Washington Wolf Plan Key Talking Points
Reintroduction Should Be Considered
The option of reintroduction of wolves into Washington State should have been considered during the development of the plan. The goal of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is to maintain a viable wolf population and the goal of the livestock community is to have a population that does not require protection under the Endangered Species Act. The quickest way to meet both of these goals is by reintroducing the wolves into the state.
Translocation
The Gifford Pinchot National Forest is filled with prime habitat that would readily support wolf recovery. There are reported elk overpopulations in the Mount St. Helens area and other areas on the national forest that cause damage to the streamside ecosystems and thus fish and other wildlife. As predators of ungulates (elk and deer) wolves are a natural way to keep elk populations in check and to promote a return to healthy ecosystems. Bill Ripple and Bob Beschta’s work that demonstrates the incredibly diverse and positive effects of wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone could translate to our own ecosystems here in Washington State. Translocation can also help wolves reach new habitats despite limited migration routes that make it difficult for large predators to travel through Washington State.
Target Numbers for Conservation and Recovery of Wolves are Too Low
The professionals within WDFW should carefully consider the recommendations of independent scientists when making a final decision about the number of breeding pairs that will be considered a “viable wolf population distributed in a significant portion of the species’ former range in Washington." The goal for the number of wolves in the first draft plan was much too low.
1. Target Wolf Numbers are Inconsistent with US Fish and Wildlife Service’s Recommendations – Federal scientific experts concluded that viability would be “enhanced by higher (500 or more wolves) rather than lower population levels (300) and longer (more than 3 years) rather than shorter (3 years) demonstrated time frames.”
2. Target Wolf Numbers are Not Based on Science - WDFW used science and biologic information to recommend a downlisting of wolves from threatened to sensitive when wolves re-populate to 15 breeding pairs. The Washington Wolf Group (the group drafting the management plan) disregarded WDFW’s suggestion to use “scientifically based estimates of the wolf numbers needed for recovery.” Instead, the draft plan completely removes all protections for wolves once they reach the required number of breeding pairs. This rapid shift in management is not supported by science and makes for poor policy for the recovery of a threatened species.
3. WDFW is releasing the final draft plan before conducting a blind peer review. Blind peer review is the foundation of credible science, and it is essential to crafting a plan that will truly recover wolves in Washington. Without the independent scientific review that blind peer review requires, a plan that caters to the politics of the situation rather than the needs of the wolves is all too likely. Releasing the final draft plan before considering the comments of the blind peer reviewers demonstrates the powerful role of politics in shaping the management plan.
4. Target Wolf Numbers Dependent on Unreliable Linked Populations - Finally, the target numbers depend on maintaining connectivity to wolf populations in neighboring states. While British Columbia and Idaho may be able to contribute wolves to the recovery in Washington, Oregon has a very limited population that is unlikely to contribute a large number of individuals or breeding pairs. Furthermore, in Idaho hunting of wolves is now permitted, which will further reduce the numbers of wolves available to enhance any wolf population in Washington. The fragmented nature of the wolf populations in the Northwest should be considered in developing an effective management plan.
Benefits Derived from Wolf Recovery Outweigh Costs
Targets set by the Washington wolf working group represent a compromise meant to appease livestock producers concerned about economic losses caused by returning wolves. There is ample evidence that the benefit of wolves returning to Washington State, both economic and ecological, outweigh the costs.
