The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission decided to maintain the status quo and not adopt or amend rules for deterring wolf-livestock conflict at its special meeting on July 8.
The commission voted 5-4 for the “no action” alternative to the final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) for the 2011 Wolf Conservation and Management Plan for Washington. The alternative adopted by the commission does not codify the use of nonlethal and lethal measures under the nonbinding guidance of the wolf plan and protocol.
The FSEIS was in response to a request by Gov. Jay Inslee (D) in 2020 after the Center for Biological Diversity and several environmental groups prompted him to grant a petition for wolf control measures to prevent conflicts and avoid the loss of wolves.
The commission considered four alternatives in the FSEIS. The first alternative would establish general criteria for using nonlethal and lethal measures to mitigate wolf-livestock conflict based on the 2017 wolf-livestock interaction protocol.
Under the second alternative, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) would develop a rule based on area-specific conflict mitigation plans in consultation with affected livestock producers to use nonlethal and lethal measures to mitigate wolf-livestock conflict in areas of chronic conflict.
The third alternative was to develop a rule similar to a petition from environmental groups, which would “be the most prescriptive of the four alternatives and would include the most specific expectations for use of non-lethal and lethal measures to mitigate wolf-livestock conflict,” according to the FSEIS. The petition details conflict prevention tools such as range riders, guard dogs, fencing and other measures.
Commissioner Kim Thorburn, who made the motion to adopt the no action alternative, stated the petition by the environmental groups would be “burdensome” on the people affected and that the current plan is effective for wolf management.
Commissioner James R. Anderson stated at the hearing that the state has a good deal of knowledge and data operating under the 2011 plan that provides a framework for the nonlethal and lethal removal of wolves. The latest population count shows wolves are in recovery. Anderson said the current program has a lot of engagement from producers, local communities and governments to make wolf recovery happen, and a stricter rule would be counterproductive.
Commissioner John Lehmkuhl preferred the second alternative, as it addresses why Inslee wrote the letter in 2020 asking to minimize the removal of wolves, and it focuses on chronic depredations in the flash zones. Lehmkuhl believes WDFW looked at the available science and literature, and they concluded the second alternative was the best option.
Commissioner Lorna Smith stated at the hearing that she would work hard to improve the outcomes Inslee asked the commission for. Smith said while the state is doing a better job than neighboring states, comparing Washington to Montana and Idaho is “a low bar.” Smith believes that Washington can be a model for other states in managing wolves and minimizing the conflict between livestock and wolves.
Commissioner Melanie Rowland concurred with Smith’s statement and expressed that the commission should look into the matter further. Rowland said her main concern is poaching and how WDFW can prevent more poaching of wolves and other carnivores. Rowland acknowledged the program is understaffed but said WDFW could enact further measures.
Commission Chair Barbara Baker said voting for the no action alternative does not mean the commission could never have a rule on managing wolves. Baker said WDFW has made progress on managing wolves but has not gone far enough. Baker said the rules should be bigger in scope and address post-recovery of the wolves.
WDFW Director Kelly Susewind noted the no action alternative means the department will maintain the status quo.
“The status quo is an adaptive management process we’ve evolved over the last 10 years and will continue to evolve,” Susewind said. “We have some brilliant staff working on this, and their ultimate goal is less injury to livestock and wolves. We will always be looking for better ways to do it, so the status quo does not mean we’re done.”
Commissioners Smith, Rowland, Lehmkuhl and Tim Ragen voted against the motion not to adopt a rule. Inslee appointed all four after he requested a rule.
Commissioners Thorburn, Baker, Anderson, Molly Linville and Donald McIsaac voted for the motion.
Mike Faulk, deputy communications director for the Office of the Governor, told WLJ in an email that although the commission did not adopt the rule, several commissioners noted the need for additional work. The governor will discuss possible approaches for that work when he meets with the WDFW director later this month.
Environmental groups were disappointed with the vote and stated the rules should reflect a “sound, scientifically proven, nonlethal wildlife coexistence policy,” rather than cater to the livestock industry.
“We’re incredibly disappointed that the commission rejected efforts to fix Washington’s broken wolf management system,” said Sophia Ressler, a Washington-based staff attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity.
“Enforceable rules are crucial to fixing the mismanagement of our state’s endangered wolves. The status quo will continue to fail Washington’s wolves and all who care about them.”
The groups have 30 days to appeal the commission’s decision to Inslee’s office. The governor could then overrule the commission’s decision and require that rule-making be initiated, which would open a comment period to seek public input on new rules. — Charles Wallace, WLJ editor
