WDFW Claims cow was not wolf kill

[WAcoyotehunter]

how do we know that this was a "healthy mature bull elk" like you guys are proclaiming?

It's a done deal.  Next time you find a dead animal haul ass over there and determine the cause.  In this case, I am inclined to take the bios word on it. 

[AspenBud]

The cynical side of me looks at it like this.

There are likely people within the WDFW who think wolves need to be managed. Those people likely recognize that short of some miraculous change the only way for that to happen sooner rather than later is to have as many wolves as close to the cascades as possible to help increase the odds that they will cross the mountains, breed, and reach the goals set forth in their management plan.

Like it or not, that's the only way the problem will start to turn around.

Every wolf killed legally or illegally in the western two thirds of the state is arguably a set back for everyone in the eastern third until the management plan goals are reached.

Whether they are lying or not, I suspect the WDFW will do everything in their power to keep from needing an excuse to shoot them because they recognize the obvious now...

The die is cast. They must cross in order for wolf management to have a chance of beginning.

[bobcat]

The die is cast. They must cross in order for wolf management to have a chance of beginning.

Are you certain of that? Does it actually say that in the plan? I haven't seen it.

But I sure would like to know if wolves west of the mountains is a requirement.   

[AspenBud]

The die is cast. They must cross in order for wolf management to have a chance of beginning.

Are you certain of that? Does it actually say that in the plan? I haven't seen it.

But I sure would like to know if wolves west of the mountains is a requirement.   

That's how I read it.

"Recovery goals: The plan establishes a delisting objective of 15 breeding pairs of wolves that are present in the state for at least three years, with at least four in Eastern Washington, four in the northern Cascades, four in the southern Cascades/Northwest coastal area, and three others anywhere in the state. The plan also provides for WDFW to consider initiating the delisting process if 18 breeding pairs are documented during a single year, and the distribution objectives are met."

From...

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/mgmt_plan.html

[bobcat]

What makes it unclear to me is that the "southern cascades/northwest coastal zone includes a part of eastern Washington, and a part of western Washington.

So what if there were 4 breeding pairs in the southern cascades, on the east side of the Cascades. And no wolves actually within the "northwest coastal" part of that zone?

Would that be enough to meet the requirements set forth in the plan?

[bearpaw]

The die is cast. They must cross in order for wolf management to have a chance of beginning.

Are you certain of that? Does it actually say that in the plan? I haven't seen it.

But I sure would like to know if wolves west of the mountains is a requirement.   

It was just verified last night in the meeting, at least 4 BP's for 3 consecutive years in each of the 3 wolf zones, plus 3 additional BP's anywhere.

[bobcat]

The die is cast. They must cross in order for wolf management to have a chance of beginning.

Are you certain of that? Does it actually say that in the plan? I haven't seen it.

But I sure would like to know if wolves west of the mountains is a requirement.   

It was just verified last night in the meeting, at least 4 BP's for 3 consecutive years in each of the 3 wolf zones, plus 3 additional BP's anywhere.

That doesn't answer my question. We could have the 4 breeding pairs in each zone, plus the 3 additional breeding pairs anywhere, and STILL NOT have any wolves west of the Cascade Mountains.

[NWWABOWHNTR]

No...

[Curly]

If you look at the wolf map, no wolves need to be west of the Cascade crest.  The zones are setup so that they don't have to be west of the crest to be in 2 of those zones.

[bobcat]

No...

Can you show me where it says that in the wolf plan?

[Curly]

The way I see it, is that the Teanaway or Wenatchee pack need to spread out and go south across I-90 over into the Elk Heights area and into the Little Naches.  Or, it seems like there were already reports of wolves over in the Bumping area.  Those wolves need to be confirmed and they would count as Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast Zone..........before there is a chance at delisting. 

[AspenBud]

My point is the same regardless and I guess I should have rephrased it. The sooner wolves are in all three units and achieving their goal the sooner we can manage them.

I'm not saying we have to like it, but I think this is how it plays out.

[boneaddict]

There are already wolves on the west side, so I really don;t think you are going to have to worry about it.  But why would you need to believe me, I'm not a paid WDFW biologist.

[bobcat]

The thing is I don't know if they simply count each pair that's within that zone, and if there's 4 pairs, the minimum requirement has been met. Or, do those 4 pairs have to be spread throughout the entire zone?

I guess I will have to ask this question of a WDFW biologist to know for sure.

[bobcat]

My point is the same regardless and I guess I should have rephrased it. The sooner wolves are in all three units and achieving their goal the sooner we can manage them.

I'm not saying we have to like it, but I think this is how it plays out.

I agree but I'm still curious about where wolves actually have to be in order to meet the requirements of the plan. Will there need to be a breeding pair on the Olympic Peninsula, for instance?