Post by: huntrights on October 25, 2011, 01:23:33 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2011/11/agenda_nov0511.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2011/11/agenda_nov0511.html)
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
Download PDF version
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2011/11/agenda_nov0511.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2011/11/agenda_nov0511.pdf)
FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION MEETING
* November 3-5, 2011
** Ramada Spokane Airport
8909 West Airport Drive
Spokane, WA 99224
* Note: At this time, the Commission expects to conclude business by end of Friday and not meet on Saturday, November 5th
** Note: This meeting was originally scheduled in Olympia and has been moved to Spokane
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3
9:00 AM WORK SESSION - WOLF CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
Department staff will brief the Commission on the final Environmental Impact Statement /Recommended Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (Plan) process to date, including activities of the Wolf Working Group, comments received from the public and through scientific peer reviews and the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) process. The Commission may consider approval of a final Wolf Conservation and Management Plan later this year.
Staff Report:
Nate Pamplin, Assistant Director, Wildlife Program
Rocky Beach, Wildlife Diversity Division Manager, Wildlife Program
Harriet Allen, Endangered Species Section Mgr, Wildlife Program
12:00 Noon LUNCH BREAK
1:00 PM COLVILLE TRIBE WOLF MANAGEMENT PRESENTATION
Members of the Colville Tribe will make a presentation to the Commission.
1:15 PM WOLF CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN:
The Commission will continue its discussions with Department staff on the FEIS/Plan, followed by an opportunity for public input.
PUBLIC INPUT (This item only)
4:00 P.M. ADJOURN
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 4
7:30 AM 1. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
Pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i), the Commission will meet in executive session to discuss with legal counsel representing the agency litigation or potential litigation to which the agency is, or is likely to become, a party. No action will be taken in executive session, and the public is not permitted to attend the executive session.
9:30 AM 2. CALL TO ORDER
Approval of Meeting Minutes
Commissioners' Discussion
Director's Report Report / Operations Review (Joe Stohr)
10:00 AM 3. PROPOSED LAND TRANSACTIONS – DECISION:
The Commission will consider approval of various land transactions recommended by the Department for the protection of critical fish and wildlife habitat, enhancement of public recreation opportunities and responsible property management:
Proposed acquisition of 7,711.2 acres in Kittitas County
Staff Report:
Dan Budd, Real Estate Section Manager, Wildlife Program
PUBLIC INPUT (This item only)
10:30 AM BREAK
10:45 AM 4. IMPORTATION AND RETENTION OF DEAD NONRESIDENT WILDLIFE – Rule Briefing, Public Hearing, and Rule Action:
At the request of the Commission, Department staff will brief the Commission on the proposed amendments to WAC 232-12-021 Retention of dead nonresident wildlife.
Staff Report:
Dave Ware, Game Division Manager, Wildlife Program
PUBLIC INPUT (This item only)
11:00 AM 5. OPEN PUBLIC INPUT
The Commission is a direct link between citizens of Washington and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Comments on Department programs and topics of concern are welcome during this portion of the meeting.
NOTE: During this portion of the meeting, the public is encouraged to comment on issues that are not on the agenda for decision action.
11:30 AM
6. COMMISSION COMMITTEE REPORTS:
The Commissioners will discuss recent activities of the various Commission committees.
12:00 Noon LUNCH BREAK
1:00 PM
7. DETECTING UNGULATE POPULATION DECLINES - Briefing:
At the request of the Commission, Department staff will brief the Commission on how the Department detects declining ungulate population for deer and elk.
Staff Report:
Dave Ware, Game Division Manager, Wildlife Program
2:00 PM
8. HABITAT PROGRAM OVERVIEW – Briefing:
Department staff will brief the Commission on the current structure, expertise, collaboration and proactive approach to protecting, conserving and restoring fish and wildlife and the ecosystems they depend on.
Staff Report:
Lisa Veneroso, Assistant Director, Habitat Program
3:30 PM
9. MISCELLANEOUS AND MEETING DEBRIEF:
The Commission will discuss items that arise immediately before or during the meeting and after the preliminary agenda is published.
4:00 PM 10. OPEN PUBLIC INPUT
The Commission is a direct link between citizens of Washington and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Comments on Department programs and topics of concern are welcome during this portion of the meeting.
NOTE: During this portion of the meeting, the public is encouraged to comment on issues that are not on the agenda for decision action.
4:30 P.M. ADJOURN
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 5
*Note: At this time, the Commission expects to conclude business by end of Friday and not meet on Saturday, November 5th.
*Agenda is subject to change.
Contact the Fish and Wildlife Commission Office for further information:
Phone (360) 902-2267
Email: commission@dfw.wa.gov
Post by: KillBilly on October 27, 2011, 07:12:55 PM
Post by: Machias on November 01, 2011, 10:04:03 AM
Post by: KillBilly on November 01, 2011, 10:12:24 AM
Post by: Machias on November 01, 2011, 10:28:55 AM
Post by: Machias on November 01, 2011, 10:29:13 AM
Post by: Machias on November 01, 2011, 10:44:48 AM
Post by: huntrights on November 01, 2011, 10:46:58 AM
"Dear WDFW Commissioners,
I will not be able to attend the special meeting being held in Spokane on November 3, 2011. Although I would like to attend and speak during the public comment period allowed for the Wolf Conservation and Management Plan, I will not be able to attend this meeting. However, please consider the brief comments I would have presented.
My hope is that you, the WDFW Commission, will be able to filter through all of the information you have received from the public and the work group. You will hopefully make your decisions based on real facts versus half-truths, manipulated and/or incorrect or incomplete data, and propaganda.
Below are a few key points that I believe to be real facts about wolves that would be very difficult for anyone to deny:
• Wolves become habituated when they are protected from harm by people; this means they lose their fear and natural avoidance of people.
• Wolves can and do attack people, domestic animals, and livestock.
• Wolves are large apex predators; that means they are at the top of the food chain and have no natural predators of their own.
• Wolves primarily feed on ungulates, but they are driven by instinct, hunger, and opportunity; that is why they also pose a danger to people, domestic animals, and livestock.
• Wolves attack the weak in ungulate populations; however, that includes the pregnant and young in those species.
• There are 60,000 to 70,000 wolves in Canada and Alaska. Question: Why do people continue to call them a threatened species?
In my opinion, wolves should be managed from day-one for what they are as large predators, their potential negative impact on ungulate populations, and the threat they pose to people, domestic animals, and livestock."
There are many other facts such as these which you and others will hopefully present. Good luck.
As of 11-1-11, their agenda (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2011/11/agenda_nov0511.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2011/11/agenda_nov0511.html) ) appears to allow for public comment on the Wolf Conservation and Management Plan on Thursday, November 3rd sometime after 1:15 PM. However, remember the long list of speakers (70+) at the last meeting in Olympia; it’s first-come first-serve. Please make sure you look at their latest agenda as it is subject to change.
1:15 PM WOLF CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN:
The Commission will continue its discussions with Department staff on the FEIS/Plan, followed by an opportunity for public input.
PUBLIC INPUT (This item only)
There may also be an opportunity to speak on Friday, November 4th starting at 4:00PM; however, that time allows for speakers to talk about other WDFW topics.
4:00 PM 10. OPEN PUBLIC INPUT
The Commission is a direct link between citizens of Washington and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Comments on Department programs and topics of concern are welcome during this portion of the meeting.
NOTE: During this portion of the meeting, the public is encouraged to comment on issues that are not on the agenda for decision action.
Post by: Special T on November 01, 2011, 11:55:06 AM
Post by: TheHunt on November 01, 2011, 12:08:53 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on November 01, 2011, 08:15:56 PM
Post by: KillBilly on November 02, 2011, 06:37:24 AM
The public has 1/2 of input ? If so, typical huh !
It looks like that but not so. Last meeting they had 70 some presenters and were there very late. they give everyone that signs up 3 minutes. they don't cut it off to adjourn on time. Fred I have some info for you, try to call me back again please. If I don't hear from you, 8:00 is when you should be there if you want to be near the first on the list.
Post by: sebek556 on November 03, 2011, 09:35:07 AM
Post by: bearpaw on November 03, 2011, 09:45:19 AM
Post by: Machias on November 03, 2011, 10:10:38 AM
Post by: sebek556 on November 03, 2011, 10:14:35 AM
Post by: Machias on November 03, 2011, 10:16:54 AM
I will be there for the public input with the following testimony and supporting data.
That is kick ass testimony right there! If they ignore those facts then there really is NO hope.
Post by: Special T on November 03, 2011, 11:22:53 AM
Post by: 724wd on November 03, 2011, 11:50:31 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 03, 2011, 11:55:38 AM
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on November 03, 2011, 12:21:58 PM
Extremely well put together testimony! Good luck and hope to hear how the meeting goes. The Archery Coalition is in the process of writing a letter to the Commission in regards to the wolf plan also. (the draft is out to the coalition board members of the WSAA, TBW and WSB for editing and approval). We plan on submitting our letter showing our displeasure with the WDFW plan and backing the Minority Plan that came out of the wolf working group. Thanks for all your hard work,
Post by: meathunter on November 03, 2011, 12:32:00 PM
Post by: Machias on November 03, 2011, 12:33:01 PM
Post by: meathunter on November 03, 2011, 12:43:53 PM
Meat
Post by: firefighter4607 on November 03, 2011, 01:12:39 PM
Post by: bearpaw on November 03, 2011, 03:45:49 PM
Post by: Machias on November 03, 2011, 03:49:51 PM
15 breeding pairs? From what I heard today I think that is going to be the number. I even heard fantasy land man saying 18 to 25 breeding pairs. Now he was speaking about why the state wouldn't need 3 years of 15 breeding pairs if we shot up to 18 to 25, but trust me that is a number he is hoping for.
Public input was supposed to begin at 1315, it started at 1505. Dale was first and Al was second and Sebek556 was third and I went fourth. They have 83 people signed up to speak. I considered just going up to say thanks for having the meeting on the Eastside and I concur with Dale and Al, but then I got to thinking, with all the wolf lovers in the room, maybe some of them will give up and head home, so I used my whole three minutes...actually I'm pretty sure they short changed me about 15 seconds, but no biggie, they got the gist of what I was saying. To be honest, I'm not sure how to take the commission. On one hand I like alot of what I heard, but on the other hand I feel like 15+ breeding pairs is full steam ahead. :dunno:
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 03, 2011, 03:53:25 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on November 03, 2011, 04:00:37 PM
Post by: CedarPants on November 03, 2011, 04:11:13 PM
Post by: Machias on November 03, 2011, 04:32:24 PM
Good afternoon, I’m with WFW and I agree with Mr. Denny's initial presentation. I would like to thank the Members of the Commission for having at least one meeting on the Eastside of the state for folks over here to voice their thoughts and opinions, especially since we will be impacted the most before delisting ever occurs. When I decided to come here and speak before the Commission I wondered how could I have even a tiny impact on the Commission’s decision. I am a 20 year veteran of the Air Force and I have had the privilege of hunting, fishing, trapping in several states. I’ve seen firsthand a well run Fish and Game Department and thriving wildlife populations. I’ve lived in states where the Departments enjoyed strong support from the public and from the hunting and fishing community. Sadly that is not the case here in Washington State. It’s sad because this state has so much potential. I have often wondered why that is, you have a state with huge amounts of public land and such beautiful and diverse wildlife populations, but it’s so poorly managed. I believe you’ll agree there is much distrust of Government these days whether your political leanings are left, right or center. Most people have little to no trust in the political process. In my opinion that is the key to the poor management of the wildlife in this great state. The state has long since left behind “scientific” Wildlife Management and somehow travelled down the path to “politically motivated” Wildlife Management. I heard, second hand, that someone on the Commission made the comment that 75% of the population wants the wolves to return to the state in significant numbers and that these folks vote. Yes they do, however the vast majority of them will not be impacted by wolves in the least bit. It’s no different than if the 49 other states in the Union decided they want to dump their garbage and toxic waste here in Washington and the politicians saying, well 90% of the population wants it! Sure they would, but how about the folks who are going to be impacted, the residents of Washington?!? I am happy wolves have returned and are continuing to return to the state. What I am worried about is the number of wolves the state wants before they will delist them. I am also worried that the state wants these goals attained in the entire state before they delist them anywhere in the state. This will have a devastating impact on the deer, elk, moose and caribou herds in eastern WA. Why does the Department want 15 breeding pairs before they will delist them, when MT, ID and WY have far more land, much higher prey numbers and far less people and still only needed 10 breeding pairs to begin the delisting process. It’s most likely politically motivated and not scientifically motivated. I would also like the Commission to take into account that once we reach 15 breeding pairs, that is when the litigation will begin in the state courts. You can realistically add YEARS to the delisting process which will have an enormous negative impact on Washington. I read a recent article which stated in Montana they started out with broad public support for the return of wolves and now due to court proceedings, delays and mismanagement by their Fish and Game Departments they have very little support left. So you may start off with widespread support, but it will not last. Please go back to “scientific” Wildlife Management and steer clear of the “politically motivated” Wildlife Management. You have the power and the ability to make everyone “mostly” happy, you can have wolves returned to this great state and manage them properly so they do not devastate wildlife populations and livestock. You have the power to get nearly the entire state in your corner, if you take the politics out of the management decisions. Thank you.
Post by: Machias on November 03, 2011, 04:47:05 PM
Lets remember that no matter what it sounds like at the public meeting, emails, phone calls and letters to not only the Commission but to your State Representatives will help.. The more they get flooded the more they will see the support against this current plan.
:tup: Agreed!
Post by: nwwanderer on November 03, 2011, 06:57:12 PM
with no solid on the ground goal.
This does not mean it is a lost cause. Numbers will yo-yo as all predator populations do, parvo, distemper and mange will take a great toll, wolves killing wolves will be the highest mortality cause and hot spots of severe damage probably will force the state and feds to rethink.
With a little luck no one dies protecting pets and livelyhoods.
Post by: TheHunt on November 03, 2011, 07:00:49 PM
Lets remember that no matter what it sounds like at the public meeting, emails, phone calls and letters to not only the Commission but to your State Representatives will help.. The more they get flooded the more they will see the support against this current plan.
:tup: Agreed!
I have already been doing that. I even sent email to the gov. BearPaw, that was a very thoughtful document you produced. :tup: Very well done... I want to thank everyone to attended and represented all of us.
Post by: UptheCreek on November 03, 2011, 07:28:23 PM
Post by: UptheCreek on November 03, 2011, 07:51:40 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on November 03, 2011, 08:03:16 PM
This was my testimony:Nicely done Machias :tup:
Good afternoon, I’m with WFW and I agree with Mr. Denny's initial presentation. I would like to thank the Members of the Commission for having at least one meeting on the Eastside of the state for folks over here to voice their thoughts and opinions, especially since we will be impacted the most before delisting ever occurs. When I decided to come here and speak before the Commission I wondered how could I have even a tiny impact on the Commission’s decision. I am a 20 year veteran of the Air Force and I have had the privilege of hunting, fishing, trapping in several states. I’ve seen firsthand a well run Fish and Game Department and thriving wildlife populations. I’ve lived in states where the Departments enjoyed strong support from the public and from the hunting and fishing community. Sadly that is not the case here in Washington State. It’s sad because this state has so much potential. I have often wondered why that is, you have a state with huge amounts of public land and such beautiful and diverse wildlife populations, but it’s so poorly managed. I believe you’ll agree there is much distrust of Government these days whether your political leanings are left, right or center. Most people have little to no trust in the political process. In my opinion that is the key to the poor management of the wildlife in this great state. The state has long since left behind “scientific” Wildlife Management and somehow travelled down the path to “politically motivated” Wildlife Management. I heard, second hand, that someone on the Commission made the comment that 75% of the population wants the wolves to return to the state in significant numbers and that these folks vote. Yes they do, however the vast majority of them will not be impacted by wolves in the least bit. It’s no different than if the 49 other states in the Union decided they want to dump their garbage and toxic waste here in Washington and the politicians saying, well 90% of the population wants it! Sure they would, but how about the folks who are going to be impacted, the residents of Washington?!? I am happy wolves have returned and are continuing to return to the state. What I am worried about is the number of wolves the state wants before they will delist them. I am also worried that the state wants these goals attained in the entire state before they delist them anywhere in the state. This will have a devastating impact on the deer, elk, moose and caribou herds in eastern WA. Why does the Department want 15 breeding pairs before they will delist them, when MT, ID and WY have far more land, much higher prey numbers and far less people and still only needed 10 breeding pairs to begin the delisting process. It’s most likely politically motivated and not scientifically motivated. I would also like the Commission to take into account that once we reach 15 breeding pairs, that is when the litigation will begin in the state courts. You can realistically add YEARS to the delisting process which will have an enormous negative impact on Washington. I read a recent article which stated in Montana they started out with broad public support for the return of wolves and now due to court proceedings, delays and mismanagement by their Fish and Game Departments they have very little support left. So you may start off with widespread support, but it will not last. Please go back to “scientific” Wildlife Management and steer clear of the “politically motivated” Wildlife Management. You have the power and the ability to make everyone “mostly” happy, you can have wolves returned to this great state and manage them properly so they do not devastate wildlife populations and livestock. You have the power to get nearly the entire state in your corner, if you take the politics out of the management decisions. Thank you.
Post by: sebek556 on November 03, 2011, 08:11:41 PM
Post by: KillBilly on November 03, 2011, 08:13:59 PM
forgot, here is my testimony:
November 3, 2011
Madam Chair, Commissioners and Director Anderson
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
George Washington.
"Science cannot be a mask behind which decision-makers can do anything that special-interests or ideology might dictate. The rightful place for science is as the basis of broad participatory and transparent conversations about how to solve the challenges we face. It is not okay to say the science made me do it while changing the science to justify policy decisions."
Francesca Grifo 1
The current plan obviously leans towards servicing the leftist agenda of Radical Environmentalism. This faction is known to live for stopping the use of animals as their religion and will go to no end to push their agendas.
We have pointed out on several occasions that 15 BPs with a 3 year waiting period to begin delisting is irresponsible. We have also repeatedly pointed out that refusing citizens their rights to protect themselves, and their pets & livestock is irresponsible.
This irresponsible plan leaves us no option but to view the wolf as an enemy instead of a natural part of nature and its plan. We are being asked to accept this enemy into our midst and ignore the losses and destruction it will cause other endangered species, and the already diminishing populations of wildlife.
It is time to end this debate; it is time to remind the department of their Mission and Goals as well as their responsibility to the people of the State of Washington.
The solution is to reject the current plan completely and require a new science based and responsible Wolf recovery and management plan.
Thank you,
Al Stover
1 Francesca Grifo, Senior Scientist and Director, Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists
Post by: nwwanderer on November 03, 2011, 08:17:30 PM
Post by: sebek556 on November 03, 2011, 08:28:00 PM
Post by: Special T on November 03, 2011, 08:37:23 PM
Post by: sebek556 on November 03, 2011, 08:46:07 PM
Post by: mulehunter on November 03, 2011, 08:57:15 PM
Cheer to all who go today
Mulehunter
Post by: sebek556 on November 03, 2011, 09:03:17 PM
Post by: KillBilly on November 04, 2011, 06:15:00 AM
Al, how was the final number on the testamonys? was it more for wolves or against?
I think the term "against the wolf" is not accurate. Against WDFWs plan is more precise.
I don't have an exact count but I feel like we had at least an equal share of the pie as far as testimony went. I do feel that those opposed to the plan presented better facts and more compelling arguments than the idealists did.
Post by: CedarPants on November 04, 2011, 06:56:23 AM
I can't believe the wolves on the Colville reservation completely escaped me as a consideration. Do they have any breeding pairs? Do they know how many wolves (roughly) they have? Does WDFW actively work with them in documenting numbers?
Sounds like the Colvilles are a potentially strong ally for us.
Sebek - did Jay seem sincere? If we have an active bio genuinely asking to be contacted with wolf sightings (and genuinely wanting to look into it), I think we should make full use of that offer as a group
Post by: 724wd on November 04, 2011, 07:35:51 AM
heath
Post by: Machias on November 04, 2011, 08:05:29 AM
Thank you again so much to everyone that went. Solid testimony guys, nicely done!
I can't believe the wolves on the Colville reservation completely escaped me as a consideration. Do they have any breeding pairs? Do they know how many wolves (roughly) they have? Does WDFW actively work with them in documenting numbers?
Sounds like the Colvilles are a potentially strong ally for us.
Sebek - did Jay seem sincere? If we have an active bio genuinely asking to be contacted with wolf sightings (and genuinely wanting to look into it), I think we should make full use of that offer as a group
If I understood the presentation, NO they have NOT worked with the state up to this point but did offer to work with the state, as long as the state understood their purpose in life is to ensure their members continue to have the same numbers of deer, elk and moose to hunt and any threat to that would be dealt with lethally or trap and transplant. They have documented wolves on the reservation that the State was unaware of....actually the State has no idea what so ever how many wolves we already have, that much was clear! One of the things that struck me was they have sent off scat samples to verify DNA...they did not send them to the state, they sent them to ID. They are going to allow 1 breeding pair on the reservation and one breeding pair in another location, that I could not understand, I believe it was near the Canadian border.
Post by: gramps on November 04, 2011, 08:10:46 AM
Post by: bearpaw on November 04, 2011, 08:11:35 AM
Post by: Machias on November 04, 2011, 08:18:03 AM
The one thing I worry about though is if they are whacking wolves then it will take even longer to delist the entire state, With the tribe up there controlling wolves and the ID border right there, it will be dang hard to have many wolves actually count towards this screwed up accounting system. :dunno:
Post by: CedarPants on November 04, 2011, 08:21:27 AM
Post by: bearpaw on November 04, 2011, 08:40:37 AM
Al and I stayed till the bitter end and it seemed to me that the wolfers may have outnumbered the rest of us slightly, thanks to the cattlemen, our side had a decent showing. I was very disappointed with the turn out of sportsmen. There were some SCI chapter reps, Hunters Heritage Council, a few hunters I didn't catch their name, and the four of us.
My biggest dissapointment and it actually upsets me to think about this, The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation was nowhere to be seen and I heard nothing from the Mule Deer Foundation. These organizations whose very reason for existance is at stake, and not a person that I heard testified on their behalf. The part that really makes me mad is all the money that leaves this state in support of RMEF and they will not even provide testimony on the wolf issue.
:bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
I tried to show graph comparisons that this state simply cannot support 15 bp's. Washington is smaller geographically, we have more people, we have a higher prvate land population, we have less public land acreage.
Another issue I was intent on was the fact that WDFW credibility is at an alltime low and we can not depend on them to find 15 BP's. I testified that I thought we needed a dozen trappers to find the wolves that are already here and that the one trapper we have in NE has to stop trapping one area when there is a report in another area. Several cattlemen and hunters made comments about this issue too. One cattleman said something to the affect "The WDFW cannot even find noxious weeds on WDFW lands, how are they going to find wolves!" :chuckle:
Commissioner Douvia asked me how many wolves our group thought there were, I told him we felt there were at least 116 in the state and about 50 in the NE corner, (my supporting data had the list of sightings that we have accumulated on this forum). I had provided the commissioners each with the packet of graph's that I posted earlier in this discussion.
Post by: bearpaw on November 04, 2011, 08:52:53 AM
Dale did they have anything to say regarding your statement about WDFW needing more experienced trappers and the faulty documenting process?
Commissioner Douvia asked about the trappers, I made a suggestion of a trapper I know, and I told them I thought the WDFW instead of hiring some guys out of college needed to find experienced local coyote trappers that the people know and can trust and that can get the job done, that this could actually help build trust in the WDFW. (I didn't see any reaction from Director Anderson and doubt they will do that, but it was worth bring up). I hope that the commissioners will push that issue.
Here's the way I see it. If we had only 15 BP's the state could probably support that. The problem is that 15 BP's in Idaho turned into something like 100 packs. We simply cannot count on WDFW to even find 15 BP's, we'll end up in the same boat as Idaho with some herds being decimated. First on that list is the moose and caribou in the NE corner. :twocents:
Post by: asl20bball on November 04, 2011, 09:09:32 AM
Sad, irresponsible, politically -not scientifically motived, and ignorant is all I can sit and come up with at this point. :'(
Post by: puyallupaul on November 04, 2011, 10:17:44 AM
Have all other Bugles . Joined first year. Went to first Convention in Spokane. Spent thousands at Coventions and local banquets.
Last word on this subject.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 04, 2011, 10:40:47 AM
Dear Sirs,
Please tell me why there were no representatives of the RMEF at the WDFW Wolf hearings in Spokane, WA yesterday. This was the last, and perhaps the most important opportunity for us to have a voice and an impact on the proposed, ridiculous wolf plan.
Many WA RMEF members were present and quite surprised that they weren't represented by their organization. I look forward to your reply. Thank you.
John W
Vancouver, WA
Member RMEF, NRA, USSA, WFW, wwwhunting-washington.com
Post by: CedarPants on November 04, 2011, 10:44:12 AM
Have to admit, it was extremely disappointing to see that RMEF didn't feel it was necessary to take the opportunity to provide their input at yesterday's meeting in Spokane with the Wildlife Commission on Washington State's proposed wolf management plan. This was the final opportunity for public comment before the Commission votes to adopt or reject WDFW's proposed plan, and your stance of "no comment" did not go unnoticed by the sportsmen of this state
Post by: CedarPants on November 04, 2011, 11:29:16 AM
"RMEF has attended some earlier public hearings on this and we have done a thorough review of the plan. Our official comment letter on the plan will be going out today"
I requested a copy of the official comment letter
Post by: mulehunter on November 04, 2011, 11:44:22 AM
Mulehunter
Post by: CedarPants on November 04, 2011, 11:47:59 AM
"The letter needs to get to the agency first, then I am am more than happy to send it to you next week....please send me your email - dhowell@rmef.org"
Post by: whacker1 on November 04, 2011, 11:54:44 AM
The actual number of breeding pairs? Anyones guess. 5 we were told today. That does not count 2 BPs on the Washington Oregon border in the Blues. That does not count the pack that frequents Tekoa Butte. That does not count the pack that is in and out of Washington on Mica peak. That does not count the pack that is in and out of Washington on Mount Spokane. Some of these would be counted if someone happens to see them with two or more pups after December. This does not count a documented female with pups (some say as many as 20 in the last three years) on the Washington Idaho border 50 miles north of Spokane (she does not fill the criteria, no male). You should begin to understand that the plan has some issues.
I went to listen to Jay Shepherd last spring when he spoke to the Spokane Audubon society. They base breeding pairs on where they den with the pups, so more or less where these animals are spotted in the spring with their pups. the challenge is that they will not be considered a breeding pair unless they have both the alpha male and the female with the pups present. So, for the border areas of either Canada, Idaho or Oregon. You get some breeding females and pups that aren't considered a breeding pair, because the alpha is not present and may have come from across the border. It is a very flawed system based on the fact that we have to use state lines as boundaries that are completely irrelevant to the wolves.
thank you to all of you that attended and testified. I wasn't able to make it.
Post by: Sumpnneedskillin on November 04, 2011, 12:15:12 PM
Thanks KREM you just made us hunter sound like all we want to do is kill animals. No mention that our message is the WDFW's plan is flawed!
Post by: KillBilly on November 04, 2011, 01:23:37 PM
Thank you again so much to everyone that went. Solid testimony guys, nicely done!
I can't believe the wolves on the Colville reservation completely escaped me as a consideration. Do they have any breeding pairs? Do they know how many wolves (roughly) they have? Does WDFW actively work with them in documenting numbers?
Sounds like the Colvilles are a potentially strong ally for us.
Sebek - did Jay seem sincere? If we have an active bio genuinely asking to be contacted with wolf sightings (and genuinely wanting to look into it), I think we should make full use of that offer as a group
If I understood the presentation, NO they have NOT worked with the state up to this point but did offer to work with the state, as long as the state understood their purpose in life is to ensure their members continue to have the same numbers of deer, elk and moose to hunt and any threat to that would be dealt with lethally or trap and transplant. They have documented wolves on the reservation that the State was unaware of....actually the State has no idea what so ever how many wolves we already have, that much was clear! One of the things that struck me was they have sent off scat samples to verify DNA...they did not send them to the state, they sent them to ID. They are going to allow 1 breeding pair on the reservation and one breeding pair in another location, that I could not understand, I believe it was near the Canadian border.
I BP on the res and 1 BP on the northern half
Post by: KillBilly on November 04, 2011, 02:09:48 PM
The tribe was not putting out a solid number, but Peone said they might be looking at 1 BP on the Reservation and 1 BP on the north half and that they planned to manage wolves but didn't have their wolf plan yet. He said something about the tribe being willing to translocate wolves and I had to chuckle. I was told two years ago "The tribe likes eating deer, elk, and moose and don't really want many wolves." and their testimony held true to that. Best part as I see it, the WDFW can't tell them not to kill wolves and Eastern WA is already federally delisted, I just wished they had a larger hunting area in the NE than the just north half. At this point I see the tribe as the only meaningful hope for management in the foreseeable future.
The tribes today can hunt off of the reservation anytime and anywhere they want to. They are allowed to ignore our seasons in most cases too. It may be that being under Federal classification, that they may be the greatest lethal control tool we could want in the delisted area.
Post by: huntnphool on November 04, 2011, 03:21:09 PM
Post by: winshooter88 on November 04, 2011, 03:40:04 PM
Post by: KillBilly on November 04, 2011, 03:48:35 PM
Post by: KillBilly on November 04, 2011, 03:54:04 PM
Well done guys, I understand how difficult it is to be at those meetings and not blow a gasket. :tup:
Actually Rob I find it more amusing than angering. It is almost surreal at one moment and unreal the next. We pay these folks good money to stutter and stammer when caught trying to sell us crap. When questioned they look at each other then look at the Director, then he tries to answer for them.... it is truly a traveling magic act and animal show.... kinda like the monkey and foot ball thing.... :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on November 04, 2011, 05:41:17 PM
The actual number of breeding pairs? Anyones guess. 5 we were told today. That does not count 2 BPs on the Washington Oregon border in the Blues. That does not count the pack that frequents Tekoa Butte. That does not count the pack that is in and out of Washington on Mica peak. That does not count the pack that is in and out of Washington on Mount Spokane. Some of these would be counted if someone happens to see them with two or more pups after December. This does not count a documented female with pups (some say as many as 20 in the last three years) on the Washington Idaho border 50 miles north of Spokane (she does not fill the criteria, no male). You should begin to understand that the plan has some issues.
I went to listen to Jay Shepherd last spring when he spoke to the Spokane Audubon society. They base breeding pairs on where they den with the pups, so more or less where these animals are spotted in the spring with their pups. the challenge is that they will not be considered a breeding pair unless they have both the alpha male and the female with the pups present. So, for the border areas of either Canada, Idaho or Oregon. You get some breeding females and pups that aren't considered a breeding pair, because the alpha is not present and may have come from across the border. It is a very flawed system based on the fact that we have to use state lines as boundaries that are completely irrelevant to the wolves.
thank you to all of you that attended and testified. I wasn't able to make it.
A pack must meet all the qulifications for being a "recognized breeding pair" for 3 consecutive years, or they are not counted as a breeding pair. We could have two hundred wolves, but unless WDFW confirms that a breeding pair successfullly breeds and has at least 2 pups at the end of December, for 3 years in a row, they will not be counted. :bash:
Post by: nwwanderer on November 04, 2011, 05:53:06 PM
Post by: bearpaw on November 04, 2011, 06:02:01 PM
Response from RMEF:
"RMEF has attended some earlier public hearings on this and we have done a thorough review of the plan. Our official comment letter on the plan will be going out today"
I requested a copy of the official comment letter
Another person called the Missoula main office and was told they didn't know about the meeting, he was given the name of a guy here in Washington who is supposed to represent RMEF that can be called: Mike Hale 509-826-5571
Post by: CedarPants on November 04, 2011, 06:09:18 PM
Response from RMEF:
"RMEF has attended some earlier public hearings on this and we have done a thorough review of the plan. Our official comment letter on the plan will be going out today"
I requested a copy of the official comment letter
Another person called the Missoula main office and was told they didn't know about the meeting, he was given the name of a guy here in Washington who is supposed to represent RMEF that can be called: Mike Hale 509-826-5571
Contacted them directly today via email, just over an hour ago they emailed me a copy of the letter they sent to WDFW. I posted it here:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,86862.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,86862.0.html)
Post by: KillBilly on November 04, 2011, 06:32:05 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on November 04, 2011, 06:45:39 PM
Post by: CedarPants on November 04, 2011, 07:33:38 PM
Post by: KillBilly on November 04, 2011, 08:04:49 PM
We are where we are, and I don't think that we are in a bad position at all. We have made an impression as an organization and a group of individuals that can and will work together towards one goal. We presented science based data and arguments. We prepared and delivered. Believe me they know who we are and we truly have gained their respect. We learn from our mistakes and short comings.
I am not saying we have lost this battle. I am still positive we have a good chance of getting the Wolf plan rejected. I think we need to put together a few more well worded and thought out letters to the Commission. If we can get 2-3000 of us to mail or e-mail them it sure won't hurt. With 9000 heads of colleagues we should surely be able to muster that much support.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on November 04, 2011, 08:13:05 PM
Post by: CedarPants on November 04, 2011, 08:17:59 PM
Who knows, maybe if we had known they sent WDFW a letter at all, we could have convinced the to support our position. It is obvious they weren't aware of us or our position on the Wolf subject. .
We are where we are, and I don't think that we are in a bad position at all. We have made an impression as an organization and a group of individuals that can and will work together towards one goal. We presented science based data and arguments. We prepared and delivered. Believe me they know who we are and we truly have gained their respect. We learn from our mistakes and short comings.
I am not saying we have lost this battle. I am still positive we have a good chance of getting the Wolf plan rejected. I think we need to put together a few more well worded and thought out letters to the Commission. If we can get 2-3000 of us to mail or e-mail them it sure won't hurt. With 9000 heads of colleagues we should surely be able to muster that much support.
Completely agree Al.
wolf issue is on King 5 at 11 ..cant wait to hear this :yeah:
KXLY over here is running some special in a few days about "The Big Bad Wolf" or something like that. Can't wait to see how that pans out either
Post by: bearpaw on November 04, 2011, 10:03:58 PM
I am glad that they at least sent a letter..... :dunno:
Post by: CedarPants on November 04, 2011, 10:28:43 PM
I thought the letter sounded like they didn't want to step on any toes. Maybe they are in the middle of another big land deal. Bottom line is the letter had no teeth, it was kind of like saying we really don't want to see wolves in Washington, but we're with you no matter what you decide. :bash:
I am glad that they at least sent a letter..... :dunno:
Bingo. I thought they made a decent effort at expressing the concerns of the hunting community, and they clearly did some homework on historical wolf depradation on ungulates in neighboring states ....... but at the end of the day they came across as saying "we're with you no matter what Phil" :dunno: