RSSCommunity voices wolf concerns at WDFW forum
Some residents say hunting animals might be necessary to preserve human safetyYakima Herald-Republic
E-mail
Print
Comments
More 'Local'
- New concept and new look planned for State Fair Park
- Volunteer judges offer to ease backlog of civil court cases
- Hitchhiker? DNA leads to husband
- Home custody escapee back in jail
- Mabton mayor pushes to hire Selah ex-police chief
- Account to benefit Dale Carpenter
- Sunnyside hires firm to find new manager
YAKIMA, Wash. -- As spectators clad in camouflage caps and jackets filed into a conference room at Yakima's Red Lion Hotel on Thursday to hear state wildlife officials roll out their proposed wolf management plan, Jeff Tayer uttered what turned out to be a prescient thought.
"It does seem like the 80 percent of the people in this state who are supposedly for the wolves coming back are not the ones coming to the meetings," said Tayer, the regional director of the state Department of Fish and Wildlife.
During a public-comment session in which the bulk of speakers among the audience of about 100 identified themselves as hunters, it sounded like a far more popular plan would be not to manage wolves, but to hunt them -- before they start hunting the elk, the deer and, perhaps, us.
"We're no longer the hunter, we're the huntee. And now you want to bring in wolves," said Joe Headley of Yakima, noting that many backcountry recreationists have taken to carrying a pistol because of cougars.
"They're going to be maneaters. They're not fuzzy little kittens ... these things eat you."
Wolves were bounty-hunted virtually out of existence in the state 70 years ago because "historically, wolves have been a problem," Bernard Sauvé of Selah said. "History proves you don't learn from history. Our ancestors were smart enough to figure out what the problem was. ... Now we want to reintroduce these animals?"
The state plan, written over 21/2 years by a 17-member citizen working group, doesn't actually call for reintroducing wolves, just managing them. "The facts are the wolves are here," said state wildlife director Phil Anderson. "Is doing nothing an option?"
The state plan's preferred alternative sets wolf population and distribution standards for downlisting and delisting wolves; calls for compensating livestock owners who have lost animals to wolves; and establishes strategies for balancing a genetically viable wolf population with strong elk and deer herds.
The impacts on the latter were a primary concern for many Thursday speakers. Neal Houser of Ellensburg talked not only about how wolves would affect Kittitas County elk, but also "an endangered species up in the northeast corner of the state, which is now going to be greatly endangered -- woodland caribou. All of a sudden we're going to bring in something that's going to eat them all? It doesn't make sense."
The part of the plan calling for 15 breeding pairs around the state before delisting wolves was a primary target. Jim Huckabay of Ellensburg said Washington has too little wildlife habitat and too many people for that many wolves -- which, at 10 or more in a pack with a single breeding pair, could mean 150-plus wolves.
Once the state finally decides to delist, Huckabay said, it would be followed by years of lawsuits and injunctions, "and the wolves will be at 500 before the smoke clears."
At the other end of the spectrum was David Graves of the National Parks Conservation Association. He said his organization was "concerned that the target number of 15 breeding pairs is too low." He suggested tourism benefits might offset some of the economic impacts to the livestock industry.
Most commenters, though, echoed the sentiment of Duane Sandin of Yakima.
When he was growing up in Minnesota, Sandin said, "We had lots of wolves. We killed them on sight and there was a good reason for that."
Until there was an actual hunting season for wolves, he said, there was apt to be a very unofficial one.
"It's a thing called 'Shoot, shovel and shut up,'" Sandin said. "And that's what's going to happen. So knock yourselves out, folks."
Just more right wing hysteria without a shred of evidence to back it up. I swear the gun nuts are the most scardy-cat bunch of paranoids on the planet. The only time I carry a gun is when I'm hunting, and where are the statistics to back up the statement "many backountry recreationists have taken to carrying a pistol because of cougars?" I'm a regular backcountry user, hang out with many backcountry users and not one of us is scared to the point of these big, bad he man hunters. There is no evidence that the wolf will decimate elk or deer populations. Whiny hunters just want it all to themselves. Nothing but greed, and paranoia.
Report ViolationSourdough,
Can't help but to agree with you. Happiness is a warm gun to so many. As a part time resident of N. Minnesota I am alarmed by the attitudes that still prevail that wolves are dangerous to people. With that attitude, all elk and deer should be removed, because they in actuallity do harm people and their possessions. 2006 figures showed that deer car collisions totalled over 1 Billion dollars in damages....
As a part time resident of Northern Minnesota, and countless Winter backcountry experiences in the Boundary Waters, I have never once felt threatend by wolves. One trip, I shared a lake with a pack of 8 wolves that had taken a moose calf. The howling went on all night, simply beautiful.
On a backpacking trip in Route National Forest in Colorado, I did witness a "gutslammer" unholster his gun when he saw a dog a bit ahead of it's owner. The dog was carrying a large double pannier red pack. Some real danger there!
I have empathy for ranchers who practice sound management of their herds and lose livestock to wolf predation. Many solutions to this, one of which is the removal of the offenders by lethal means.
However, I have contempt for hunters who feel that nature should serve as a "trout pond" or "game preserve". Go out and work. Life is not fair, and there are no guarantees. If you harvest a deer, elk, moose, great, but go out and earn it.
Immer
Contrary to popular belief, wolves were never extinct in Washington State. I saw one on the Pacific Crest Trail between Chinook and White Pass the summer of 1981.
More deer and elk are killed on the highways than will ever be killed in the mountains by wolves.
Man killers?!?!?! There has never been a reported human death at the jaws of a wolf. Period.
I carry a pistol when I go hiking or camping in the woods. But I use it for protection from the TWO legged predator, not four. After having someone come into my camp over the summer up the South Fork (he didn't see us in our screen tent) to rip us off, I know who the top predator in the forest is.
SciPhiMom, I totally agree with you. Wolves are smart, and I hope that they run into the boundaries of the YIN because they don't kill Wolves! I have never heard of a Wolf killing a human, that is just stupid! I'd say watch it, because there are people who will shoot a human for killing a wolf. Who ever shot "Hoppy" on March 28th, the day the act was removed, I am sure, that person is going to be haunted by the Creator! Because that wolf did nothing to be hunted down. That wolf was tracked between Wyoming and Utah and also monitored of taking care of wolf pups that did not belong to him. Why such hatred toward a beautiful animal. You know, all the years of being in the deep woods, I would be more afraid of a bear or cougar before I would fear a wolf. I pack a fire arm with me, but I also pack maze, which I am prepared to use first in defense if needed. But, a 2 legged predator, they are going to get shot big time before they are allowed to hurt me or a forest creature.
Report Violation(This comment has been removed by a Yakima Herald-Republic moderator)
To offer further clarification, as I believe one of my statements could be misleading.
There IS a fatal north american wolf attack resulting in death - at least wolves are believed to have killed the person. The San Diego Zoo statement is specific and is related to predation.
There are additional reported wolf attacks, however those wolves were fed by people and had lost the necessary caution. Those attacks resulted in minimal injury, but for full disclosure I should have acknowledged them even though the situations involved stupidity on the part of the people involved.
The fatal attack is also considered to have involved wolves which had been fed by humans.
I cannot stress the importance of NOT feeding wild animals. I apologize for leaving out the data as it is valuable.
To include all documented wolf attacks, you are looking at 0.2 attacks per year over the last century and 0.01 fatalities per year attributed to wolves.
HowlColorado
If the "ONE" case you are talking about is the incident in Canada, there is some speculation that a bear did the actual killing, as one report I read stated the injuries and consumption were much more consistent with a bear attack. Wolf prints were found around the remains and the blame was cast.
Immer
Yes, that is the case I was talking about. There is STILL debate after 4 years about what actually did the killing. But, at this point, for accuracy and fairness, I have to state it as it is documented (since that is what I was talking about). And that is as a wolf attack. However, I am glad you mentioned that it was disputed though.
There is question about the nature and motive of the other attacks too, to be honest. However, the important thing to keep in mind is: don't feed wild animals, because even the relatively passive ones such as wolves will attack under territorial situations.
I was unfair in branding Scott Sandsberry as biased. The story, by it's nature, is going to be biased if Scott didn't get quotes to naturally balance the presentation.
For him to make statements in response to, albeit inaccurate, quotes, would have been editorializing and lets be fair, the comments here are doing the job of challenging the ridiculous quotes or assertions.
I did take specific issue with an element of how the story is written, and Scott DID respond to me about that criticism. His position is understandable, but neither viewpoint was likely changed by the exchange of emails.
I will, however, retract the statement regarding his bias. The meeting was certainly biased, which makes his reporting of it accurate. As I said, it becomes my job to challenge what was said in the meetings. He did his job.
I'm afraid you guys have no clue what you are talking about. As for the guy in Canada, it was February, no bears were seen before or after the killing. The tracks and wounds were consistent with wolves, not a bear. Wolves kill.
If you want to see what happens to wildlife with uncontrolled wolves go to Yellowstone and check out the once great herds of elk, they are now in the 10s, not hundreds or thousands. The moose are mostly gone, swans are gone.
The rut, which used to consist of hundreds of elk on the Madison and around Mammoth now consists of a couple of bulls and a dozen cows in each place.
Be careful what you ask for.
Human safety? There are less attacks on humans than listed in one of the above comments at least from 100% wild wolves.Since recorded history here there was one attack by a wolf that was rabid another in the 1800's by a crippled wolf on the hunter who had killed his pack.Its the great white hunters who want to hunt these beautiful creatures.As for the elk herd between Brucellosis ,wasting disease and poaching Elk numbers in an area they are over hunted have fallen.Its been proven in herds as this wolves only eliminate the crippled,the sick,the weak;and improve the genetics of a herd by culling out these while the hunters go after the trophy bucks.
Report Violationswan36,
The "attack" I am citing occurred November 8, 2005, not February. Also, if you want to know what was going on in Yellowstone prior to wolf reintroduction, I would highly recommend "Playing God in Yellowstone" by Alston Chase.
- Immertreue is accurate. The only documented attack by wolves which lead to human fatality on the North American continent was November of 2005. It took a FULL 2 years to even make the determination that it was wolves, based almost exclusively on eye-witness testimony. As we know, eye-witness testimony is entirely impacted by context and preconceived notions.
One wolf expert - Paul Paquet, a doctor of zoology out of the University of Alberta - served as an expert for the coroner's office. An internationally recognized wolf expert, his testimony was that the attack appeared to have more likely to be a bear attack than wolves. Dr. Gordon Haber's research and observation shows that wolves find sport in taunting bears and driving them away from their recently killed prey.
The eye witnesses testified that no bears had been observed in the area.
The other wolf expert, Mark McNay, works for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Wildlife. He worked with the family of Carnegie and stated himself certain that wolves were to blame.
If two wolf experts can't agree, then us mere mortals certainly have no way to know for sure - so while this remains the one and only documented fatal wolf attack, it has the footnote, or asterisk, of at least being disputed.
Posting Guidelines - Updated Aug. 21 2009
Readers are encouraged to use these forums to discuss issues affecting the
Yakima Valley. Debate the ideas presented in stories and other comments, but
refrain from personal attacks and offensive remarks aimed at others; e.g.,
you may call an idea idiotic, but don't say the person is an idiot. The
Herald-Republic reserves the right to remove any comment for any reason.
Examples include material that is obscene, encourages illegal activity or
stereotypes based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs and
other factors. Continued violation of these guidelines can lead to
suspension or revocation of your ability to post comments. If you believe a
comment is inappropriate, you can bring it to our attention by clicking the
"report violation" link by each comment. Guidelines revised Aug. 21, 2009.
Registered User?
