View Single Post
Old July 10, 2012, 04:32 PM   #32
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 5,971
Alaska444: Washington state does have a wolf management plan.

The people that keep crying wolf need to get a grip.
The purpose of the plan is to ensure the reestablishment of a self-sustaining population of gray wolves in Washington and to encourage social tolerance for the species by addressing and reducing conflicts. Goals of the plan are to:

Restore the wolf population in Washington to a self-sustaining size and geographic distribution that will result in wolves having a high probability of persisting in the state through the foreseeable future (>50-100 years).

Manage wolf-livestock conflicts in a way that minimizes livestock losses, while at the same time not negatively impacting the recovery or long-term perpetuation of a sustainable wolf population.

Maintain healthy and robust ungulate populations in the state that provide abundant prey for wolves and other predators as well as ample harvest opportunities for hunters.

Develop public understanding of the conservation and management needs of wolves in Washington, thereby promoting the public’s coexistence with the species.

While the number of livestock killed by wolves in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming has generally increased over time as wolf numbers have grown, these are small compared to losses caused by coyotes, cougars, bobcats, dogs, bears, foxes, eagles, and other predators. Coyotes and other predators were responsible for almost all of the losses in which the predator was identified (98.8% of the cattle losses and 99.4% of the sheep losses) during 2004 and 2005; wolves were responsible for 1.8% and 0.6% of the losses
And yes the plan includes...
Lethal Removal

Lethal control of wolves may be necessary to resolve repeated wolf-livestock conflicts and is performed to remove problem animals that jeopardize public tolerance for overall wolf recovery. Large numbers of wolves have been killed in control actions in both the northern Rocky Mountain states (1,517 wolves from 1987 to 2010, with 7-16% of the population removed annually since 2002; Table 5) and Great Lakes states (3,145 wolves from 1978 to 2008, with 3-4% of the population removed annually; (Table 6) during the recovery of wolf populations. While federally listed, most lethal control of wolves in the northern Rocky Mountain states was performed by wildlife agency staff. As wolves became more common, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service gradually loosened restrictions on this activity to allow increased take by agency staff and private citizens with a federal permit (Fritts et al. 1992, Bangs et al. 2006). In Washington, if wolves are federally listed in any part of the state, WDFW would consult with and coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to any lethal removal proposal to ensure consistency with federal law.
In Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, agency decisions to lethally remove wolves have been made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account specific factors such as a pack’s size and conflict history, status and distribution of natural prey in the area, season, age and class of livestock, success or failure of non-lethal tools, and potential for future losses (Sime et al. 2007). Where lethal removal is deemed necessary, incremental control is usually attempted, with one or two offending animals removed initially. If depredations continue, additional animals may be killed. Stepwise incremental control can result in the eventual elimination of entire packs if wolves repeatedly depredate livestock (Sime et al. 2007).
Lethal control of wolves by agency staff can have the advantages of being swift, effective, and tightly regulated. The benefits of allowing lethal removal by livestock producers are that offending wolves are more likely to be targeted, it can eliminate the need for agency control, shooting at wolves may teach them and other pack members to be more wary of humans and to avoid areas of high human activity, it allows producers to address their own problems, and it may reduce animosity toward government agencies and personnel (Bangs et al. 2006). Drawbacks of lethal control are that it is always controversial among a sizeable segment of the public, depredation may recur, there is uncertainty whether the wolves killed were the offending animals, wolves may respond by becoming more active at night to avoid people, it can be costly when performed by agencies, and it is open to abuse when conducted by the public, thereby requiring law enforcement follow-up (Fritts et al. 1992, Musiani et al. 2005, Treves and Naughton-Treves 2005, Bangs et al. 2006). Two recent analyses of long-term lethal control of wolves found that removals generally have limited or no effect in reducing the recurrence of depredation (Harper et al. 2008, Muhly et al. 2010a).
Here in Washington state we have a Department of Fish and Wildlife. Part of their job is to figure out how to handle the new wolf population. So far they seem to be doing a better job than anyone on the internet.

This is like introducing African lions to replace a mountain lion population.
African lions would not be very good at doing the cougars job.
Buzzcook is offline  
Page generated in 0.03752 seconds with 7 queries