'It's a stupid bill, and it's a waste of our resources'
SEATTLE (AP) - It's not the first time someone in eastern Washington has suggested relocating gray wolves west of the Cascades Mountains, but one tongue-in-cheek bill introduced this year highlights real divisions over what to do with the endangered predators.
Lamenting that "the entire citizenship of the state has not been fully able to enjoy the re-establishment of this majestic species," a Republican lawmaker suggests moving some of the animals to western Washington.
"OK, all of you who love wolves and advocate them in the state, I want you to be able to share in all the benefits in having a wolf pack," said Rep. Joel Kretz, R-Wauconda, who represents the northeast corner of the state where many of Washington's eight confirmed packs roam.
"It's a stupid bill, and it's a waste of our resources," said Sen. Kevin Ranker, D-Orcas Island.
Kretz's measure, House Bill 1258, suggests moving gray wolves to the Olympic Peninsula and the San Juan Islands - a jab, Ranker noted, directed at him, since the plan would send the animals to his district. Ranker was a vocal critic of last fall's state-sanctioned killing of a wolf pack that had repeatedly killed on rancher's cattle in Stevens County.
The bill has not gotten a hearing in the Democrat-led House, but similar sentiments have been echoed over the years as the state has wrestled with how to handle wolves that have recolonized the state faster than expected.
In 2008, there were only a handful of wolves. This year, there are eight confirmed and four suspected wolf packs, numbering between 51 and 100 animals. All are on the eastern side of the state, and many in that region have complained that they bear the burden of the state's wolf recovery efforts.
Eastern Washington legislators have introduced a slew of bills that would give ranchers and local counties more leeway to deal with gray wolves.
Among the measures, Senate Bill 5187 and House Bill 1191 would allow livestock owners to shoot and kill wolves that threaten their livestock without first obtaining a permit from the state.
Wolf advocates and others oppose the measures, saying it would hurt the state's wolf recovery efforts and contradicts years of efforts put into hashing out a state wolf plan.
Citizens currently can get a caught-in-the-act permit to kill wolves, but only after the state has determined that wolves have killed or injured their livestock. Two such permits were issued last year, though neither was used, according to the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
"I think we all understand that the wolves are here, and they're here to stay," said Rep. Shelly Short, R-Addy, sponsor of HB1191. "But it's disingenuous for the other side to say 'deal with it' without giving folks over here any options."
Another proposal, Senate Bill 5188, would allow local counties to declare that wolves are a threat to livestock and allow local sheriffs to kill wolves, currently the domain of the Fish and Wildlife Department.
"We should stay the course and let our quality plan guide us," Mitch Friedman, executive director of Conservation Northwest, told lawmakers at a hearing last month. "Change can be disruptive and wolves are bringing a lot of drama and at times trauma. But after a time we'll adjust, and wolves will no longer feel so new and upsetting."
Gray wolves are protected as an endangered species throughout the state. The animals are federally listed as endangered only in the western two-thirds of the state.
The state's wolf plan, approved in 2011 after three years of meetings, requires 15 breeding pairs of wolves to be established for three years in all regions of the state before they could be removed from endangered status and their populations could be controlled. A breeding pair means a male and a female raising two or more pups in a given year.
Relocation isn't unheard of. The state's wolf management plan says it's an important conservation tool, and Conservation Northwest says it supports moving wolves to speed up recovery.
Other wolf-related measures include:
- Senate Bill 5193/House Bill 1219 would reclassify wolves as big game similar to bears and cougars, creates a special wolf license plate and pays compensation for wolf kills of animals regardless of whether they're raised for sale.
- Senate Bill 5079 creates a dedicated general fund to compensate ranchers for livestock losses. It passed out of committee and awaits action by the Senate Ways and Means committee. It has support from ranching groups and some wolf advocates.
- Senate Bill 5300 prohibits livestock owners from receiving compensation for damages to livestock caused by wolves unless they have a cooperative agreement with the state.
- House Bill 1501 allows the state to compensate livestock owners at market value for animals killed or injured by wolves and creates a special wolf license plate, among other provisions.
- House Bill 1337 says gray wolves can only be listed as endangered or threatened in areas of the state where the gray wolf is also listed for federal protection.
Lamenting that "the entire citizenship of the state has not been fully able to enjoy the re-establishment of this majestic species," a Republican lawmaker suggests moving some of the animals to western Washington.
"OK, all of you who love wolves and advocate them in the state, I want you to be able to share in all the benefits in having a wolf pack," said Rep. Joel Kretz, R-Wauconda, who represents the northeast corner of the state where many of Washington's eight confirmed packs roam.
"It's a stupid bill, and it's a waste of our resources," said Sen. Kevin Ranker, D-Orcas Island.
Kretz's measure, House Bill 1258, suggests moving gray wolves to the Olympic Peninsula and the San Juan Islands - a jab, Ranker noted, directed at him, since the plan would send the animals to his district. Ranker was a vocal critic of last fall's state-sanctioned killing of a wolf pack that had repeatedly killed on rancher's cattle in Stevens County.
The bill has not gotten a hearing in the Democrat-led House, but similar sentiments have been echoed over the years as the state has wrestled with how to handle wolves that have recolonized the state faster than expected.
In 2008, there were only a handful of wolves. This year, there are eight confirmed and four suspected wolf packs, numbering between 51 and 100 animals. All are on the eastern side of the state, and many in that region have complained that they bear the burden of the state's wolf recovery efforts.
Eastern Washington legislators have introduced a slew of bills that would give ranchers and local counties more leeway to deal with gray wolves.
Among the measures, Senate Bill 5187 and House Bill 1191 would allow livestock owners to shoot and kill wolves that threaten their livestock without first obtaining a permit from the state.
Wolf advocates and others oppose the measures, saying it would hurt the state's wolf recovery efforts and contradicts years of efforts put into hashing out a state wolf plan.
Citizens currently can get a caught-in-the-act permit to kill wolves, but only after the state has determined that wolves have killed or injured their livestock. Two such permits were issued last year, though neither was used, according to the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
"I think we all understand that the wolves are here, and they're here to stay," said Rep. Shelly Short, R-Addy, sponsor of HB1191. "But it's disingenuous for the other side to say 'deal with it' without giving folks over here any options."
Another proposal, Senate Bill 5188, would allow local counties to declare that wolves are a threat to livestock and allow local sheriffs to kill wolves, currently the domain of the Fish and Wildlife Department.
"We should stay the course and let our quality plan guide us," Mitch Friedman, executive director of Conservation Northwest, told lawmakers at a hearing last month. "Change can be disruptive and wolves are bringing a lot of drama and at times trauma. But after a time we'll adjust, and wolves will no longer feel so new and upsetting."
Gray wolves are protected as an endangered species throughout the state. The animals are federally listed as endangered only in the western two-thirds of the state.
The state's wolf plan, approved in 2011 after three years of meetings, requires 15 breeding pairs of wolves to be established for three years in all regions of the state before they could be removed from endangered status and their populations could be controlled. A breeding pair means a male and a female raising two or more pups in a given year.
Relocation isn't unheard of. The state's wolf management plan says it's an important conservation tool, and Conservation Northwest says it supports moving wolves to speed up recovery.
Other wolf-related measures include:
- Senate Bill 5193/House Bill 1219 would reclassify wolves as big game similar to bears and cougars, creates a special wolf license plate and pays compensation for wolf kills of animals regardless of whether they're raised for sale.
- Senate Bill 5079 creates a dedicated general fund to compensate ranchers for livestock losses. It passed out of committee and awaits action by the Senate Ways and Means committee. It has support from ranching groups and some wolf advocates.
- Senate Bill 5300 prohibits livestock owners from receiving compensation for damages to livestock caused by wolves unless they have a cooperative agreement with the state.
- House Bill 1501 allows the state to compensate livestock owners at market value for animals killed or injured by wolves and creates a special wolf license plate, among other provisions.
- House Bill 1337 says gray wolves can only be listed as endangered or threatened in areas of the state where the gray wolf is also listed for federal protection.
How do some of these people get elected. Sure bring some wolves over to the west side, we have a cat problem.
I despise these welfare ranchers and these wildlife hating inbreds. The wolves will continue to be in WA for many years to come and they will continue to keep the elk and deer in check.
@rick6565Â I can assure you the feeling is quite mutual. Your stupidity is off the scale.
@Powderhound @rick6565 coming from an inbred, that's funny.
@Powderhound @rick6565 Ricks inbred? what? sounds about right from the idiotic stuff he posts. Im guessing West Virginia.....
@rick6565 @Powderhound Good thing your opinion means less than nothing to me or I would be offended by your remark. If you don't want to look like the idiot you are I would suggest not running your mouth off when you don't know what you are talking about. I've wasted enough time on you, you're an idiot.
Just looking at the eyes of that wolf in the picture lets me know that I don't want to be anywhere near it!Â
I find it impossible to understand that we would rather kill wolves or let them starve because we have taken away their hunting grounds when relocating them would help save the species and ensure that our children and children's children would be able to know these amazing creatures. We have infringed on their territory not them on ours. show some humanity.
They should not only enjoy the wolves but should also enjoy the windmills--especially in Olympia!!
It's a wonderful bill! I love it! What a cheery and uplifting thing to read before going to work this morning!
Sen. Kevin Ranker, D-Orcas Island, finally a smart politician.Â
 @mac14 Smart because he figured out he was the butt of a joke bill directed at him for his stance to control the lives of citizens 500 miles away from his district.
 @al_wa Because he thinks it is a waste of time and money. I want people in office who won't waste my money.Â
Why are ranchers on public land? They won't get my support. Also if they actually cared about their livestock they would get guard dogs. There are a few breeds that are well known to keep wolves away. Anyone with livestock be it goats, sheep, etc should have guard dogs.Â
Â
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/hunting-just-one-way-to-manage-wolf-packs
 @Northend Your lack of knowledge of history and ranching is showing. A HUGE percentage of the land in western states is government land. A lot of it is leased to ranchers, miners, etc., for the revenue it generates, the jobs it creates, and the resources it provides. If it were NOT, then the food you eat, the house you live in, and oil for your vehicle would all be MUCH more expensive. Secondly, much of the range land is open grazing, and it's not like a move with a large heard that the cowboy carefully tends and circles around with his trusty dog to protect. They are turned loose, and rounded up later, after fending for themselves for a good long while. It's cost-effective and practical, and been done for a long time. Your proposal is impractical at best.
@RN1 @Northend just becasues its cost efective, does not make it right. And in fact most ranchers have not asked for leases to graze the cattle in the first place. So no lease, no rent payment, no wolve hunts, period, get him Ranker
Â
In the 1800's grizzly bears roamed freely around Puget Sound, it was their natural home. Seattle should be repopulated with these magnificent creatures, after all they were here first. Many of today's problems would be solved, homeless, no one would sleep outside. Traffic, reduced dramatically, people would leave Seattle in droves and no one would come to visit. King County would loose it's death grip on all things political.
Senate Bill 5193/House Bill 1219 would create a special wolf license plateÂ
Â
Where would they mount it?
 @Insomniac Dreams Right under the wolf's tail, I expect. But putting annual tabs on it might be difficult.
I wonder if these same politicians will sanction killing humans if they feel the population is out of control. Bunch of illiterate barbarians.
 @Vince That's what some folks on the left propose. (not all mind you, but there are some high-profile lefties that actively call humans a plague on the planet, etc).
@Vince What is wrong with you?
@Vince ya mean like tweakers?
 @Vince Doesn't the farmer's livestock have a right not to suffer a violent early death?
 @Insomniac Dreams  @Vince If the farmer cared about his livestock he would have farm dogs which are well known to keep wolves away.   http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/hunting-just-one-way-to-manage-wolf-packs
@EASTSIDE 1 Livestock are a non native species. Nobody really cares if the wolves take out a few non native livestock animals. Can't these welfare ranchers get a real job?
 @Northend  @Insomniac Dreams  @Vince Are you a livestock grower?
Â
@Northend RANCHERS do care. That is why they have the right to protect there livestock by shooting preditors that kill or harm there livestock. That also includes the right to kill stray dogs if needed.
@Northend Yeah...right before the wolves KILL the farmer's dogs... Http://www.livestockguardiandogs.com/4-wolves-kill-11-lgd-s-what-s-wrong-with-this-picture-t75.html
Â
Koolaide drinker. If you love them so much, take a pack home.
 @Vince Great..so go down to the BLM and let them know you want a pack for your neighborhood!
To much misinformation about wolves. They have reestablished themselves, by migrating down from BC and other places. We have less then 100 Wolves. Wolves should be manged by the the state, which they have been. Ranchers should have rights, and need to be able to protect there herds, and be compensated for confirmed wolf kills. They should not be able to dictate how a endangered species is being managed. They get to use our public lands, to free range there cattle for free. Maybe keep your herds on your own land, and protect them how you see fit on your own land? Stop relying on the Government to feed your herds, then "cry wolf" when something else is on the public land.
Â
This is a fear driven campaign, funded by the Cattlemen s association. They are making it a witch hunt.If people want to see a pretty interesting documentary about the return of WA wolves, you should watch "land of the lost wolves" Gives views on both side of the argument, so you can make up your own mind, with out the crazy politics.
 @vikingsmash How is it any of your business what happens on the other side of the state. Would you want these ranchers coming over here and making decisions about what you are doing in your back yard?
 @vikingsmash While you got some of it right you are off in some areas of your thinking. So called free range isn't free. As was stated below, grazing rights are auctioned off to the highest bidder. I personally will have nothing to do with anything related to govt. unless necessary, as they can't do anything right. As far as being a fear driven campaign, I would say it's fact driven. They were almost eradicated for many reasons. We are in a position now to do something good for the wolves and everyone else concerned. Things have changed a bit since the 30's and we can make it work. We can't them go unchecked or we'll be back in the same boat all over again. We are dealing with an apex predator. They aren't stupid, it's much easier for them to catch animals that are fenced and they will no matter what else is around. They are trying to do the right things, the bill isn't all bad. I care a great deal about all animals and my posts in the past will show it. I put them above most people in fact and do everything I can for mine above and beyond what most will do. Ranching is hard in many ways and most of us are a long ways from rich. If I had a wife and kids I'd never make it on this alone unless I got bigger. Even then it's a stretch. Things like this are a serious issue for many and I'm glad I don't have to deal with it directly yet. Extreme action either way isn't the answer. I hope we are smarter now and have learned from our past mistakes. Everything deserves a chance, this isn't just our planet.
 @Powderhound  @vikingsmash I have family who are ranchers, and I live in Alaska Part of the year. Never really have any issues with the wolves. Wolves are fearful of human.I have never seen one live outside of Alaska and it ran away instantly. I've also been around several wolf hunter. They do it for the joy of getting off on shooting wolf. They show off with the phone pics show a dead 60lb female, then leave it there too rot.
Â
Some of them have been brain washed that if the wolves return, your entire heard is done for, there gonna eat your, pets, then your children are next. They usually don't offer a logical reason why a former resident species can't return to its former range. They need to be educated on the subject. The Cattleman association is a paid lobbyist group, that spreads these lies. But the rancher do need to have firm and fair laws in place. They should be paid full market value if its a confirmed wolf kill.Â
Â
In 2011, 4% was the amount of wolf kills on cattle predation. Coyotes with 53%,  Vultures 6%, dogs at least 10%, ect... Should we kill all the Vultures and dogs as well?Please everyone watch Land of the Lost Wolf, to gain more knowledge on this story.Â
 @vikingsmash I never said we should kill them all. If you check your numbers you will find the ratio of coyotes to wolves is a wide margin. Stands to reason there would be more kills by coyotes and every other animal you mentioned with the wolf having the lowest number as there are so few wolves around. Those numbers will change as the wolf population grows. If you want to fix the problem I suggest you work on getting this entire country to eat rabbit food and good luck with that.
Well Mr. Ranker...if there is no problem with wolves then why not introduce them into your islands? Hypocrisy showing itself again!
What this state needs is to split into East and West. As it is, the I-5 corridor controls the whole state. The domorat party machine just shoves their socialist agenda down the throats of the bulk of the land owners. Eastern Washington really gets the progressive-socialist shaft, as does East King County. Â
@oldster70 You are no different than any of those idiots in Olympia; democrats or republicans. You are unable to think beyond party lines; which is the only reason nothing gets accomplished in our state or washington DC. Keep drinking the kool-aid, son
 @oldster70 Yeah... who cares that the bulk of the people are here along the I-5 corridor. Its just land acreage that makes one a citizen. Oh wait, the tax base is here too.
 @Nic Stevens So let them go! Why do you care what a bunch of ranchers 500 miles away do?
There are 75 wolves. Oooooh, that's soooo many... whaaaaa. 75 wolves are hardly a threat! Unfortunately, the people that would shoot them are going to shoot them regardless of how the law is written. They will come up with all kinds of excuses to justify their actions. Especially when they get special compensation for killing them. This whole thing is disgusting!
@KOMO Viewer The wolves being re-introduced are not native to the region. Wolved breed and populate at an incredible rate and in remote rural areas their numbers can get out of control very fast as we have all seen. They never should have been re-introduced in the first place. We are only undoing what never should have been done.
@Original Coyote Rancher's livestock and cattle are not native to Washington. Wolves are native and helluva more important and valuable than some welfare rancher's non native livestock.
@rick6565Â I see your at it again. "Â Wolves are native and helluva more important and valuable than some welfare rancher's non native livestock" Really? Do you not eat beef? You cant compare the two on the same level. Wolves are important to the ecosystem yes. Beef is one of the most important commodities in this country, thus making it important. They need to find a way to make it easy on the wolves and the cattle ranchers.Â
@Original Coyote The wolves are being reintroduced after being erradicated from the region by the federal and state governments quite a long time ago. The gray wolf has the largest habitat of any wild dog in the world. So, yes it is native.
 @KOMO Viewer So then you should have no problem with a pack being introduced into your neighborhood?
 @sometimesright  @KOMO Viewer Not at all since I have large dogs.Â
" large dogs. "
Â
Thats called a snack....
@Northend @sometimesright @KOMO Viewer  http://www.lifewithwolves.org/home/?p=12001
You can watch them KILL your dogs....