Post by: denali on January 13, 2012, 04:49:55 PM
Legislation would regionalize wolf plan
By STEVE BROWN
Capital Press
OLYMPIA -- Whether wolves should be protected on a statewide basis only or by region was debated during a legislative hearing this week.
The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee heard testimony on House Bill 2214, which would affect the state's recently adopted Wolf Conservation and Management Plan. The bill would authorize the state Fish and Wildlife Commission to consider petitions to change the classification of an endangered or threatened species on a regional basis. It currently must be addressed on a statewide basis.
The authority would apply only if the species in question is a "mammalian apex predator" such as a wolf.
The legislation has bipartisan sponsorship, and a companion bill, SB6136, has been introduced in the Senate.
The state has five confirmed wolf packs, plus reported activity in three other areas.
The wolf management plan sets a goal of 15 breeding pair statewide and allows for downlisting of the predator as certain population goals are reached in all three specific recovery areas. After it is delisted, it is anticipated the wolf will be recommended as a game species.
Rep. David Taylor, R-Moxee, said he helped write the bill to allow for a faster response to a growing wolf population, especially in areas where communities depend on hunting. The wolves' impact on ungulates such as deer and elk would severely impact those communities' economies.
Jack Field, executive vice president of the Washington Cattlemen's Association, said the existing plan entails a long lag time before the animal can be delisted in areas where it has the most impact on wildlife and livestock.
"This is not a sustainable, holistic plan," he said.
After Linda Saunders of Wolf Haven International urged legislators to "give the plan a chance to work," Rep. Joel Kretz, R-Wauconda, told her he has three packs in his district.
"We could end up with 10 or 12 packs," he said, "and it still depends on the rest of the state" before the animals can be delisted.
Heather Hansen, speaking for the Cattle Producers of Washington, said livestock in Stevens County is already being stressed by wolves' presence and that stress affects farmers' income.
"It's not fair for Eastern Washington to bear this burden," she said.
http://www.capitalpress.com/content/SB-Legis-wolf-plan-012012-art?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook
Post by: sebek556 on January 13, 2012, 04:56:16 PM
Post by: KillBilly on January 13, 2012, 05:48:12 PM
Energy, Natural Resources & Marine Waters Committee Members:
kevin.ranker@leg.wa.gov; debbie.regala@leg.wa.gov; jerome.delvin@leg.wa.gov; bob.morton@leg.wa.gov; karen.fraser@leg.wa.gov; jim.hargrove@leg.wa.gov; edward.murray@leg.wa.gov; dan.swecker@leg.wa.gov
Sample E-mail
Dear Senators of the Energy, Natural Resources & Marine Waters Committee
I am in support of SB 6136, Companion Bill to HB 2214. I support this Companion bill and agree that the Fish and Wildlife Commission and WDFW should be required to consider petitions to change the classification of an endangered or threatened species i.e. "mammalian apex predator" on a regional basis rather than on a Statewide basis.
The current Wolf Conservation and Management plan negatively affect individuals, communities, and entire industries, as well as putting a fragile economy at risk.
Thank you for your consideration of my views and beliefs.
Most Sincerely.
(Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone #)
I must ask you to be prepared for questions by committee members. There is a multitude of information right at your finger tips on the The Wolf Topics board. Please know and understand why you are sending these messages.
Post by: fishinmike on January 13, 2012, 05:53:27 PM
Post by: firefighter4607 on January 13, 2012, 06:23:34 PM
Update: Sent my off and so far have gotten a auto response back from 3 of them saying thanks for the email and they will read them later since they have been flooded with mail lately.
Post by: huntrights on January 13, 2012, 06:40:32 PM
To find your legislators select this link:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/districtfinder/default.aspx
Post by: KillBilly on January 13, 2012, 06:55:26 PM
I have written the three representatives in my district asking for their support of HB2214 and SB6136. It only takes a few minutes. If you go to your state Senator's web site first, they may have the option to copy your other Representatives; this way you only need to copy and paste your message once.
To find your legislators select this link:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/districtfinder/default.aspx
You need to make sure you e-mail the Committee as well, the three you e-mailed may not be on the Committee.
And I am assuming you meant your 2 Reps. and 1 Sen.
Post by: huntrights on January 13, 2012, 07:01:53 PM
Quote
You need to make sure you e-mail the Committee as well, the three you e-mailed amy not be on the Committee.
And I am assuming you meant your 2 Reps. and 1 Sen.
Yes, 2 Reps. & 1 Sen. I will also write the committee.
Post by: KillBilly on January 13, 2012, 11:21:10 PM
Post by: firefighter4607 on January 14, 2012, 02:26:31 PM
Post by: KillBilly on January 14, 2012, 04:49:00 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on January 15, 2012, 12:19:43 PM
Letters were sent. I believe the NE should have the ability to manage conflicts while the State works out the rest of its program.
For the record I believe the whole program will in the end be a disaster. Working with in the frame of the program does not condone it.
Post by: buckfvr on January 15, 2012, 12:21:58 PM
Post by: Rhinoron247 on January 15, 2012, 12:49:56 PM
Post by: et1702 on January 15, 2012, 01:23:20 PM
ET
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 15, 2012, 03:16:02 PM
Post by: Swannytheswan on January 15, 2012, 03:27:25 PM
Post by: Bandit on January 15, 2012, 03:39:25 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 15, 2012, 03:51:35 PM
Post by: asl20bball on January 15, 2012, 04:09:48 PM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 15, 2012, 04:20:32 PM
Post by: NWBREW on January 15, 2012, 04:44:02 PM
Post by: jennyfell55 on January 15, 2012, 07:10:55 PM
Post by: Whitpirate on January 16, 2012, 02:36:54 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 16, 2012, 05:19:21 AM
kevin.ranker@leg.wa.gov; debbie.regala@leg.wa.gov; jerome.delvin@leg.wa.gov; bob.morton@leg.wa.gov;
karen.fraser@leg.wa.gov; jim.hargrove@leg.wa.gov; edward.murray@leg.wa.gov; dan.swecker@leg.wa.gov
Dear Senator,
We fully support SB 6136, Companion Bill to HB 2214. I agree that the Fish and Wildlife Commission and WDFW should be required to change the classification of an endangered or threatened species i.e. "mammalian apex predator" on a regional basis rather than on a Statewide basis.
The current Wolf Conservation and Management plan negatively affects individuals, communities, and entire industries, as well as putting a fragile economy at risk.
Thank you for your consideration.
Most Sincerely,
Dale & Tara
Post by: rasbo on January 16, 2012, 05:43:25 AM
Post by: Woodchuck on January 16, 2012, 06:34:53 AM
Post by: grundy53 on January 16, 2012, 06:38:48 AM
Post by: jager on January 16, 2012, 08:27:17 AM
Post by: pendoreilleadventures on January 16, 2012, 08:31:20 AM
Post by: sebek556 on January 16, 2012, 09:54:03 AM
Post by: jackelope on January 16, 2012, 11:37:50 AM
Post by: jackelope on January 16, 2012, 11:41:00 AM
Post by: Special T on January 16, 2012, 11:56:21 AM
Sent
FYI KillBilly If you just put a space or 3 between each email adress you can cut and past the whole goup and most email programs will separate them.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 16, 2012, 12:08:33 PM
Post by: rasbo on January 16, 2012, 12:15:14 PM
Whny keep a running list?guilt trip for those that haven't :chuckle:
Post by: KillBilly on January 16, 2012, 12:52:15 PM
Post by: KillBilly on January 16, 2012, 12:54:44 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on January 16, 2012, 01:00:07 PM
Post by: KillBilly on January 16, 2012, 01:01:48 PM
Sent and forwarded to my email list of friendsThank you.
Post by: KillBilly on January 16, 2012, 01:02:20 PM
I would imagine it is so we have an idea of how many E-amils they got on the subject...
Sent
FYI KillBilly If you just put a space or 3 between each email adress you can cut and past the whole goup and most email programs will separate them.
The list is coma delineated and should accept the list just as it is...at least mine does. I hane not heard any other complaints but that doesn't mean it worked for everybody. I will check it on another application. what are you using or e-mail.
:tup:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on January 16, 2012, 01:03:02 PM
Whny keep a running list?
Does it bother you?
Post by: KillBilly on January 16, 2012, 01:26:43 PM
Strange how I since I sent an e-mail out yesterday yet name is not on there :dunno:
That happens when you hit CTR-C on the old list instead of the new one and the paste it... I had ya there just put the wrong list up.... :sry:
Post by: bearpaw on January 16, 2012, 01:46:29 PM
Dear Dale and Tara:
Thank you for your support of this bill, which I prime sponsored in the Senate.
Cordially yours,
BOB MORTON
State Senator
Post by: engelwood on January 16, 2012, 02:38:55 PM
Post by: Special T on January 16, 2012, 10:18:15 PM
Post by: Bigshooter on January 17, 2012, 02:45:06 AM
Post by: KillBilly on January 17, 2012, 04:52:34 AM
KB only mentioned it cause it didn't work on my Hotmail account...
I hear ya.. that's strange because I use hotmail also and it works for me... I did go ahead and add a space after each semi-colon. Maybe that will help.
Post by: rasbo on January 17, 2012, 08:24:38 AM
Rasbo, how woold you like a free woolcut. you are looking kind of nappy these days... :chuckle:shear me baby :chuckle:
Post by: Swannytheswan on January 17, 2012, 06:50:46 PM
Ben,
We just had a hearing on this bill in the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee (AGNR). I left with very mixed feelings on the bill. I feel for my colleagues in eastern Washington who are concerned that they will bear all of the weight of the recovery and that wolf recovery may be deemed achieved with all breeding pairs being located in Eastern Washington and none in Western Washington. That means passage of the bill will then require that wolves be reintroduced in Western Washington before recovery is deemed to be achieved. This guarantees that my constituents will bear the burden of wolf recovery and suffer all of the consequences. I am not sure I can support that…
Ed
Representative Ed Orcutt
18th Legislative District
Post by: KillBilly on January 17, 2012, 08:03:54 PM
In the event that HB2214 does not pass or die in Committee, then SB 6136 could be voted in. Either of the Bills will provide the relief that Ed Speaks of.
Post by: NWBREW on January 18, 2012, 12:50:31 AM
Post by: bighoss on January 18, 2012, 09:24:09 AM
Post by: KillBilly on January 18, 2012, 09:27:27 AM
That was the same response sent to many on the HB2214. I recieved the same one.
That is strange because this second round went to Senators only...Ed is a representative... :dunno:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 18, 2012, 09:41:55 AM
Post by: NWBREW on January 18, 2012, 09:56:19 AM
That was the same response sent to many on the HB2214. I recieved the same one.
That is strange because this second round went to Senators only...Ed is a representative... :dunno:
Sorry for the confusion Al. That was the response I recieved from Ed when I emailed the Represenatives. I have recieved nothing from my email sent to the Senators.
Post by: arees on January 18, 2012, 10:53:52 AM
Post by: Stlheader on January 19, 2012, 10:25:02 PM
If the current plan is nullified, and WDFW is required to manage on a regional basis, then it will help Eastern Washington because they are already delisted according to the feds. To quote from the bill "the commission must consider the parallel federal endangered species act status of the species in question for the region where a change in status is petitioned". This line essentially nullifies WDFW's plan. However, since there are currently no wolves in Western Washington, and we are arguing for "regional" management, how will we keep wolves out of Western Washington?
If the goal is simply to revoke WDFW's current plan then this will do it. Looking forward however, if we promote "regional" management it seems like we are advocating for wolf recovery in Western Washington. Am I way off?
Post by: Feanix on January 19, 2012, 11:35:42 PM
Adoption of the wolf management plan already requires wolves in western Washington. Passage of this bill wouldn't change that, but require the state to follow the federal ESA and delist in the eastern 1/3 of the state by my understanding.
Post by: KillBilly on January 20, 2012, 04:14:35 PM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/board,76.20.htmlIt would require to delist any region/zone that met it's disrtibution & BPs. Of course, the north 1/3 would be 1st because it has the most wolves but it would have to meet the 3 BPs for three years but that's way better than having to wait for the entire state... We really want HB 2214 to pass.
Adoption of the wolf management plan already requires wolves in western Washington. Passage of this bill wouldn't change that, but require the state to follow the federal ESA and delist in the eastern 1/3 of the state by my understanding.
Post by: KillBilly on January 21, 2012, 12:04:24 AM
At the very least everysingle member that lives in Eastern Washington should be sending this letter. Come on folks you are the ones that stand to gain the most by getting this Bill passed.
Post by: Fishmasterdan on January 21, 2012, 08:11:51 AM
Post by: JPhelps on January 21, 2012, 08:25:02 AM
Post by: KillBilly on January 21, 2012, 10:00:47 AM
1 Denali
2 Killbilly
3 Fishinmike
4 Firefighter4607
5 Jshunt
6 Wenatcheejay
7 Buckfvr
8 Rhinoron247
9 Pianoman9701
10 Swannytheswan
11 Bandit
12 Pianoman9701
13 Asl20bball
14 Skyvalhunter
15 NWBREW
16 jennyfell55
17 Whitpirate
18 Bearpaw
19 Rasbo
20 Woodchuck
21 Grundy53
22 pendoreilleadventures
23 jager
24 Sebek556
25 Jackelope
26 Special T
27 Gringo31
28 Englewood
29 ET1702
30 Bigshooter
31 Bighoss
32 Elkaholic daWg
33 GuyM
34 JPhelps
Letters sent to all 8 Senators on the Committee = 272 total & 34 to each Committee member.
Anybody else offended by the list? I will quit doing it...
Post by: Special T on January 21, 2012, 10:12:43 AM
Post by: Stlheader on January 21, 2012, 11:17:21 AM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/board,76.20.html
Adoption of the wolf management plan already requires wolves in western Washington. Passage of this bill wouldn't change that, but require the state to follow the federal ESA and delist in the eastern 1/3 of the state by my understanding.
Thank you, for some reason I missed this.
The only other question I have is on the definition of "regional". The bill doesn't seem to define what this means. I live on the Peninsula and under the current plan wolves do not necessarily need to be present in the Northwest Coast region to be deemed recovered statewide. Do you think that this bill could require that wolves be present is every region?
Emails sent
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 21, 2012, 11:51:46 AM
Sent mine in but I dont feel its really neccasary to make a list and call everybody out on the mat. Thats just not the right thing to do.
Fishmaster, thank you for sending in your email. I appreciate your thoughts about the email campaign. We're not listing the people who don't participate, only those who do. Listing participants in a targeted campaign is a standard, effective practice which encourages those who haven't already, to participate. If someone feels bad that they're not on the list, maybe they'll do something about our declining hunting opportunities and take 2 minutes to send an email. But no one is calling anyone out on the mat. Killbilly is practicing good marketing. Thanks for your support.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 21, 2012, 11:59:57 AM
Sent List: Updated
Anybody else offended by the list? I will quit doing it...
No , but in many cases people do act (as when I have posted elsewhere) but don't let you know back that they did, so that list is probably a lot bigger than we know. If it bothers anyone that they're not on it - they can let you know.
Post by: KillBilly on January 21, 2012, 03:58:31 PM
Sent List: Updated
Anybody else offended by the list? I will quit doing it...
No , but in many cases people do act (as when I have posted elsewhere) but don't let you know back that they did, so that list is probably a lot bigger than we know. If it bothers anyone that they're not on it - they can let you know.
Case in point, there are several names on that list that PM'd me or e-mailed that didn't post on this thread. They seemed to want ther name posted. :tup:
Post by: Rhinoron247 on January 21, 2012, 04:00:18 PM
Post by: Feanix on January 21, 2012, 04:46:16 PM
Post by: KillBilly on January 21, 2012, 05:10:48 PM
Stlheader, I believe Northwest Coast and Southwest are grouped together as a single "recovery region"
Feanix is correct:
4 in Eastern Washington
4 in Northern Cascades
4 in Southern Cascades/ Northwest Coast
3 anywhere in state
For 3 consecutive years (and the key word is successful Breeding Pairs (at least 2 pups that survive until the end of the year for 3 consecutive years))
or:
If 18 breeding pairs with required distribution are confirmed in any one year, the Department could consider delisting. The required distribution is: 4 in EasternWashington
4 in North Cascades
4 in Southern Cascades/ Northwest Coast
AND
6 anywhere in state ( these 6 BPs could all be in one region or 1 BP per region. but the basic distribution is still required
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi289.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fll238%2FHannibal47%2FZones.jpg&hash=9a084882afa87019328d5c889c6371e1497fc44b)
Post by: Fishmasterdan on January 27, 2012, 06:16:49 PM
Post by: huntrights on January 28, 2012, 08:00:49 PM
Bearpaw is correct, we should write the senate committee members.
See the post regarding SB6136:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=91533.0
Post by: KillBilly on January 29, 2012, 05:58:49 AM
I sent an email to all Energy, Natural Resources & Marine Waters Committee members requesting that they support SB6136.
Bearpaw is correct, we should write the senate committee members.
See the post regarding SB6136:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=91533.0
And many members have as you can on the list above and there could be many more that did not post that they did. It would have have been great if several thousand members had sent letters.
Post by: denali on February 06, 2012, 04:49:39 PM
http://www.capitalpress.com/content/SB-Legis-survivors-021012?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook
Capital Press
OLYMPIA -- With the first cutoff date passed, several important pieces of ag-related legislation are still in play, among them bills related to managing wolves.
Off the table are proposals to require labeling of genetically modified foods.
Feb. 3 was the date by which bills had to emerge from their committee of origin or else be dropped from further consideration. Those bills are considered dead, though they can be revived.
Senate Bill 6137 would allow a livestock owner, the owner's family or a documented employee to kill a gray wolf without a permit when there is physical evidence that the wolf is in the act of attacking the owner's livestock.
Ag spokesmen told legislators that owners should not have to wait until their livestock are injured or killed before being able to apply for a permit. The bill also addressed the split between wolves' federal listing in some parts of the state but not in others.
That bill goes to the House Rules Committee.
Other wolf-related legislation was requested by the Department of Fish and Wildlife to establish requirements of the state's new Wolf Conservation and Management Plan.
House Bill 2365 adds the gray wolf to the list of big game species. It also allows the State Wildlife Account to be used for compensating livestock owners for damage caused by wild carnivores.
Two amendments were made: Fish and Wildlife would be allowed to spend up to $50,000 per year to pay claims, and an account would be set up to house any spillover funds from one year to proceeding years.
That bill has been sent to the House Rules Committee.
A companion bill, Senate Bill 6139, has been sent to the Senate Rules Committee.