November 4, 2011 in Outdoors, City

Panel considers wolf plan

Residents worry about danger to livestock, wildlife

• Print
• Email
• Share

Dan Pelle photoBuy this photo

Wolf Working Group members Daryl Asmussen, center, of Tonasket, and Duane Cocking, of Newman Lake, right, listen during the public hearing Thursday.
(Full-size photo)

Washington is already home to five packs of gray wolves, and state wildlife managers are planning for more.

On Thursday, the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission deliberated on a wolf management plan with dual goals of re-establishing wolves across the state while building public support for the top-line predators.

Addressing livestock predation and potential impacts on elk herds are critical to long-term “social tolerance” of wolves, commissioners agreed.

“We’re not talking about a fragile, decreasing wolf population – we’re talking about a rapidly increasing population that we’re going to have to control,” said Chuck Perry, a Fish and Wildlife commissioner from Moses Lake.

Since the first pack was documented in 2008, Washington’s wolf population has grown to an estimated 25 to 30 animals in five packs. Northeast Washington, with three wolf packs, has the highest concentration so far, but the state’s best wolf habitat is in the Southern Cascades and the Olympic Peninsula’s interior. The state’s wolf management plan, scheduled for adoption in December, calls for a minimum of 15 breeding pairs distributed across the state.

Phil Anderson, director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, said it’s in the state’s best interest to adopt a plan before the federal government completes a status review of wolves in the Lower 48 states.

As part of that review, which is expected in February, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will consider the status of wolves in the western two-thirds of Washington, which is still protected under the federal Endangered Species Act.

The federal government could opt to reclassify those wolves as part the Northern Rockies population, which is already delisted. Another option would be to create a new federal management zone, which would include wolves in Western Washington, Western Oregon and the Sierra Nevadas of California and Nevada.

Under either scenario, Washington would benefit by having a management plan in place, Anderson said. With a sound wolf plan, the federal government is more likely to give the state greater management options for Washington wolves that remain federally protected, he said.

Joe Peone, wildlife director for the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, urged the commission to consider wolves’ future impact on deer and elk herds. With the tribe’s unemployment rate at 60 percent, many members hunt for food.

“We want to support wolves, but our priority is protecting our members’ opportunity to subsistence hunt,” Peone said.

In Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, where wolf populations number more than 1,600 wolves, most elk and deer populations remain at or above management objectives, state biologists said. Elk herds have declined in some areas, but wolves are typically one of several causes for lower numbers, including degraded habitat and predation by other carnivores. Under specific circumstances, Washington’s plan would allow killing wolves to reduce pressure on ungulate herds, including northeast Washington’s endangered woodland caribou. But wolf numbers would have to exceed management objectives in the area for wolves to be killed.

Wolf predation on livestock is also a concern. The plan calls for relocating or killing wolves that kill livestock, and paying ranchers for the loss. Tonasket rancher Daryl Asmussen said the compensation program sounds good, but it isn’t practical. His cows graze in the deep timber, where carcasses aren’t visible, he said.

Commissioners also wondered how the state would pay for wolf management, estimated to cost at least $350,000 to $400,000 annually. Anderson said his agency is looking for additional revenue, including selling wolf license plates.

“Whether you love them or hate them,” money for wolf management “is paramount,” Anderson said.

Six comments on this story so far. Add yours!

• 

  arliacne on November 04 at 11:55 a.m.

  Save the wolves, cull the hunters.

• 

  PNWgirl on November 04 at 1:09 p.m.

  I love that wolves reside in Washington. It definitely makes for a more interesting environment! I know that since the wolves have been reintroduced to Yellowstone, the elk and deer herds are thriving due to less disease and by the elk returning to more innate behaviors. Washington needs to promote the wolves here as tourism. Govenor Gregoire, what are you doing to ensure the protection of Washington’s wolves and promotion of wolf tourism in the state?

• 

  TLMule on November 05 at 4:47 p.m.

  Having wolves living around our town for over 6 years now we have observed many things that do not “jive” with what has been put out about wolves. They are not shy, they are not afraid of us. They have followed people out hiking and have come into our yard fearlessly towards us. The elk have changed their behavior too. Now instead of traveling down river for the winter, they hang around where people live. We have yet to see a wolf tourist even tho it is well known that we have wolves here. They were howling just to the west of us a couple of hours ago.

• 

  nowolves on November 06 at 6:36 p.m.

  I’m wondering if they will have a has a section called “Existence Value” under “Economic considerations” as they do in the Oregon wolf managment plan. It talks about the warm and fuzzy feeling people get knowing the wolves are on the landscape…… The question they need to ask is why the other side of the coin (what the rancher is feeling knowing wolves are in his area) is not presented??? Read the plan …. page 93. Oregons plan is worse than the Montana plan written years ago! Where will Washington fit in. I do not blame the ranches of Oregon for being upset! & I applaud Wyoming for setting the standard for wolf plans!

• 

  nowolves on November 06 at 6:40 p.m.

  PNWgirl…. what are you smoking? “the elk and deer herds are thriving” You must be spending to much time on one of the numerous anti-hunting hate sights!

• 

  BrandyShaleDavis on November 07 at 10:06 a.m.

  I was born in Washington, I now live in Idaho and have seen the destruction this Illegally Introduced,Diseased, Foreign species of wolf has done to our elk, moose and deer populations and to our livestock and pets.Not only in Idaho, But in Montana and Wyoming as well. above are two classic examples of the misconceptions surrounding this issue. The Yellowstone elk herd has been reduced by 93% Please watch the documentaries Yellowstone is Dead & Crying wolf Both are online. Our Lolo herd has been reduced by 83% and are now in a predator pit,there are not enough calves surviving to maintain healthy herds.They hold the cows down and take their unborn calves,then leave the cow to suffer for days.They kill 3-5 elk for every one they actually eat,the rest are left to rot. They are now the Apex predator in the woods.They kill cougars, and dig bears and their cubs out of their dens,killing all that competes.They also carry E.Granulosus,tapeworm they brought with them. It was never in our wild animals until 2006. There was an outbreak in Utah’s domestic sheep, but it was irradicated in the 70’s. We actually got 2 invasive species for the price of 1.Paid for by $70 million dollars in stolen money from the Pittman Robertson fund, paid by hunter license and tags and by an exise tax on outdoor equipment. The fund is for Conservation not Destruction!!! 80 years of conservation is gone in 16.Now, just taking a walk in the woods,or Berry and mushroom pickers are in danger of being attacked now or killed later.This wolf is a canadian yukon wolf (canis lupus occidentalis) that was NEVER here in the lower 48. It was a non essential experiment by biologists that were trained well and bought cheap.They were released on our small but stable populations of NATIVE wolves (canis lupus irremotus). Is the destruction of native species now considered conservation? or protection of an endangered or threatened species? If these wolves aren’t stopped, your grandkids and their children just seeing an elk, moose or deer will be rare if at all. As in the first comment, the anti human sentiment is rampant in this topic.To be pro wolf means having no respect for any living thing except this nasty wolf.It is scary. We get threatened every day, for killing wolves. They were to be delisted in 2002.10 years of lawsuits by the pros allowed the wolves numbers to increase no less than 35% and up to 50% before they were delisted. The agreement was 100 in each of the 3 states..We now have 1000’s, running in packs of up to 25 that have been photo’d.The wolves follow the elk down to us in the winter, then den and whelp in the spring, as the elk move back into the mountains, Where does that leave the wolves? Down here, killing our livestock and pets to feed the young.Being compensated will not last!! That is IF you can find the carcass to begin with IF they will admit it was even a wolf kill…don’t let them tell you any different. They stopped compensation here in 2009. The lying and corruption in our US and local fish and game is unacceptable! The entire agenda is nothing but pushing our ranchers off of public lands and to end ranching entirely by bankrupting them & also to continue to limit our ability to feed ourselves in the future on game animals.They also claim there were too many elk,why couldn’t they have been harvested to feed hungry people in this country instead of being fed to a foreign wolf?.Check out the Wildlands project, the Center for Biodiversity and Agenda 21.See if you can connect the dots!