Legislation in the state of Washington is aimed at pushing the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife [WDFW] to take action on the Gray Wolf Conservation and Management Plan that was approved in 2011.
HB2771, introduced by state Rep. Joe Kretz (R-Wauconda), would include translocating wolves when established population criteria are met. He explained that there are 20 known packs in the state of Washington—17 of those packs are in his district in the northeast corner of the state. “So, out of 49 legislative districts, one has almost 90 percent of the wolves,” he said.
The bill made it through the state House of Representatives Feb. 13 on a 85-13 vote, a margin which Kretz said, “blew my mind.” His comment was due to the fact that he has been pushing this measure for a number of years only to have it fall by the wayside. “I’ve run a bunch of bills the last few years that got shot down,” he told WLJ. “This is kind of the smallest request I can make and still have a bill. Basically it says to ‘follow your own plan.’”
“We’ve got enough to meet the management plan to delist the whole state—just in my district,” explained Kretz. But he went on to say that the way the plan is set up the WDFW won’t declare wolves recovered and eligible for delisting until there are at least four breeding pairs in three managed zones.
Washington is unique in its wolf management in that protections differ from east to west. Wolves were classified as endangered in Washington under federal law in 1973 and under state law in 1980. Currently, wolves in the western two-thirds of the state are listed as endangered under federal law; in the eastern third of the state they have been removed from federal listing. They are listed as endangered under state law throughout Washington. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the lead management authority over wolves where they remain federally listed in the state and the WDFW is the lead where wolves are federally delisted.
Those protections on wolves, Kretz argues, are “tying the hands” of people trying to manage growing populations and livestock depredations. “It’s killing my cattle producers,” he said. Kretz went on to say that he has tried to make clear that when cattle or livestock producers go out of business it impacts the local and ultimately the state economy, but those arguments seem to fall on deaf ears.
Previous legislation introduced by Kretz, which failed to advance, would have established a pilot delisting in the four northern counties most impacted by wolves. “I felt it was a reasonable approach, he said. “It didn’t affect anybody else. We weren’t putting wolves anywhere else. It was a plan to go through the process to delist and have some options for dealing with wolves.” That idea, he noted, didn’t make it out of the committee.
Kretz called the plan that was just approved his last try. He said that, while he really doesn’t want to inflict wolves on anyone, “If everybody loves them so much, they probably should have some. My aim is to get them enough wolves in the other two recovery zones to declare them recovered and get rid of the endangered species status; and then go to a post-delisting management plan.”
Asked about some of the roadblocks to wolf management, Kretz said, “It’s all political here. We’ve got Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma, which are full of people that live in apartments and believe the propaganda that there are these fuzzy warm things that we got to have or our ecosystems are going to collapse.” He added, “They can vote anyway they want; it’s not going to have any effect on them. That’s the struggle over here.”
The WDFW management plan for distribution is based on natural expansion of wolf packs. Kretz’s bill would help that expansion by translocating some of the animals. Wolves that have been identified as “problem” animals because of livestock depredations would not be eligible for relocation.
But those depredations remain a concern as options are limited to manage wolves. Kretz said livestock producers in his district are being impacted. “My guys [constituents] don’t have time to wait.” He offered a scenario under the current situation: “We could have 30-40-50 packs in my district before they reach those magic locations around the state to delist them.”
The state defines a pack as two or more wolves traveling together. But it notes that a pack usually consists of five to 10, including the alpha male and female. It also explains, “Packs can be substantially larger in size (up to 20 or more wolves) in locations with abundant prey.”
Wolves will usually have a range of 200 to 500 square miles, according to WDFW, with the territory size based on density of prey.
The measure now moves to the state Senate where upon the first reading it was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources and Parks (ag committee). “It sounds like it will have some rough sledding over there,” Kretz said.
WLJ also talked with State Sen. Shelly Short (R-7), who is also in Kretz’s district. She explained that getting the language approved in the Senate will be a difficult task. She has not drafted language and said that because this year is a short 60-day legislative session it is too late to offer a stand-alone bill. Short noted that she has not had a conversation with Kretz since his bill was passed.
As mentioned, upon first reading in the Senate, it was referred to the ag committee, and although Short is not a member she has been asking for a hearing. She explained that she fully supports the language, but the chairman of the ag committee has not been willing to bring it up for a hearing.
Short said the conversation is long regarding what may be keeping the WDFW from acting on existing language in the Wolf Management Plan. She offered some insight: “I think right now it is more they know there is pressure, not just from the environmental groups, but other folks that aren’t going to want wolves in their backyard.” She added, “I think that once they open that process [to translocate] it’s going to be quite contentious, and I think for that reason they have chosen to kind of look the other way.”
She explained that, while trying to work with a diverse group of people and opinions, at the end of the day she is still responsible for representing the people in her district. “If they [WDFW] are going to say that all of these options aren’t options—you can’t regionally delist, you can’t translocate them, you can’t do lethal removal—all of the things; at some point we just have to say, ‘enough is enough,’ and that’s where we are.”
Like Kretz, Short sees the burden wolves have placed on livestock producers and rural communities in her district. “The wolves aren’t going away. We know they are here, but until they are delisted they cannot be managed as a predator. We just feel that until they are delisted we really have limited options.”
Washington Cattlemen’s Association (WCA) has been keeping an eye on the wolf situation for years. Speaking of the current legislation, Executive Vice President Sarah Ryan told WLJ,
the WCA is supportive of any bill that promotes steps toward state delisting. “This bill defines a science-based approach to translocation and which wolves can be eligible for translocation.” She added that the original bill did not have enough clarity for us to support it.
Ryan also noted that as it is currently written some WCA members are in areas that could receive wolves. Those livestock producers, she said, do not support the bill.
She went on to say, “It is important to note that translocation is only helpful if it allows for state and federal delisting, and we must have a state post-delisting plan. Translocation will not allow for a massive move of wolves; it could be a tool that allows for a couple of pairs to be translocated. The other challenge is, in two years’ time translocation may or may not prove to be a useful tool.”
Time is running out as the Washington legislative session ends March 8. As of press time the measure had not been heard in the committee. — Rae Price, WLJ editor
