Conservation Northwest

Homecoming for wildlife Getting beyond controversy Wolves I first got involved with wolf conservation in 2007 as a member of Washington's Wolf Working Group. Back then, Washington had zero confirmed wolf packs and controversy was limited to hushed grumblings, mostly around listing status in the Northern Rockies. That first year of stakeholder group wrangling culminated in majority support for a wolf conservation and management plan recommendation. The process was tense but relatively productive compared to the polarization and gridlock over wolves in recent years. I realize that sometimes controversy is necessary and that it's important for conservationists to support science-based wolf policy and to challenge myth spreading wolf alarmists in positions of power and influence. But over the past several years, I've also come to believe that unnecessary conflict can cause more harm than good for the conservation issues we care about. Success and tension Today, just six years after the first packs were documented in the state, we have an estimated dozen packs and 100 wolves or more. Unfortunately, with this successful start to the wolf recovery story came big bumps in the road: the reprehensible poaching of the state's first pack, the Lookout pack; a handful of confirmed depredation incidents and conflicts with pets; and the highly controversial and emotionally charged elimination of the Wedge Pack by WDFW in 2012. Top that off with dozens of heated public meetings about wolves around the state, a seemingly endless stream of often sensational media articles, and impassioned (and often distorted) op-eds, letters-to-the-editor, and online posts, and it often feels to me that the ever-unfolding drama—ostensibly about wolves and their potential impacts on livestock and deer and elk—has less to do with those animals themselves and more with our own fears, emotions, egos, and other social/political baggage. Derrick Knowles Conservation associate, dknowles@conservationnw.org issues, there were signs out of Olympia this year that at least some legislators want a middle road that would ensure wolf recovery and help soothe tensions in wolf country. As part of an agreement brokered by a bipartisan group of legislators earlier this year, just over $1 million dollars in the state budget was identified to promote proactive, non-lethal methods, from range riders to carcass removal, to reduce conflicts between livestock and predators like wolves. This critical funding will be generated by adding $10 to the cost of a vanity license plate starting in October. While lightly publicized, that agreement also paved the way for WDFW to adopt a temporary rule allowing ranchers and pet owners to shoot a wolf in the highly unlikely scenario where someone would catch a wolf attacking one of their animals. A public process is now underway to make that rule permanent and hopefully improve it along the way. WDFW and others argue that this provision will help people gain a sense of control over their own property and increase social tolerance for wolves in rural areas. Another sign of a possible middle road forward for wolves was the formation of a Wolf Advisory Group (WAG) earlier Washington wolf. © Craig Monette Continued next page Solutions for wolves don't come easy This year promises more potential for controversy around Canis lupus with the US Fish and Wildlife Service's wolf delisting proposal for much of the lower 48 states, including the Pacific Northwest. Many scientists and groups, including Conservation Northwest, believe the proposal is premature and would hinder recovery in places like the Cascades where wolves are just beginning to make a comeback. Yet, despite how difficult the topic may be for some, it's in the best interest of wolves and long-term social tolerance to find a path towards recovery and eventual delisting as outlined in Washington's wolf plan. Despite ongoing friction over delisting (removal of wolves from ESA protections) and other wolf management policy 10 Fall 2013conservationnw.org

• Cover