[ChaseBallard]

Many of the enlightened minds on this forum seem to be interested in wolf issues whenever such a thread pops up, so I thought I would throw this out there for some light reading.

http://www.hcn.org/articles/opinion-rural-communities-can-coexist-with-wolves-heres-how/
The return of the wolf is just one of many budding wildlife success stories in the American West today. But without buy-in from the people who live with and around wolves, that success remains tenuous. Reasonable compromise on all sides will always be necessary. Around the world, working together and building understanding across stakeholder groups, indeed across cultures, has been shown to create more enduring conservation solutions than when people go off to their corners to fight through words, lawsuits and personal threats. For all the sound and fury everywhere else, Washington is where wolf recovery is being done right. It's a wildlife conservation model that others ought to follow.

As any biologist or agency staffer knows, fish and wildlife management today is, for better or worse, as much about working through the distinct values, needs and opinions of people as it is conserving our fish and wildlife and their habitat. Like with wild steelhead and salmon, that truth rings particularly loudly with wolves.

As someone working in the trenches on this issue for the last four years or so, and having the privilege to work with folks in Montana, Canada and other areas to evolve our policies based on experiences elsewhere, I'd say this is the clearest articulation yet of the complicated road Washington is following in hopes of forging a sustainable model for carnivore conservation, management, and eventually, coexistence in a state as socially divided as ours.

Full disclosure, I helped write it. But still worth a read if you're interested in the topic of how canis lupus intersects with **** sapiens.

 

[Big K1]

Thanks for posting!

 

[Salmo_g]

Good article, and I generally agree that WA is doing wolf management right.

 

[jersey]

Nice piece.

 

[Guest]

I just got back from a trip to Republic Washington, I can tell you this the locals are not wolf fans. They don't much like loseing their live stock to the wolves . I guess if I had live stock I would be more interested in the whole wolf debate.

 

[gone johnson]

If these wolves ever start devouring ESA listed fish, there will be hell to pay...

 

[ribka]

I have wolves now where I live. I have seen wolves out hunting and hiking throughout my life. I view them as any predator. I have good friends who run a moose outfitting business up in NW BC and they lost their hunting concession last year, after 30 years in business, because the growing wolf population up their greatly reduced the moose numbers so much that the govt shut down hunting for them in his region. My concern is keeping their population in check with their reproductions rates. Wolves reproduce at a much higher rate than bears and cats. Simple truth.

I grew up in WI and after the intro of wolves last two decades the population has exploded. I go home and bird hunt and have to keep my bird dog close as wolves have shadowed me and the dog while hunting. I stopped deer hunting because they have really put a hurt on the deer as their numbers have exploded. I know that in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming , where wolf, hunting has been allowed and encouraged , they have been unable to keep the wolf population to reasonable numbers because sport hunting has been proven to not be an effective means to control their populations and as a result some elk herds and moose have been decimated in those states.

Have talked to game bios in those states while over their hunting and was advised was the only way to control and effectively manage their populations was through sport hunting, trapping, ariel shooting and poisoning.

As wolf populations grow in Washington, Oregon, much more densely populated than Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, how do you think the WDFW ,ODFWwill manage their populations. Just look how they manage the fisheries here. The mule deer and moose populations are growing smaller and smaller every year here in Washington due to lack of habitat and wintering grounds. Do you think the wolves will help in their recovery?

Do you think Washington state urban dwellers will accept trapping and poisoning as a viable method to manage their growing populations in Washington? I personally dont think they would ever even allow sport hunting of cute wolves in our state to manage their growth.

Of course we know where this going

Many of the enlightened minds on this forum seem to be interested in wolf issues whenever such a thread pops up, so I thought I would throw this out there for some light reading.

http://www.hcn.org/articles/opinion-rural-communities-can-coexist-with-wolves-heres-how/
The return of the wolf is just one of many budding wildlife success stories in the American West today. But without buy-in from the people who live with and around wolves, that success remains tenuous. Reasonable compromise on all sides will always be necessary. Around the world, working together and building understanding across stakeholder groups, indeed across cultures, has been shown to create more enduring conservation solutions than when people go off to their corners to fight through words, lawsuits and personal threats. For all the sound and fury everywhere else, Washington is where wolf recovery is being done right. It's a wildlife conservation model that others ought to follow.

As any biologist or agency staffer knows, fish and wildlife management today is, for better or worse, as much about working through the distinct values, needs and opinions of people as it is conserving our fish and wildlife and their habitat. Like with wild steelhead and salmon, that truth rings particularly loudly with wolves.

As someone working in the trenches on this issue for the last four years or so, and having the privilege to work with folks in Montana, Canada and other areas to evolve our policies based on experiences elsewhere, I'd say this is the clearest articulation yet of the complicated road Washington is following in hopes of forging a sustainable model for carnivore conservation, management, and eventually, coexistence in a state as socially divided as ours.

Full disclosure, I helped write it. But still worth a read if you're interested in the topic of how canis lupus intersects with **** sapiens.

 

[Deceased]

I just got back from a trip to Republic Washington, I can tell you this the locals are not wolf fans. They don't much like loseing their live stock to the wolves . I quess if I had live stock I would be more interested in the whole wolf debate.

Yeah cause the people in Seattle want it and there's no consequence for them and the people in Republic have to live with it. Just the way it is. The Seattle team will now call republic team a bunch of stupid uneducated country bumpkins and the republic team will now call the Seattle team libtards and the like. Pretty predicable. My thoughts are leave it alone. We are already living in an altered ecosystem. The forest is now plantation. If the do gooders and Sierra clubbers want to do some good they should off themselves, bulldoze the city, and make that habitat and release wolves there. That won't happen though cause that's a consequence they would have to live with which goes beyond shopping at whole foods. I think it's cruel to introduce animals only to kill them off. Quit playing God. If wolves make a comeback on their own then great, maybe protect them a bit.

 

[cabezon]

ariel shooting

Hi RBK,
Are you recommending shooting at mermaids or with mermaids?

Steve

 

[skyrise]

Damm things were eliminated for a reason. Oh I forgot we are So much smarter and Enlightened now. Horse crap. Put them downtown Seattle/Olympia see how the libtards like em.

 

[ChaseBallard]

Ribka, both Wisconsin and the Northern Rockies states have ungulate populations (with the exception of mountain caribou in WA/ID of course, and some specific elk herds, like the Lolo, where habitat change is the primary factor) that are as a whole, over objective levels. Hunter success in both the Great Lakes and Northern Rockies remains high. And in the Great Lakes region where there are around a thousand wolves (a population that should absolutely be delisted), ticks and disease are causing more damage to moose than predation.

In Washington, we've seen no evidence to date of population affects on big game from our rapidly growing wolf population, again with the exception of mountain caribou in the Selkirks: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/big_game/wash_wolf-ungulate_2015.pdf (a WDFW/UW study is currently working to update this data. That report is admittedly from 2015).

You're correct that habitat loss and particularly limited public land winter range puts a serious strain on Northwest mule deer and elk populations. And moose numbers in northern and northeast Washington have fluctuated of late for a variety of reasons. But experiences from other states with even more predators show that wolves are likely to have limited additional affect on game populations in our region. Not that wolves don't eat plenty of ungulates, just like cougars, coyotes and black bears do, but that predation remains a minor limiting factor in overall population dynamics considering modern habitat conditions. And to be clear, predation is also not a factor without some benefits for overall herd and habitat health.

 

[Guest]

Yeah cause the people in Seattle want it and there's no consequence for them and the people in Republic have to live with it. Just the way it is. The Seattle team will now call republic team a bunch of stupid uneducated country bumpkins and the republic team will now call the Seattle team libtards and the like. Pretty predicable. My thoughts are leave it alone. We are already living in an altered ecosystem. The forest is now plantation. If the do gooders and Sierra clubbers want to do some good they should off themselves, bulldoze the city, and make that habitat and release wolves there. That won't happen though cause that's a consequence they would have to live with which goes beyond shopping at whole foods. I think it's cruel to introduce animals only to kill them off. Quit playing God. If wolves make a comeback on their own then great, maybe protect them a bit.

it really comes down to where you live. if your a small rancher trying to eke out a living raising beef out in rural county , your against the reintroduction of wolves, if you work in a high rise office building in a urban region , they are a mystical animal and you adore them

 

[Deceased]

it really comes down to where you live. if your a small rancher trying to eke out a living raising beef out in rural county , your against the reintroduction of wolves, if you work in a high rise office building in a urban region , they are a mystical animal and you adore them

Exactly so why should the high rise crowd vote or even have a say in what happens to those rural areas? Shouldn't the people that live there and have to deal with it have the most say? With that logic I should be able to shape policies in Idaho or Wyoming. I don't want to and wouldn't even feel any business to. It's not my backyard. Then again all those super smart folks who hike once a year living in the ant hill know best for us poor uneducated blue collar folks living in the areas they want to recreate or just think about mystically. News flash, you can't go back to the trees unless you go back to the trees and there's no Starbucks there. By the way I used to be all for wolves for the benefit they have shown to riparian areas but after spending time with folks that deal with them. Probably "tin hatters" as the op has suggested so you know, dumb and beneath. I don't feel those who's backyard has been what it is for this long deserve to have this forced on them because some interest group feels it's a good idea.

 

[cabezon]

Exactly so why should the high rise crowd vote or even have a say in what happens to those rural areas?

Because the super smart folks who work in those high rise buildings subsidize the rural areas with their tax dollars??? See

Steve

 

[Deceased]

Because the super smart folks who work in those high rise buildings subsidize the rural areas with their tax dollars??? See

Steve

I really could give a shit. They don't live here. From your graph it looks like the majority of Washington is cashing checks it can't cover. That figures. Washington wastes more money than I can fathom. They can keep it. Nobody subsidizes me.

 

[ChaseBallard]

Exactly so why should the high rise crowd vote or even have a say in what happens to those rural areas? Shouldn't the people that live there and have to deal with it have the most say? With that logic I should be able to shape policies in Idaho or Wyoming. I don't want to and wouldn't even feel any business to. It's not my backyard. Then again all those super smart folks who hike once a year living in the ant hill know best for us poor uneducated blue collar folks living in the areas they want to recreate or just think about mystically. News flash, you can't go back to the trees unless you go back to the trees and there's no Starbucks there. By the way I used to be all for wolves for the benefit they have shown to riparian areas but after spending time with folks that deal with them. Probably "tin hatters" as the op has suggested so you know, dumb and beneath. I don't feel those who's backyard has been what it is for this long deserve to have this forced on them because some interest group feels it's a good idea.

Did you read the piece I posted? Your statements are in no way aligned with the reality of the situation, either on the ground or where policy is made. "Tin hatters" exist on both ends of the spectrum when it comes to this issue. Reasonable disagreement is expected and perfectly acceptable. But paying much heed to delusional hardliners on either side has done very little to help those of us working through it from the middle. Or the wolves, ranchers and hunters themselves.

As to your questions about who gets a say, and what the management model should be, the answer is because the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation mandates that wildlife are a public trust belonging to the people of the state. All of them. The required balance is how to sustain and conserve that wildlife, manage it with science, and do so in a manner that maintains an appropriate level of social acceptance from all stakeholders.

 

[KerryS]

When the truth doesn't fit your beliefs or narrative call the truth lies. Today's way of dealing with the realities of life.

 

[Deceased]

Did you read the piece I posted ? Your statements are in no way aligned with the reality of the situation, either on the ground or where policy is made. Tin hatters exist on both ends of the spectrum when it comes to this issue. Paying much heed to hardliners on either end has done very little to help those of us working through it from the middle, or wolves, ranchers and hunters.

As to your questions about who gets a say, and what the management model should be, the answer is because the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation mandates that wildlife are a public trust belonging to the people of the state. All of them. The required balance is how to sustain and conserve that wildlife, manage it with science, and do so in a manner that maintains an appropriate level of social acceptance from all stakeholders.

When you attack an opposing group rather than the idea by calling them tin hatters it comes off smug and is counterproductive. Communications 101. Yes I read the piece. I think it shows some promise in that a compromise will be needed if any headway is to be made. I've also spent time with those that deal with it. I don't live in wolf country. So really I shouldn't have a say in it either. Those that do seem to be against it. I guess I'm a little reactionary in the fact that I don't like policy for an area being made by those out of the area. Forgive me if I come off rude, not my intent. Also I had dinner with a tin hatter from the other side of the debate literally last night and this was a topic. I love them dearly still. We can agree to disagree. We are different but still great friends. We do get a little loud with one another so some of that is washing over here. My apologies. Here I am making more of an emotional argument in matters of science. I swore I would never do that yet here we are.

I see the benefit to having wolves around for riparian areas and the ecosystem at large. I do however not think one can re wild. The ship has sailed. It's too late. People are living in the areas where you want reintroduction. Like I say if they come back on their own then great, protect them. I'm going to show myself the door on this one unless I figure out something more productive to add. Also I have an interest here in the fact that I do wilderness work in these areas and while I accept the risks and challenges I'm selfishly not trying to add any difficulties. We had a crew in Alaska have some problems with wolves and it's not something I'd want to repeat.

 

[Guest]

When the truth doesn't fit your beliefs or narrative call the truth lies. Today's way of dealing with the realities of life.[/

So true

 

[Guest]

Because the super smart folks who work in those high rise buildings subsidize the rural areas with their tax dollars??? See

Steve

I wonder how those rural folks feel about that corporate tax break that Boeing got a few years ago that they are paying for? It sure helped the west side economy & my pay check but at the expense of the rest of the state of Washington.