Post by: pianoman9701 on December 28, 2011, 08:51:26 AM
I got a response from The USFWS representative, Douglas Zimmer. It's to the point and very clear. I may be naive, but from the responses I've received from both the feds and the WDFW, I'm personally convinced that neither have, are, or will release wolves into our state. Here's the email I received from Doug moments ago:
"It is not the current policy of the USFWS to release gray wolves into Washington state. It has never been done, it is not contemplated and I doubt if it ever will be.
Re-introduction of a controversial species like wolves would not be done without coordination with the relevant State agencies. In the case of Washington, gray wolves are recolonizing the state from British Columbia and there is no need for any re-introduction effort.
I personally have been involved in the oversight of gray wolf issues in Washington for over two decades and I can absolutely state that the federal government has never moved wolves into Washington or even contemplated moving wolves into Washington.
Anyone who tells you different is misinformed or lying.
Doug Zimmer,
Supervisor, Information & Education
Washington Fish and Wildlife Office
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Lacey, WA 98503
360/753-4370"
I hope this puts that specific issue to bed so we can move on to more pertinent wolf management topics.
Pman
Post by: Whitpirate on December 28, 2011, 09:00:48 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 28, 2011, 09:03:45 AM
Well this is getting interesting. Pack the cameras fellas! If we see the mystery trailer with puppies in it we gotta get pictures.
After making these statements, and the one from the WDFW was also quite clear, they have nothing to gain by releasing and everything to lose. That doesn't mean that some greenie or wolf advocate with a sanctuary isn't doing it. A private citizen doing this would be violating several state and federal laws, big ones, and would likely face jail time if prosecuted. If you can get pictures of them, you'd be performing a great service.
Post by: bobcat on December 28, 2011, 09:04:19 AM
Post by: bearpaw on December 28, 2011, 09:04:55 AM
However, this does not discount the high probabilty that wolf groups or individual wolf lovers may be illegally releasing wolves. :twocents:
Wolf Hybrids have been turning up in the state too, so we have no way of knowing how many of our wolves are hybrids.
Definitely take any photos possible.....
I almost forgot to compliment piano for sending the letter.... :tup:
Post by: bobcat on December 28, 2011, 09:06:20 AM
Post by: BIGINNER on December 28, 2011, 09:07:43 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 28, 2011, 09:09:11 AM
what about translocating wolves? :dunno:
The wolf plan clearly states that translocation is part of their plan when and where needed.
Post by: KillBilly on December 28, 2011, 09:11:43 AM
Anyway, thank you John for getting it documented for all to see. That will make it easier.
Post by: bone collector 12 on December 28, 2011, 09:19:31 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 28, 2011, 09:23:05 AM
Hmmm, I was not aware that we did not already know that. I had read that somewhere many months ago. I hqave been telling people that for many months. I was not aware that clarification was needed.
Anyway, thank you John for getting it documented for all to see. That will make it easier.
I couldn't find the other thread where this came up, but as soon as I got the answer from the state, someone said, "yeah, but that doesn't mean the Feds won't do it." So I got this. It's funny, the plan is plenty bad enough for us without making stuff up. But maybe if we can get the garbage out of the way, we can work on the true issues.
Post by: bearpaw on December 28, 2011, 09:24:49 AM
bone collector 12, I thinkthat if a wolf was shot and it dna'd as a hybrid, nothing could be done. But unless there is a surefire way to know before pulling the trigger, that is a huge chance to take with your freedom. Anyone convicted of shooting a wolf is going to pay a high price at this point.
I have heard some people who think we need to translocate wolves so that we can get management underway in areas already being impacted. Not saying I agree, just reporting comments I have heard.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 28, 2011, 09:25:01 AM
so if they are not full blood grey wolfs then can't we shoot them? honest question
You'd better be an expert if you pull the trigger. Identifying a hybrid on the run would be a real challenge for a biologist, never mind one of us hunters. One mistake and the ESA is going to take away all your stuff and your freedom. They're not going to mess around.
Post by: bone collector 12 on December 28, 2011, 09:32:34 AM
okk thanks for the clarification on that oneso if they are not full blood grey wolfs then can't we shoot them? honest question
You'd better be an expert if you pull the trigger. Identifying a hybrid on the run would be a real challenge for a biologist, never mind one of us hunters. One mistake and the ESA is going to take away all your stuff and your freedom. They're not going to mess around.
Post by: BIGINNER on December 28, 2011, 09:33:35 AM
what about translocating wolves? :dunno:
The wolf plan clearly states that translocation is part of their plan when and where needed.
isn't basically like introducing wolves? just a different name for it, wolves come in from canada or idaho,.. and they can trap them and move them anywhere in the state..... :dunno: :dunno:
Post by: Knocker of rocks on December 28, 2011, 09:38:41 AM
I couldn't find the other thread where this came up, but as soon as I got the answer from the state, someone said, "yeah, but that doesn't mean the Feds won't do it." So I got this. It's funny, the plan is plenty bad enough for us without making stuff up. But maybe if we can get the garbage out of the way, we can work on the true issues.:yeah: Thanks. This is what we need, facts and specifics. I've seen and been aware of wolves in the Frasier, Chilliwack and upper Skagit of BC for about 20 years. I don't really know anything about Canada's wolf management, but it sure seems like their population has increased and thereby increased their range into the US incrementally. This could be due to a decrease of official pressure upon their wolf population.
WDFW has denied the existence of wolves in the Nooksack several times. I believe that any biologist who made this claim was in error.
Post by: Bob33 on December 28, 2011, 09:40:25 AM
Introduction increases the number of wolves in the state; translocation does not.what about translocating wolves? :dunno:
The wolf plan clearly states that translocation is part of their plan when and where needed.
isn't basically like introducing wolves? just a different name for it, wolves come in from canada or idaho,.. and they can trap them and move them anywhere in the state..... :dunno: :dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on December 28, 2011, 09:42:56 AM
I couldn't find the other thread where this came up, but as soon as I got the answer from the state, someone said, "yeah, but that doesn't mean the Feds won't do it." So I got this. It's funny, the plan is plenty bad enough for us without making stuff up. But maybe if we can get the garbage out of the way, we can work on the true issues.:yeah: Thanks. This is what we need, facts and specifics. I've seen and been aware of wolves in the Frasier, Chilliwack and upper Skagit of BC for about 20 years. I don't really know anything about Canada's wolf management, but it sure seems like their population has increased and thereby increased their range into the US incrementally. This could be due to a decrease of official pressure upon their wolf population.
WDFW has denied the existence of wolves in the Nooksack several times. I believe that any biologist who made this claim was in error.
There are photos on this forum of wolves along the skagit river, it was commented that WDFW is trying to claim they are hybrids, but in my opinion they have now way of knowing that for sure unless they dna them.
With that said, the WDFW should actively be trying to find and remove hybrids so they do not breed with and destroy wild wolves genetics in the state. :twocents:
Post by: jackelope on December 28, 2011, 10:13:54 PM
Hmmm, I was not aware that we did not already know that. I had read that somewhere many months ago. I hqave been telling people that for many months. I was not aware that clarification was needed.
Anyway, thank you John for getting it documented for all to see. That will make it easier.
Seems to completely depend on who is on the other end of the conversation, Al. I'm sure there will be someone to call BS on the letter...say it isn't true, big white trucks in the Methow clearly releasing wolves from Canada or wherever...etc...This won't stop certain folks from believing that the fed's are releasing them here.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 28, 2011, 11:10:02 PM
I couldn't find the other thread where this came up, but as soon as I got the answer from the state, someone said, "yeah, but that doesn't mean the Feds won't do it." So I got this. It's funny, the plan is plenty bad enough for us without making stuff up. But maybe if we can get the garbage out of the way, we can work on the true issues.I think you are referring to one of my comments. I don't think I said they ever had released any, just that the greenie groups are working really, really hard to find a way to get the USFWS to release the wolves. When the report years ago came out with the two most critical park systems that could 'benefit' :dunno: from wolves---#1 was Yellowstone and a very close #2 was Olympic. The greenies have been going as far as to assisting with the feasibility studies, consulting all kinds of bios/ecos, and contacting outside groups. They want it to mimic the fisher reintroduction that occurred a couple years ago. Also, I doubt the greenies (in my area) are releasing wolves on their own--they are more the science and courtroom greenies. Recently they have been distracted with all kinds of other things--expanding national parks/wilderness areas, trying to ban lead bullets and recreational shooting, stopping biomass plants, shutting down ORVs, decommissioning roads, etc. They weren't happy when WDFW told them NO about translocating the wolves to Olympic. My guess is these groups will file a lawsuit in the next few years if the wolves aren't migrating (because the USFWS bios told them I-5 would act as a barrier). They have been accumulating a list of court cases.
Post by: Coastal_native on December 28, 2011, 11:29:51 PM
Introduction increases the number of wolves in the state; translocation does not.what about translocating wolves? :dunno:
The wolf plan clearly states that translocation is part of their plan when and where needed.
isn't basically like introducing wolves? just a different name for it, wolves come in from canada or idaho,.. and they can trap them and move them anywhere in the state..... :dunno: :dunno:
I don't know if I agree with that, but I think I know what you're trying to say. I can see them translocating wolves to places where they might not naturally disperse, like the ONP. Translocation can certainly increase the wolf population in the state if you consider it to be an expedited method of establishing new packs in new areas.
Post by: bentley30-06 on December 28, 2011, 11:49:44 PM
Post by: winshooter88 on December 28, 2011, 11:57:29 PM
Edited for spelling
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 29, 2011, 06:12:42 AM
I couldn't find the other thread where this came up, but as soon as I got the answer from the state, someone said, "yeah, but that doesn't mean the Feds won't do it." So I got this. It's funny, the plan is plenty bad enough for us without making stuff up. But maybe if we can get the garbage out of the way, we can work on the true issues.I think you are referring to one of my comments. I don't think I said they ever had released any, just that the greenie groups are working really, really hard to find a way to get the USFWS to release the wolves. When the report years ago came out with the two most critical park systems that could 'benefit' :dunno: from wolves---#1 was Yellowstone and a very close #2 was Olympic. The greenies have been going as far as to assisting with the feasibility studies, consulting all kinds of bios/ecos, and contacting outside groups. They want it to mimic the fisher reintroduction that occurred a couple years ago. Also, I doubt the greenies (in my area) are releasing wolves on their own--they are more the science and courtroom greenies. Recently they have been distracted with all kinds of other things--expanding national parks/wilderness areas, trying to ban lead bullets and recreational shooting, stopping biomass plants, shutting down ORVs, decommissioning roads, etc. They weren't happy when WDFW told them NO about translocating the wolves to Olympic. My guess is these groups will file a lawsuit in the next few years if the wolves aren't migrating (because the USFWS bios told them I-5 would act as a barrier). They have been accumulating a list of court cases.
No, I wasn't referring to any particular comment. Several people suggested in that thread that someone at the state or federal level must be releasing wolves. They aren't. I've now received responses from the state and feds explaining to me the process by which this could happen and it won't without public notice, studies, DNA and testing, trapping, etc. First, there is no budget money for any of this and the process would take millions. Secondly, they want the wolves to naturally locate where they will. Pushing them into habitat and finding out later that it won't support a population won't work.
I've now received several correspondences from the USFWS and WDFW regarding this issue. It doesn't matter what private groups want to do through the court system or anywhere else. Our government is not going to be releasing wolves. The endangered species guy I've been dealing with thinks that we'll probably reach delisting within 5 years and they all are just going to watch this take its course. As I've said previously, anyone releasing wolves on their own as private citizens face heavy fines and imprisonment.