The use of these management tools is designed to respond to the interests of hunters and trappers, as well as the interests of protecting livestock and healthy levels of wild ungulate populations.
• Controlled take would be permitted by ODFW through a license program and targeted at wolves in a specific location experiencing the above-mentioned conditions that warrant a management response.
• A controlled take program for wolves would require: 1) wolf population objectives for the wolf conservation region have been exceeded; and 2) other biological considerations indicate the use of this management tool would not impair wolf viability in the region.
• General season hunts would not be permitted.
• Trapping would be used as a management tool for both lethal and non-lethal management control. Before receiving a license/permit from ODFW, trappers must be certified by ODFW. Where lethal control is the desired management response, such trappers would be permitted to keep the wolves they have trapped under these prescribed circumstances.
• Maximum enforcement of applicable statutes imposing penalties for harming or killing a wolf illegally would be sought by the State. Rewards would exist for citizens who turn in or provide information leading to the conviction of someone who has illegally killed a wolf; such as those offered by other entities Defenders of Wildlife and the Hells Canyon Preservation Council.
• Where consistent with the above, Oregon’s wildlife laws, wildlife damage statutes, and other related statutes would otherwise remain applicable to this classification.
Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan /Chapter II – Wolf Conservation Page 36
• Nothing in this classification would otherwise change legal options available to livestock producers and other citizens under this Plan or other current law aimed at addressing wildlife damage, livestock protection, and protection of human life.
Wildlife are managed in Oregon under the Oregon Wildlife Policy (ORS 496.012) which states in part: “wildlife shall be managed to prevent serious depletion of any indigenous species and to provide the optimum recreational and aesthetic benefits for present and future generations of the citizens of this state.” The policy includes seven co-equal goals for wildlife management by which wolves will be managed after the goals of this Plan are achieved and after they are de-listed.
The special status mammal classification recognizes the wolf’s distinct history of extirpation and conflict with certain significant human activities, as well as its distinct place in human social attitudes (revered by some but reviled by others) based on experiences and myths that span centuries. This classification is based on Oregon’s management successes with respect to other large carnivores (e.g., black bear, cougar) but also recognizes human and wolf behavior factors that make the wolf somewhat distinct from other large carnivores. It provides the most options for long term management by retaining, in addition to protective measures, tools such as responsive hunting and trapping when required for management purposes, although these management tools would not be applied in the same manner as under a traditional game mammal or fur bearer classification. This would serve the interest of adaptive management capability.
Post by: bearpaw on October 07, 2011, 09:29:55 PM
Post by: actionshooter on October 07, 2011, 10:09:08 PM
Do we need an email fire storm to our leadership?
It sure couldn't hurt!!
Post by: sebek556 on October 07, 2011, 10:19:37 PM
Do we need an email fire storm to our leadership?when emailing a congressman or senator, its not them that read it, it is secatary's and such, so unless there are a flood of them they usualy just the standard auto response and filed away in the garbage can, but if you get a bunch then a note get taken down to say hey we have some to alot of concerns or this topic. If you get enough you will get a speach writer to type up a good happy feely response to you, and even more still maybe some air time with the happy feely speach. either way it can;t hurt.
Post by: huntnphool on October 07, 2011, 10:29:00 PM
Thats the slide Killbilly, only difference was it had hunter harvest numbers next to the 300 wolf category, this made it easy to see how it would effect the hunters allotted harvest.
Post by: Feanix on October 07, 2011, 10:52:56 PM
Post by: KillBilly on October 08, 2011, 05:15:19 AM
Send emails to the commission, they will read them. Make sure the emails thank Greg and Miranda for their diligence in getting to the realistic numbers and potential impact the wolves have proven to have in other states. The two of them really were holding WDFW's feet to the fire and not having any of their BS estimates.
Thats the slide Killbilly, only difference was it had hunter harvest numbers next to the 300 wolf category, this made it easy to see how it would effect the hunters allotted harvest.
I will be getting the entire presentation in a couple of days and will share it. By the way that's Gary and Miranda
Post by: Kain on October 08, 2011, 10:47:30 AM
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=232-12-011 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=232-12-011)
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=232-12-014 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=232-12-014)
Post by: huntnphool on October 10, 2011, 01:46:05 PM
Post by: Dogen on October 13, 2011, 04:35:19 PM
Is there audio recoding anywhere from this meeting?
Audio of the meeting is now on WDFW's website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2011/10/audio_oct0611.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2011/10/audio_oct0611.html)
Post by: huntnphool on March 05, 2013, 01:41:22 PM
I just went through this entire thread again and now I'm just as pissed off as I was when I walked out of that meeting. :bash:
Post by: Gringo31 on March 05, 2013, 01:44:14 PM
Who'd of thunk?
Post by: huntnphool on March 05, 2013, 01:45:52 PM
Crazy eh?Go through and read our comments and quotes as we sat in the meeting, unbelievable. :DOH:
Who'd of thunk?
Post by: bearpaw on March 19, 2013, 01:02:40 PM
Please help get wolf legislation passed. This is an important step in the right dirtection, ACTION NEEDED TODAY.
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,121109.msg1597573.html#msg1597573 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,121109.msg1597573.html#msg1597573)
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 20, 2013, 03:04:20 PM