Page 16 - WCA July Ketch Pen 2020

WDFW’s REFUSAL to Manage Predators and Prey
By Dave Duncan, WCA Wildlife/ESA Committee Chair
The key RCWs and WACs, regarding wolf management after wolf recovery in the State of Washington are as follows:
“Preserve, protect, perpetuate and manage the wildlife” (RCW 77.04.012)-- The present approaches concerning wolf-cougar/ungu- late-livestock interactions and conflict are inadequate, changes are necessary to account for the reality of how successful the full recovery of these predator species has been in the Eastern Recovery Region and cougars in other regions of the state. This success has been built on the following. A large financial cost to state taxpayers. Cattlemen in the Eastern Recovery Region have changed their business plans, tried to be cooperative, suffered financially and lost significant quality of life for more than a decade. Hunters and rural communities have contributed financially and have paid an even larger price given the serious de-pop- ulation of huntable ungulates. As a result the acceptance of predators on the landscape and trust in the Department is at an all-time low with livestock producers, hunters and rural communities.
“Implement conflict mitigation guidelines that distinguish between wolf recovery regions that are at, above or below regional recovery ob- jectives”(ESHB 2097, Sec. 2, 2019)-- In the Eastern Recovery Region, wolf populations have filled in all available habitat and the popu- lation is still expanding with no consideration by WDFW for wolf population control or relaxing the lethal removal criteria. “...the high reproductive potential of wolves and the innate behavior of wolves to disperse and locate social openings allows wolf populations to withstand high rates of human-caused mortality” (Federal register, Vol. 84 No. 51 Friday March 15, 2019/Proposed Rules, page 9661).
“WDFW will therefore monitor and, if necessary, adjust the extent of lethal removals...to meet both conservation and management needs... [when] the population totals 75 or more wolves” (Wolf Plan, page 139, Chapter 12, Section 2.2.1)-- In the Eastern Recovery Region, the WDFW must increase the effectiveness and efficiency of their lethal removable of wolves, while staying within the Directives of the Wolf Plan. “Wolf Populations should remain strong in these areas with man- agement activities that focus on wolf population reduction as needed
to maintain populations of wild ungulates and reduce conflicts with livestock” (Federal Register, Vol. 84, no. 51/ Friday, March 15, 2019/ Proposed Rules, page 9665).
“Maintain robust prey populations that will result in three key ben- efits for wolf conservation in Washington: (1) providing wolves with
an adequate prey base, (2) supplying hunters and recreational viewers of wildlife with continued opportunities to hunt and observe game, (3) reducing the potential for livestock depredation by providing an alter- native to domestic animals. Ungulate populations in areas occupied or likely to be occupied by wolves should be managed consistent with game
management plans devised for those populations” (Wolf Plan, p 147)- The WDFW needs to increase the current ungulate populations and decrease predator populations in the Eastern Recovery Zone, especially in what the WDFW calls Chronic Zones, rather than study the prob- lem for years. This balance cannot be accomplished with the WDFW’s current concept of single species management of apex predators.
The WDFW presently wants to advise the livestock producers through their conflict specialists
on how to manage wolf conflict
“on the ground” with few, if any workable tools and take zero responsibility for the inevitable outcome. If change is not forth- coming once Federal delisting and State recovery has been achieved
in the Western two thirds of the
state, WDFW will force the same
wolf conflict management onto live- stock producers. It is time for all Live- stock producers in the State to speak up: That it is our sole responsibility to manage our livestock (private proper- ty) using best management practices while conforming to permits and approved grazing plans. Be collabora- tive and proactive with the WDFW’s conflict specialist and continue to be so, only if, at the first sign of conflict the WDFW accepts their responsi- bility to manage the state’s wolves
WDFW
by responding with their range riders, hopefully prior to the wolves harassing and/or killing livestock or becoming hard wired livestock killers. If the WDFW cannot or will not manage the State’s wolves “on the ground,” how can they expect the livestock producers to manage the State’s wolves?
The number one role of the WDFW is to manage the State’s wild- life as per their Legislative Mandates (RCWs) and WACs, and it is their job. It is not their job to hide behind public opinion surveys and Advisory Groups under the disguise of people management, as has become the norm.
Without the WDFW stepping up and managing both predators and prey as mandated above, the whole grandiose concept of single spe- cies management of predators, without considering their effect on all the landscape has a sad future for all, including the predators. “Ac- tions build trust”.
WDFW
16 KETCH PEN - July 2020