State Senate OKs killing wolves without permit
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - The Washington state Senate passed a measure Friday to allow livestock and pet owners to shoot gray wolves without a permit when the wolves are attacking or threatening their animals.
The bill is the latest salvo in an ongoing debate over how to cope with the reintroduction -and subsequent population rise - of the predatory canines in northeastern Washington state.
"We have the right to protect our families and our properties and our livelihoods," said Sen. John Smith, R-Colville, the bill's sponsor. "It's a fundamental principle of the American system."
Bill opponents say it would hurt the state's wolf recovery efforts and contradicts years of effort put into hashing out a state wolf plan.
"This bill undermines a three-year intensive public process that the ranchers agreed to, as did the environmentalists," said Sen. Kevin Ranker, D-Orcas Island.
Asked whether the bill would invite an open season on wolves, Ranker said that "it would create a slippery slope. It's absolutely a step in that direction."
At present, citizens can get a caught-in-the-act permit to kill wolves, but only after the state confirms that wolves have killed or injured their livestock and that nonlethal means of stopping the wolf attacks have been exhausted.
Two such permits were issued last year, though neither was used, according to the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The wolf debate is relatively new to Washington state.
Five years ago, there were only a handful of wolves in the state. By contrast, there are now between eight and 12 wolf packs, with as many as 100 wolves in total. All are well to the east of the Cascade mountains, and many of those living in their midst say they are bearing the burden of the state's wolf recovery efforts.
Smith's bill passed by a vote of 25-23 with mostly Republican support, and with Senate Majority Leader Rodney Tom not voting. It heads next to the Democratic-controlled House.
Rep. Brian Blake, D-Aberdeen, chair of the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, said he supports the bill and will give it a hearing but acknowledges that it faces steep odds of passing out of the Legislature.
Blake lamented the killing last year by the state of a wolf pack that had repeatedly attacked livestock in Stevens County, saying he fears that as the wolves multiply, inaction by lawmakers will lead to more conflict.
"It's a powder keg over there and I'm worried about what's going to happen this spring," Blake said.
The bill is the latest salvo in an ongoing debate over how to cope with the reintroduction -and subsequent population rise - of the predatory canines in northeastern Washington state.
"We have the right to protect our families and our properties and our livelihoods," said Sen. John Smith, R-Colville, the bill's sponsor. "It's a fundamental principle of the American system."
Bill opponents say it would hurt the state's wolf recovery efforts and contradicts years of effort put into hashing out a state wolf plan.
"This bill undermines a three-year intensive public process that the ranchers agreed to, as did the environmentalists," said Sen. Kevin Ranker, D-Orcas Island.
Asked whether the bill would invite an open season on wolves, Ranker said that "it would create a slippery slope. It's absolutely a step in that direction."
At present, citizens can get a caught-in-the-act permit to kill wolves, but only after the state confirms that wolves have killed or injured their livestock and that nonlethal means of stopping the wolf attacks have been exhausted.
Two such permits were issued last year, though neither was used, according to the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The wolf debate is relatively new to Washington state.
Five years ago, there were only a handful of wolves in the state. By contrast, there are now between eight and 12 wolf packs, with as many as 100 wolves in total. All are well to the east of the Cascade mountains, and many of those living in their midst say they are bearing the burden of the state's wolf recovery efforts.
Smith's bill passed by a vote of 25-23 with mostly Republican support, and with Senate Majority Leader Rodney Tom not voting. It heads next to the Democratic-controlled House.
Rep. Brian Blake, D-Aberdeen, chair of the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, said he supports the bill and will give it a hearing but acknowledges that it faces steep odds of passing out of the Legislature.
Blake lamented the killing last year by the state of a wolf pack that had repeatedly attacked livestock in Stevens County, saying he fears that as the wolves multiply, inaction by lawmakers will lead to more conflict.
"It's a powder keg over there and I'm worried about what's going to happen this spring," Blake said.
 "We have the right to protect our families and our properties and our livelihoods," said Sen. John Smith, R-Colville, the bill's sponsor. "It's a fundamental principle of the American system." Â
I just wish the State Senate would do the same thing for themselves so we could rid ourselves of their inept inability to do their job.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/packs/Â Â
Note the "suspected" wolf packs and locations...
Gotta love redneck Washington. I'd like some hard stats on how wolves are ruining the livestock farming industry. Please let us graze on public land, but we're actually in favor of less government..
@Sanctuary Just send us your address and we will move them into your backyard, then you can get the statistics for yourself. Your hypocrisy cracks me up. Liberal city dwellers who force apex predators on "rednecks" who they don't know and live 500 miles away from should be forced to take a pack into their suburb!
I am usually a defender of everything wildlife, but in order to not be a hypocrit, the people of Eastern Washington should be deciding this "wolf reintroduction" issue for themselves. I can gaurantee that NOBODY on this side of the mountains would be screaming to put a pack in Green Lake, Puyallup or Issaquah. I can promise that it would be deemed too dangerous for kids and pets. So we over here in King, Pierce and Sno Counties should not be telling the people of NE Washington who have to live with this decision that they have no say in the matter. They are living with this stupid decision and should have the right to handle it as they see fit. If you believe otherwise then how about you hand over your address and we will lobby to have the next pack put in your green belt!
@sometimesright Thank you for using a little logic. When you live in an area for 60+ years it is pretty tough to accept a change in the wildlife like a wolf... They say they are here for good, so that makes it even more intimidating. If you can or want to believe the WDFW dangerous animal report, Cougar are and have been a pretty scary animal as well..  Thanks again Sometimes...
@sometimesright While i can see your point about how they should have more say, your comparison as to why makes no sense.. Your comparing Greenlake, in the heart of the largest city in within 1,000 miles to an area of Eastern Washington that ranks as one of the least populated parts in the entire country... There is no comparison there. Wolves living in a region where entire counties have less population than 6 square blocks of Seattle is just silly and you should know this.Â
@Aidenag @sometimesright Predators in your neighbor hood . I won't trade the bear, cats or wolves for your predators. Although the Cascades is pretty close to Seattle  and the wolves are only about a 1 or 2 day walk away from your neighbor hood already... How many miles is Cle Elum from King County?  Conservation Northwest is doing it's best to make most of the east side of I 90  the Supposed Yakima water shed... Of course that is where one of the wolf packs hang out.
@Aidenag @sometimesright You seemed to have missed the point. For some reason you think it is ok to introduce an apex predator into someone else back yard, but not your own, just because there are more people in your yard? What does the amount of people living somewhere matter? How is it your business or mine what they do in Eastern Washington? The comparison is absolutely valid because it shows your glaring hypocrisy. You would not want these dangerous animals living in your yard, but are perfectly OK introducing them to some ranchers yard 500 miles and a mountain range away from you and your family.Â
@Aidenag@sometimesrightHow many cattle and sheep are you raising in Greenlake? Check out what other states are doing with wolves:Â
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt11/030612_FINAL_NRM-Background-Summary_2011.pdf
@Farmgirl @Aidenag @sometimesright That is perfectly fine. If the people who live in these areas want to have wolves in their back yard and are willing to deal with the consequences then more power to them. It is none of my business or yours. We should not force them though to deal with them if they do not want to, especially when we are introducing them. Many of the ones you are talking about never left.Â
@sometimesright Thank you :) However, according to one report put out by the state, there is at least one breeding pair of wolves in the "South Cascades/Olympic Mountains". Additionally, one tagged wolf traveled from Montana to California.
Rather than kill them, they should be caught and taken to Orcas Island where they are much loved and welcomed.
@Carl W. Like Joel Kretz said there is enough area for a few wolves near Kevin Rankers village He and Mitch Friedman could go walk among them...hopefully with a few pieces of bacon in their back pockets. While we are at it, lets move a few problem Grizzly bear and a say 5 Cougar there as well.Of course I don't know what the rest of the residents would think..Â
Asked whether the bill would invite an open season on wolves, Ranker said that "it would create a slippery slope. It's absolutely a step in that direction."
Kill 'em. KILL 'EM All!
What on Earth is a 'caught in the act' permit? I say I saw it so it's true?
Like Elk on golf courses? Just go ahead and kill 'em?
Yeah! About time, hope it passes the house and signed in to law
Most of the wolves that are shot are not in the actual act of killing anything. They are usually on the perimeter of the grazing land checking things out. They are predators and opportunists just like humans. If you, your family or pets/livestock are being DIRECTLY threatened by any wildlife you have the right to use lethal means. But to just shoot wolves on sight because you "think they might do harm" is heavyhanded.
100% agree that if they are posing a threat to you or your family directly, they can and should be killed in self defense.Thankfully that hasn't happened yet, and would be a very rare event. Unlike that Liam Neeson movie, wolves actually don't go after people all that often. More like to get attacked by a bear or cougar which are already in the region in much higher population amounts.
As for livestock? The state already reimburses those who lose livestock to wolves. And last year, if i recall correctly a report said only like 50 or so livestock were even killed by the wolves.. Most of those from big cattle ranchers who are using PUBLIC land to graze in the first place. So it's not small mom and pop operations, were talking guys who use our tax payer funded land to park their cows to feed for free essentially.. The amount of wolf attacks on private land are so small that it's essentially a non issue. Which means, this is all one big corporate attempt at saving money at our expense. What this law means is that these big cattle ranchers using land they don't even own, are now going to be able to kill wildlife on this land that WE OWN!...Â
@Aidenag You make a good point... The land we own, that is us folk on the east side as well.  To begin with, get over the fact that a cow is the bad guy....They are not but there are thousands of Conservationists  trying make them out as the ruination of the earth. Welfare Ranching is BS. Most of these farmers are struggling to make a living and that is their way life.   Plus wolf attacks are so few today, but wait a few more years. That fact will change.
Again, The cow isn't the bad guy here any more than the wolf. The bad guy  is a bunch of educated hypocrites..   .............Educated,  Selfish,  Hypocrites.............
@Aidenag In the 20 years I've had cattle I've never claimed any predation losses and there were many when I first started. Why would I want the govt. to pay me for something I am responsible for preventing? If I lose an animal, it's my fault for not protecting them. Haven't lost anything to predation in over 10 years. I shoot every coyote I see and the same will go for the wolves. Don't like it, I don't care. I've never run cattle on govt. land and never will. If people don't control the wolves, nothing will in the lower 48. The hunters will be the next group to complain, and they will shoot many more than the farmers.
@Powderhound @Aidenag Â
Your a responsible rancher than, and i applaud you for not feeling the government has to support you when nature occurs. Disagree with your feelings on wolves, since they are far less a threat than people are making them out to be. Alaska has over 12,000 of them and does just fine. Even the great lakes area has a large population and they co-exist just fine with them.
@AidenagÂ
The majority of the wolf population population in Alaska hunt
Caribou in an area north of the Brooks Range. The CaribouÂ
herds are HUGE and can go on for miles much like the Buffalo
herds of the 1800s in the Great Plains region of the lower 48.
The migration path takes them through the northwestern parts
of Canada( Yukon &NWT) into Alaska . The Wolves follow
the herds and take out the weak, or diseased members of the
herd. It is Mother Nature's way of survival of the fittest toÂ
insure the general health of the herd.
The population of humans between the Northern Brooks RangeÂ
and the Arctic Ocean is one of the sparsest per square mile inÂ
the world. When wolves threaten any of the of the remote
villages the entire invading wolf pack is eliminated as theÂ
natives recognize the immediate dangers and threats thatÂ
are present because of the wolves.
I spent a year and a half north of the Arctic Circle and have
knowledge of the wolf situation. Can you make that claim? @Aidenag @PowderhoundÂ
Thanks for the compliment, I do my best. I have to disagree with you to some extent on the wolves however. You can't compare Washington to AK. as far as sustainable wolf population goes. We can have some here but there are far less people in AK and a lot of wilderness for the wolves to have unmolested. You will also find AK to be around 48 in cattle production out of 50. I grew up in Michigan and know about the wolves there. They have lots of room in the UP but the farther south they go the more conflict they run into. I agree they should be allowed to exist but with the population in this country now the numbers must be watched very close.
In all honesty, if I didn't have cows I'd never shoot one and hope I never have to. I'd rather not shoot coyotes either but in all the years I've been here I've killed hundreds and they never go away. There are just as many now as when I started but they stay away from my cows. I'm not proud of killing anything, I do it because I have to. How would you feel if you went to check your animals and found one torn to bits and scattered all over the pasture? I've had many of my cows for 10 years or more. They aren't just cows to me so you can imagine I get a bit irritated. Govt. compensation would mean nothing. Don't make all of us out to be heartless killers. We are trying to protect our animals and that is all.
@Aidenag I'm not a huge corporate rancher, just a mom and pop rancher, own my own land (75 acres), raise cattle and HAVE lost a yearling calf to a cougar just a few years ago. That's a 700 lb. calf. The neighbor had a horse taken down by a cougar this year. I live in western Washington adjacent to a highway, 20 miles from Puyallup...and that's how far a cougar roams. No, the state doesn't have enough money to reimburse everyone for their losses and any reimbursement barely pays for the time put into paperwork. 50 head of cattle is enough meat to feed 50 families for a year. Not all the animals killed last year were owned by corporate ranches, if any. Verify your facts before you rant. MY question is: How are you going to enjoy using YOUR public land that has wolves on it if you can't own and carry a gun?
@Farmgirl @AidenagÂ
Yep, you lost it to a Cougar.. Were talking Wolves here.. And go look into the last article Komo wrote about wolves killing livestock in Eastern Washington.. The bulk of the kills were happening on govt owned grazing land and the majority were happening to one single rancher who had a huge herd in the thousands grazing on public lands. Those 100 or so wolves only killed a handful of livestock from small farms/ranches and they were all reimbursed for it by the state.
And where did i say ANYTHING about guns? Are you just assuming im anti-second amendment just because i like wolves? Get real... I own, carry and would never go into the woods unarmed with or without wolves in them.. Cougar and Bear are a WAY bigger threat to people. And we been dealing with them, co-exsisting for well over 100 years in this region now without too many problems.
@Aidenag We have been dealing with problem bear and cougar with 30.06's for a hundred years, so why should a wolf be any different. The population hasn't been damaged in any way.
@Aidenag People are a way bigger threat to people. I've worked in and roamed the Cascade mountains for many years, most of the time unarmed. It's only due to some of the types of people I've seen in the mountains over the last few years that has prompted me to carry a weapon more often now. I've had many encounters with bears, a few with cougars, bobcats and coyotes. No problems with any of those encounters (even the three where bear cubs were present). Ask yourself how many times you've been bitten by mosquitoes, black flies, ticks, etc. and then how many times you've been bitten by wolves, bears or cougars. It's the little things that will get you!
@Aidenag well if wolves are harmless to humans let relocate them here on the west side of the cascades like around north bend and Snohomish. And other urban green belts. Let them run free in parks and play grounds. Be fun to watch. In fact I would pay good money to watch it.
@Exiled_Patriot I never said they were harmless, i said it's rare that they attack people . Just look at Alaska for evidence of this. They have around 12,000 wolves, and have only had a a dozen or so fatalities in the last 50 years.... Far less than numbers killed by bears, cougars, or even Moose during the same time-frame.. So your irrational fear of wolves here is pretty funny. You must think Moose are the scariest thing on earth if your scared of a wolf..
@Aidenag @Exiled_Patriot do you have to work hard to be that stupid? Or does it come naturaly? What is the per capita of population to land in Alaska to Washington state? In Alaska you have 1.2 people per square mile covering over 500,000 square miles. Washington you have 102 people per square mile. Your comparing apples to coconuts. I have no fear of wolves or any animal I have hunted and killed most of them. The only ones I have not done yet is the Alaska brown bear. And polar bear because it closed to hunting. The wolf has no purpose in or around ranch lands.