Feb. 9, 2023 at 2:57 pm Updated Feb. 9, 2023 at 2:57 pm
By
The Seattle Times
Re: “Proposed bill could give WA counties more control over wolf management” [Feb. 5, Local News]:
Legislators should vote “no” on House Bill 1698. While it seems a practical approach to reduce wolf-recovery conflict by “providing flexibility for the Department of Fish and Wildlife to collaborate with local governments,” it does so by effectively downlisting wolves prematurely and undermining the scientific and management authority of the department and its commission.
HB 1698 sets a dangerous precedent by giving county officials undue influence over wildlife policy and elevates politics over science. Local governments lack sufficient scientific expertise, and their interests can oppose the concerns of the totality of state residents.
The Wolf Management Plan (2011) was created with strong citizen involvement and it is working. Endangered-species recovery is best ensured when programs remain in place until numbers are reached for the population’s long-term viability and there is sufficient return of animals into suitable habitat across the species’ historic range. This is why the Wolf Management Plan requires that recovered wolves live across three regions of Washington that together reflect the species’ historic state range.
While we remain patient for wolf recovery, the department must fully support those communities learning to coexist with wolves, majestic carnivores that provide ecosystem benefits for people and nature.
Fred W. Koontz, Duvall, wildlife conservation biologist
Exposing the Big Game 
Reblogged this on Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting Blog.
How much more control do they need?? Wolves here are already slaughtered and poached; please do not give more “control” to these idiots to remove them from the endangered species listing.