- By Erin Rebar
For The World - Nov 21, 2023
- https://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/local/washington-fish-and-wildlife-commission-denies-conservation-groups-request-for-less-lethal-measures-against-gray/article_81ae08b8-88a5-11ee-afdb-23d584bb0ff7.html
SECTIONS
Local News
Lifestyle
NABUR
Northwest West
Noticias En Español
Sports
Go!
OLYMPIA — Conservation groups’ petition to help fix what they say is a broken system — resulting in the killing of nearly 45 gray wolves protected under federal and state laws — was recently denied.
Nonprofits Center for Biological Diversity, Washington Wildlife First and eight other conservation groups filed the petition Sept. 15. It was presented during a hearing Oct. 26 to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission, and was voted against.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife denied an interview request by The Wenatchee World, but materials were provided.
“We ask the commission to approve rules that focus on using effective non-lethal measures to prevent livestock-wolf conflict,” the petition states, “promote social tolerance for coexisting with wolves, prevent the use of legal loopholes to kill wolves, and institute a consistent, transparent, and science-based process to guide the department in authorizing any lethal control actions.”
Conflicts between wolves and livestock — and the farmers who experience livestock losses — have been around for as long as wolves and humans have coexisted. But according to Amaroq Weiss, a senior wolf advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity, livestock deaths caused by wolf predation are surprisingly rare.
“Of the 5% to 10% of livestock losses that are due to predators, wolves are near the bottom of the list,” Weiss said. “Up near the top are coyotes. After that are domestic dogs.”
According to data from the United States Department of Agriculture in 2021, 1.19 million head of livestock were in Washington state. Meanwhile, self-reported data from livestock owners total approximately 15.5 confirmed wolf-related losses per year and 1.75 probable losses per year, Weiss said. Statistically, that breaks down to about .001% of livestock that are lost each year to wolf predation. A WDFW report stated it “removed” 44 wolves since 2012, but residents may legally kill a wolf if their livestock is threatened.
“For the individual livestock owner who loses livestock to wolves, it can feel very traumatic,” Weiss said. “It’s their family business, it’s their lifestyle; some of them are very attached to their animals. I think anyone who has done wolf work for a long time acknowledges that it is really traumatic if you are a livestock owner and you lose livestock to wolves. And that’s all the more reason why there should be rules in place and the agency should be required to help you put into place non-lethal measures that are appropriate for your operation, for your livestock, for your situation, to make sure that’s as least likely to happen as possible.”
Science has not shown that killing wolves is an effective solution for resolving these predation instances, Weiss said. In fact, numerous studies have shown the most successful means for resolving wolf-livestock conflicts is using non-lethal conflict deterrent measures.
These methods, Weiss said, include things like using livestock guarding dogs, range riders, electric fences and night penning of vulnerable livestock. One of the most effective methods is the use of fladry — a series of bright cloth flags hung at 18-inch intervals along a rope or fence line — to deter wolves from crossing into an area. According to Weiss, non-lethal methods have not been used consistently by livestock owners in the state, despite the legal requirements to do so, and little to no effort has been taken to prove such measures were in place before issuing orders to kill wolves.
“If you simply kill all the wolves, you may not have any problems for the next year or two, until the next wolf pack moves in, but if you as the livestock owner have not changed your husbandry practices to better protect your vulnerable livestock, you could have the same problems all over again,” Weiss said.
According to Weiss, the petition was turned down by commissioners because they didn’t think it was necessary.
“They said they just didn’t think it was needed and they trusted the department was following the protocol,” Weiss said. “(There were) different statements by different commissioners, of course. The ones who voted against it said that they felt like the department was doing a good job and that there was no reason to tie their hands with rules.”
According to a presentation given by the WDFW during the hearing, the WDFW recommended the commission deny the petition for several reasons.
First, the WDFW presentation showed imposing a regulatory approach would likely undermine one-on-one relationships with local WDFW staff and decrease acceptance of non-lethal tools by livestock owners.
“WDFW staff strongly believe the complex issue of wolf-livestock conflict is best addressed not by codification of rules,” according to the presentation. “WDFW staff have concerns that if WAC 220-440-080 is made too restrictive and does not reasonably allow for killing a wolf attacking livestock, working dogs, or pets, these actions would not be reported to WDFW for fear of criminal enforcement, increasing undocumented wolf mortality and impeding WDFW from tracking mortality sources and trends.”
The presentation also showed WDFW believed that strict implementation of non-lethal tools would likely “impose more than minor costs on businesses” and could have a “disproportionate impact on small businesses” in the industry.
“Some of the commissioners expressed a great deal of frustration that they didn’t get a chance to talk over all of these things,” Weiss said. “Accepting the petition would have allowed them to have (those) discussions. That’s how you get the information — you accept the petition. Unfortunately, Washington’s commission seems to be of the view that they do not discuss the substance of any administrative petitions that come before them, before they make the decision of whether or not to accept the petition. They don’t even allow the petitioners to have time to present their side, their view of the issues at those meetings. Only the department gets to.”
Accepting the petition does not bind the commission to end up with a particular set of rules — or any rule at all, Weiss said.
“They (the commissioners) get to have the final say of what is in that rule,” Weiss said. “The petitioners can propose specific language; they can propose what types of amendments to make to existing regulations, or can propose brand new regulations. Once the rulemaking process opens up with an acceptance of the petition, then the commission has the opportunity to really dig in and look at the proposed language, consider other options, ask the agency to propose some rules or language themselves, take public comment on it, and invite outside experts to come in and talk to them about particular aspects of what the commission might be interested in putting into rule.”
Ultimately, Weiss, along with the other petitioners, are concerned about the future of gray wolves in Washington state if no changes are made.
“We expect to continue to see wolves be killed when they shouldn’t be,” Weiss said. “Repeatedly wiping out wolf packs isn’t an acceptable solution. They are a state endangered species.”
Petitioners have until Saturday to decide whether they would like to file an appeal with Gov. Jay Inslee.
“We are considering right now whether or not to appeal,” Weiss said. “We have 30 days from the date of the decision by the commission to file an appeal with the governor, so we are examining our options and deciding if that’s the route we want to go or not. If it’s not the route we would decide to go, we will look at what other options we have instead.”
In the meantime, it is important the public voices how they feel to the commission, Weiss said. This can be done by attending commission meetings and testifying, or by going online and writing a letter.
“Future generations of humans deserve to have the wildlife that we have now, and the wildlife themselves deserve to be around,” Weiss said.
Exposing the Big Game 
This Mouse saw the meeting. An interesting item was when the Agency made the argument that Washington’s wolf policies have resulted in fewer wolves killed than some other states, and therefore no action for improvement is necessary. One might also argue that Washington State has fewer school shootings and mass murders than some other states, so no preventative actions are necessary.
Good point.