WORKING
DRAFT
Enclosed is the latest draft of the chapters. The changes made were our attempt to incorporate the decisions made at the May 21st Wolf Working Group meeting as well as the new language from the Group of Four as requested at the meeting. We also reviewed and incorporated proposed edits from members.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. History of Wolves in Washington and Surrounding Areas
E. Social, Cultural, and Economic Values
A. Conservation/Recovery Objectives
D. Delisting to Game Animal Status
F. Wolf Working Group Discussions
A. Wolf Depredation on Ranch Animals
B. Management Tools for Reducing Wolf Depredation
C. Compensation Programs for Wolf-Related Losses and Deterrence in Other States
D. Other Proactive Programs to Minimize Wolf-Livestock Conflicts
E. Components of a Wolf-Livestock Management Program in Washington
F. Recommendations for a State-Managed Depredation Program and Compensation Fund in Washington
A. Wolf Predation of Ungulates
B. Recent Impacts of Wolves on Ungulates in Neighboring States
C. Ungulate Status in Washington
D. Wolf-Ungulate-Agriculture Interactions
VI. WOLF INTERACTIONS WITH NON-PREY AND
OTHER SPECIES
A. Wolves and Other Carnivores
C. Wolves and Listed/Candidate Species
D. Ecosystem Responses to Wolf Presence
B. Interactions with the Public
C. Interactions with Domestic Dogs
D. Wolf Hybrids and Pet Wolves
XII. GOALS, STRATEGIES, AND TASKS
XIII. BUDGET ESTIMATES FOR IMPLEMENTATION
A. Washingtons Population and Economy
F. Other Potential Economic Impacts
Endangered fish or wildlife Unlawful taking Penalty.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1. Map of
the four main fur trading posts operated by the
Company in
Figure 2. Identification characteristics used to distinguish wolves from coyotes
(from ODFW 2008) .. 20
Figure
3. Map of the area designated as the
population segment of gray wolves (from USFWS 2008) .. 29
Figure
4. Three gray wolf recovery regions in
Region, Northern Cascades Region, and Southern Cascades and Northwest
Coast Region 37
Figure 5.
Estimated suitable wolf habitat in three identified recovery regions in
adapted from Oakleaf et al. [2006] by B.
Maletzky).
.. 38
Figure
6. Nine ecoregions recognized in
Figure
7. Ten major elk herds recognized in
Mountains
herd; 3, Colockum herd; 4,
(Nooksack) herd; 6,
Helens herd; 9, Olympic herd; and 10,
Willapa Hills herd)
.. 71
Figure
8. Distribution of four deer subspecies
in
B = mule deer, C = mule deer and white-tailed deer, D = Columbian white-
tailed deer and black-tailed deer) . 76
Figure
9. Current distribution (shaded area) of
moose in
Figure
10. Current distribution (shaded areas)
of bighorn sheep in
Figure
11. Current distribution (shaded areas)
of mountain goats in
Figure 12.
Relationships between confirmed losses of (a) cattle, (b) sheep, and (c)
dogs and minimum fall wolf numbers in
through 2007 (plotted from data in Table 3)
137
Figure
13. Trends in numbers of tags sold and
hunters participating in general deer
and
elk seasons (all weapons) statewide in
Figure
14. Trends in numbers of hunter days
during general deer and elk seasons
(all weapons) statewide in
Figure
15. Trends in statewide numbers of deer
and elk killed and hunter success
during general and permit seasons
(all weapons) combined in
1997-2006
147
Figure 16. Map of WDFWs six administrative
regions. Map numbers correspond
to designated region numbers
147
Figure
17. Percent of statewide deer and elk
harvest (all weapons) according to
WDFW region number,
1997-2006. Region boundaries are
depicted in Figure 16
148
Figure
18. Trends in hunter numbers for moose,
bighorn sheep, and mountain
goats
in
Figure
19. Trends in numbers of hunter days for
moose, bighorn sheep, and
mountain
goats in
Figure
20. Trends in hunter harvest of moose,
bighorn sheep, and mountain goats
in
Figure
21. Trends in hunter success for moose,
bighorn sheep, and mountain goats
in
Figure
22. Representation of non-resident
hunters as a percentage of total hunting
customers
in
according
to species and averaged for fiscal years 2002-2007
152
Figure
23. Trends in hunting revenues generated
by the WDFW hunting program
for
all species combined (i.e., big game, small game, and migratory birds)
and
separately for deer and elk for fiscal years 2002-2007
153
Figure
24. Trends in hunting revenues generated
by WDFW for bighorn sheep,
moose,
and mountain goats for fiscal years 2002-2007
154
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Miscellaneous records of wolves in
Table 2. Prey selection by wolves at various
locations in the central and northern Rocky
Mountains of the
Table 4. Confirmed livestock and dog losses from wolf
predation in
and
Table 5. Annual numbers and percent of death losses of
cattle and sheep by different
predators in
Table 6. Percent use of different proactive methods
among ranchers and farmers
employing such techniques to prevent predation losses in livestock in
Table 7. Possible management options to address
wolf-livestock depredation during
wolf recovery phases 58
Table 8. Current population estimates of the 10 major
elk herds managed by WDFW
in
Table 9. Reported causes of elk mortality in
Table 10. Estimated
annual costs of recovery and management tasks to implement the
Washington Wolf Conservation and Management Plan over the next 10 years 124
Table
11. Inventories of livestock and
farmland in
(NASS 2004) 128
Table 12. Numbers of cattle and sheep operations by size category and geographic
region for
Table 13. Numbers and acreages of active grazing allotments by livestock category on
national forests in
unpubl. data) 133
Table 14. Annual death losses of livestock from different causes and their monetary
values for
Table 15. Projected numbers of packs, breeding pairs, lone
wolves, and annual levels
of confirmed
depredations of livestock and domestic dogs and their estimated
monetary values (in
current dollars for 2007) for four different population
size categories of
wolves in Washington
139
Table 16. Estimated total expenditures by hunters and average expenditures
per hunter
for all types of hunting combined
in
USCB 2007)
151
Table 17. Projected numbers of packs, breeding pairs,
lone wolves, and ungulate prey
for four different
population size categories of wolves in Washington
157
Table 18. Estimated total expenditures and average expenditures per participant for
all types of wildlife-watching activities in
those around the home and away from home (from USFWS and USCB 2007) 160
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many
people contributed to the preparation of the Washington Wolf Conservation and
Management Plan. Foremost among these
were the members of the Wolf Working Group (WWG):
WDFW staff that helped with
aspects of the plan included Jerry Nelson, Anthony Novack, Rena Henson, Steve
Pozzanghera, Dave Brittell, John Pierce, Eric Fiedler, and Steve Zender, with
other contributions from Scott Fitkin, Scott McCorquodale, Paul Wik, Dana Base,
Dave Ware, Woody Myers, Cliff Rice, Pat Fowler, Jim Watson, Kevin Robinette,
Ken Warheit, and Sue Wisner. WDFW
administrative support staff also gave assistance: Katy Jones, Wendy Childs,
Dolores Schmid, Susan Lasiter, and Michael Day.
Other useful
information on wolves or related topics came from Jeff Allen, Carlos Carroll,
Brad Compton, Jesse Timberlake, Patti Happe, Brian Harris,
Thanks are extended to the
following people who provided technical comments on preliminary drafts of the
document:
I. INTRODUCTION
The
gray wolf is an endangered species in
Increased
dispersal of wolves into As wolves in these states continue to increase in
numbers and expand their range, wolf biologists predict they will disperse into
Washington and Oregon from Idaho and reestablish breeding populations. Wolves are expected to disperse
into northeastern
Wolves in the eastern third of
In January 2007, WDFW Director Jeff Koenings, appointed 18
members to a Wolf Working Group (Appendix B) to advise WDFW in the development
of a Gray Wolf Conservation and Management Plan for Washington. The Working Group began meeting in February
2007. In giving direction to the group,
Director Koenings noted that wolves are an important and valued component of a
healthy ecosystem in
The Director specified two sideboards for the group to work within:
·
First, the option of managing for no wolves in
·
Second, WDFW would not reintroduce wolves to
He also noted that the plan would not attempt to recover
wolves to historical population levels, which is an unattainable goal given the
many changes to ; and prior to completion of the draft plan for
scientific peer review. The
scientific peer review draft plan was completed in xxxxxx 2008, and the plan
then underwent a 90-day public review from xxxxx to xxxxx 2009, including xxx
public meetings throughout the state during xxxx and xxxx. The Working Group met an additional time in
xxxxxx 2008/2009 prior to completion of the final
plan in xxxxx 2009.
WDFWs Listing and Delisting Procedures (WAC 232-12-297,
Appendix A) require the development of recovery plans for species that are
state listed as endangered or threatened and management plans for species
listed as sensitive. These plans
identify measurable recovery objectives and strategies to achieve those
objectives so that the species can be downlisted and eventually delisted in the
state. The Gray Washington Wolf
Conservation and Management Plan will meet the needs of a state recovery plan,
and at the same time, will provide for management of the wolf once it is
delisted from state endangered, threatened, or sensitive status. The goal of the Washington Wolf Conservation and
Management Planplan is to ensure a self-sustaining
population of gray wolves in the state and to encourage social tolerance for their presencethe species
by reducing and addressing conflicts.
To meet this goal, the plan includes such tasks as identifying and managing toward population objectives, engaging in public outreach and education, developing a response strategy for damage, and conducting ongoing monitoring and research. As specified in WAC 232-12-297, section 11.1, recovery or management plans are to include, but not be limited to: 1) target population objectives, 2) criteria for reclassification, 3) an implementation plan for reaching population objectives that will promote cooperative management and be sensitive to landowner needs and property rights, 4) public education needs, and 5) a species monitoring plan. The overall plan will specify resources needed from and impacts to WDFW, other agencies (including federal, state, and local), tribes, landowners, and other interest groups. The plan shall consider various approaches to meeting recovery objectives including, but not limited to regulation, mitigation, acquisition, incentive, and compensation mechanisms.
In developing this plan, WDFW and the Working Group sought to establish the basis for a wolf conservation program that is achievable, realistic, fair, flexible, cost-effective, defensible, sustainable, fundable, engages the public, and provides incentives for meeting wolf conservation goals.
This
plan was developed prior to wolf packs becoming reestablished in and as
such, answers to many important management questions are unknown. WDFW does not know what specific habitats
wolves will choose, how they will behave, or what impacts they will have after
their arrival. Significant changes to the
landscape since the extirpation of wolves in the early 1900s make it difficult
to use historical information to predict which areas are most suitable for them
to inhabit today. Information regarding
wolf habitat and prey in other states can be helpful, but has limited
applicability to Washington due to each states own unique landscape. WDFW did adapt information from states such
as Montana and Idaho and has used that information as a general guide.
Successful
management of wolves will require that WDFW, which will be implementing
the plan, be able to effectively and efficiently apply adaptive management
principles. There are several aspects to
the plan that are believed to be critical to its success:
1) Wolves need to be managed in concert with other species and resource plans. The way wolves are managed will affect and be affected by other species, particularly primary prey and other large carnivores. Many of these species (e.g., elk, deer, moose, cougars, lynx, grizzly and black bears, wolverines, and fishers) have their own management or recovery plans. None of these species can be managed in isolation.
2) An active information and education program must offer guidance and information about living with wolves and about rules and regulations related to the plan.
3) Sufficient funds must be available to
implement the conservation and management plan.
Individuals representing many interests had input into the
plan through the stakeholder Working Group and the public at large through
public meetings and public review of the plan though the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) process. The plan is
intended to balance the array of public interests in the conservation and
management of wolves in
Because human tolerance has been and remains the primary
limiting factor for wolf survival, building tolerance for this species will
require acceptance of the plans approach to addressing wolf conservation and
human conflicts. Non-lethal and lethal
control activities actually may promote the long-term survival of wolves by
enhancing tolerance and providing redress to citizens legitimately impacted by
wolves. This also means recognizing the
wolf as a native species of
The purpose of this plan is to guide the conservation and
management activities necessary for downlisting wolves from a status of state
Endangered to state Threatened to state Sensitive, and then delistedfollowed by
delisting to a game animal.
If the states wolf population eventually grows large enough, some
undetermined amount of closely managed licensed hunting could be
considered. Reclassifying and managing
the species as a game animal will require that wolves continue to be carefully
managed to prevent the population from declining to a level requiring
relisting.
II. BACKGROUND
A. History of
Wolves in Washington
Fur Trading, Bounties, and Extermination in Washington
Wolves were common throughout most of
Trapping of wolves as a commercial source of fur began in
earnest during the 1820s following the establishment of the
Figure 1. Map of the
four main fur trading posts operated by the
Despite the fur trade, wolves remained common in many areas
of
Euro-American settlement of the
Although poorly documented, wolves were heavily persecuted
during the last half of the 1800s as ranching and farming became established in
the state, and were eliminated from most areas by 1900 (Dalquest 1948). Poisoning, trapping, and shooting were common
control techniques. Populations held out
somewhat longer in a few more remote locations.
One of these was on the Olympic Peninsula, where estimates of 115 wolves
in 1910 and 40-60 wolves in 1919 were made (Scheffer 1995). However, this population declined rapidly
thereafter and was nearly gone by the late 1930s (e.g., see Beebe no
date). Adamire (1985) reported that
bounties were paid on 46 wolves by the
Illustrating the rarity of wolves in
Table 1. Miscellaneous records of
wolves in