Posted on 10/20/2009 7:25:32 PM PDT by jazusamo
Authors of the plan called the process that produced it wrenching and polarizing. In short: a flashpoint issue.
When it comes to attitudes about wolves, there seems to be no middle ground.
Hunters are afraid wolves will decimate elk and deer populations. Ranchers fear the state’s newest alpha predator will wreak havoc on their livestock. Conservationists worry that hunters and ranchers will shoot the wolves despite state or federal protections.
A recently released draft management plan by the state Department of Fish and Wildlife sets minimum standards for downlisting and delisting wolves in Washington, where they are federally protected in the western two-thirds of the state and state-protected across all of Washington.
It provides guidelines for moving wolves to keep their populations at sustainable and manageable limits, dictates how and when wolves may be scared off or killed, and outlines how the state will balance the wolves’ needs with the desires of sportsmen who pay hefty fees to hunt the very deer and elk the wolves do.
It also calls for a generous compensation package for owners whose livestock has been killed by wolves. But even members of the citizens’ working group that devised the plan question where that money will come from.
Several working-group members described the plan as a compromise.
It was “a way to find some common ground,” but doesn’t qualify as a perfect plan for any of them, said Derrick Knowles of Conservation Northwest, which works to preserve wildlife habitat.
Former state wildlife commissioner Bob Tuck of Selah doubts any single group member agreed with all facets of the plan. But he calls it “a good plan ... in a complex wildlife issue, in which society has multiple responsibilities.”
Wolves’ ebb and flow
The state’s two existing wolf packs, the Lookout Pack near Twisp and the Diamond Pack in the state’s northeast corner, are a far cry from the thousands that once lived here.
By the 1930s, aggressive hunting — often with bounties being paid — essentially eliminated gray wolves in Washington. In 1973, they were federally listed as endangered.
After federal reintroduction efforts, the wolf population grew to more than 1,500 in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming over the past 15 years. With thousands more in British Columbia, it was only a matter of time before packs expanded into Washington. There is no clear estimate when wolves might reach the Yakima area.
Not everyone wants a repeat of what has happened in Idaho.
Eric Johnson, a self-described “hard-core hunter” from Pend Oreille County, is adamant that wolves have taken a heavy hit on elk and deer in Idaho and will do the same in Washington. When that happens, he said, the hunters — not the wolves — would pay the price.
“It sounds like (state officials are) going to manage to recover these wolves, and if deer and elk populations get hurt, the first thing they’re going to do is cut the hunting seasons,” Johnson said.
“Wait until (wolves) start showing up in Yakima. Those wolves will be cutting into the biggest herd in the state — that’s when it’ll get people’s attention. It’s out of sight, out of mind, until they show up in your neighborhood. When you’re out hunting and they’re howling in the woods and you haven’t seen an elk in five days, it’ll hit home.”
Effect on deer and elk
But working group member Tommy Petrie, president of the Pend Oreille Sportsmen’s Club, has heard that argument a lot and isn’t convinced.
“I hate to say (wolves) are going to devastate the elk population, but on the other hand I don’t know,” Petrie said, adding that in general, hunter harvest “is still pretty good” in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming — three states in the Northern Rocky Mountains’ regional wolf recovery program.
The wolves have “definitely changed the dynamics of how you go about hunting the elk” in Idaho, he noted. “By (the year) 2000, when we really started seeing wolf activity, you could go to any one of the six or seven different drainages we hunt pretty heavily and you could run into elk sign. Now the tactics change a little bit — you might go through a few different drainages and not find any elk, but when you do find them, it’s the mother lode.”
Working group member Duane Cocking of Newman Lake, near Spokane, said it felt like he, as a hunting advocate, was “fighting city hall the whole time” during the draft-plan process. “The (state wildlife) department definitely wants wolves,” he said. “There’s that worry on my part and on most hunters’ part, that the emphasis would be on recovery of the wolves rather than protection of the deer and elk.
“I’d much prefer to see a hunter harvest an animal than a predator (kill the same animal).”
About the numbers
But when Cocking declared in a working-group meeting that the state wildlife department should be more focused on providing hunting opportunities than on limiting them with an increased predator presence, Tuck disagreed.
“(The wildlife department’s) job by statute is to manage the fish and wildlife and their habitat. That’s their first responsibility. Providing recreational opportunities is secondary,” said Tuck, the former state wildlife commissioner. “And it makes no difference if the department wants wolves or not, because the wolves are here and now we have to manage them.”
But how many should the state manage? The proposed plan calls for a graduated lowering of state-protected status based wolf population expansion, with delisting to take place once the state can document 15 successful breeding pairs for three consecutive years, spread throughout the state.
The 15-pair minimum number is “way too high,” said working-group member Jack Field of the Washington Cattlemen’s Association. “In my opinion, that’s completely out of whack.”
Field also took umbrage with the plan’s allowing livestock owners to kill a wolf only if it’s “in the act” of attacking livestock — biting, wounding or killing — not just chasing or pursuing. “The concern I have is that a livestock producer is going to be prosecuted for illegally killing a wolf,” Field said. “I think that’s one of the key issues that will draw a lot of attention and discussion during the comment period (which lasts until Jan. 8), and perhaps the department will reconsider that.”
Where to from here?
Working-group member Greta M. Wiegand of Seattle said the plan wasn’t “something we can lay down on the table now and walk away from. ... We do not want to end up with a wolf population that is not genetically sound, not enough different wolf families in there. We all hope that will be watched very carefully — nobody wants genetically unsound wolves running around out there. That wouldn’t be good for anybody.”
Whether the state will be able to follow up its ambitious plan with active management, though, is a legitimate question at a time when the wildlife department has had to cut its budget by large chunks. Working-group member John Blankenship, once a regional deputy director with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department, has his doubts.
“It’s all going to fall on its face, because there’s no money to pay for depredation (repaying ranchers for livestock killed by wolves), and the legislature and the commission haven’t demonstrated they’re going to come up with any,” Blankenship said. “In fact, they kind of laugh when you ask them.”
Whether anybody will be laughing Thursday night, when the state holds its Yakima forum on the plan, is another question entirely.
• Scott Sandsberry can be reached at 509-577-7689 or ssandsberry@yakimaherald.com.
Public forum Thursday
What: Public forum on the state’s proposed plan on the state’s wolf management plan
When: 6:30 p.m. Thursday
Where: Red Lion Hotel Yakima Center, 607 E. Yakima Ave., Yakima
WA wolf meeting Ping!
Think about it.
Past generations got rid of them because....
I don’t know what these wolves look like but the ones I’ve seen in nature parks are pretty pathetic...barely bigger than a coyote. One on one against my lab I’d give it even odds and that’s only because of the wolf’s reputation.
These are Canadian Gray wolves and believe me they are not scrawny. The males can weigh up to 140 lbs and several can take down large deer and elk, they are definitely a threat to them.
Here’s the end-game:
If wolves control the deer and elk herds, then we don’t need hunters.
With nothing to hunt, what’s the point of the long-rifle?
I was born in Yakima and the family cabins are in the forest North of there. They are far too populated for safe wolf introduction.
Check what’s happened in Wyoming, where they are outcompeting the Griz for food. The bear are emaciated and not producing well.
This crap about giving the earth back to “mother nature”, is an elitist ploy, being used to undermine America, it’s freedoms, it’s industry, and foster population control.
Do you see any of Obama’s policies that don’t fit that mold?
The Feds and the DNR "reintroduced" wolves to Wisc. The effects were predicted and now the DNR is doing the "what problem?" dance. We have our own wolf control program now: Shoot. Shovel. Shut up.
Not that I advocate such a thing....
I couldn’t agree more with you, we don’t need and shouldn’t allow the reintroduction of wolves.
With nothing to hunt, what’s the point of the long-rifle?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
shoot wolves with :)
I’ve seen 150 lbers, but most you see shot or snared are yearlings; around 100 lbs. We have quite a few wolves all over Alaska and they really hammer the moose, caribou, and sheep once the packs start to expand; clean everything right out. You see the real balance of nature only allows for 10% of the game on any piece of land than what the land is able to actually support with game management. No workey once humans come into the picture. Imagine what the deer hunters back east would say if 90% of the deer were gone? That’s the balance of nature.
idk bout that. Ten percent? That’s all?
Then how do you account for the millions of buffalo that they say once roamed the plains?
Wolves in numbers are coming to WA state though we don’t have the funds to manage them nor to pay ranchers for losses, go figure.
Imagine what the deer hunters back east would say if 90% of the deer were gone? That’s the balance of nature.
The deer hunters of PA found out several years ago.
I live in Ak, the Indians hunt all year long; govt can't and is too scared to stop them. Add in the human hunters & growing predator numbers; pretty hungry country. Alaska was quite barren as far as ungulate numbers in 1800's. Moose only expanded their numbers after massive wolf control in early 1900's.
Do remember that when you are about to change your antifreeze, don’t leave it in open containers. Wolves will drink it, and the state will NOT pay you for the stolen antifreeze.
I like the pretty green color of the classic antifreeze. And, since I don’t want to pay for the “embittered” antifreeze, I don’t buy it.
After all, who cares if the antifreeze is bitter or happy - just as long as it isn’t gay.
;-)
By golly that hadn’t come to mind but now that you mention it I was always fascinated with the coolant that sometimes looks yellow and sometimes green, kinda fluorescent like. Have to be careful with that because animals could be attracted to it, especially wolves. :-)
Excellent video, George. It says an awful lot in one minute and it has a message that millions should see.
The winter world is frozen and rigid, and the new art forms will have organic, fluidly responsive aspects, rippling with the winter winds. This new art form can bring to the viewer a reminder that winter is a passing phenomenon.
These fluid creations assure us that the fluid greens and yellows of life will once again return.
Since the vibrant greens and yellows are starkly absent from the high key white of the winter landscape, the organic wholeness of the new art medium can be enhanced with yet another aspect.
The white of the snow, and the crisp air in winter is the perfect background for adding scents to the fluids of the art work. When dark colored containers are selected, the sun will warm the container above the surrounding temperature. This warmer material is the perfect place for placing the scent sources.
Bacon fat is the most basic, and widely available organic scent source, but the creative artist will surely also explore the myriad possibilities offered by the essential oils, perfumes, etc.
As is the case in more urban art exhibits, vandalism is always a possibility. The prudent artist will always take pictures to preserve the concept, and to allow repair/replacement should two or four legged predators attack, vandalize, or steal part or all of a work of outdoor fluid art.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.