Editorial: A wolf plan, for now
Setting aside the questions of how many wolves, if any, should be allowed to roam Washington and how [Washington's wolf] plan will be managed as a practical matter, perhaps a more important long-term result is that the state is establishing its authority over the issue – rather than letting the federal government make all the decisions.
Like it or not, we now have a state plan for managing Washington’s gray wolf population.
And because it’s a compromise plan, hammered out in an arduous process that never had a chance of unanimity, hardly anyone is going to entirely like it. Some won’t like it at all, as long as it provides for any living wolves in Washington.
However, no one can complain that it wasn’t an open, transparent process. The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission conducted 23 public hearings, and collected 65,000 comments. Everyone who wanted to be heard had an opportunity to say their piece. That won’t be satisfactory to some folks who didn’t get their way, but my experience is that when someone says “you didn’t listen to me,” what they really mean is “you didn’t agree with me.” They’re not the same thing.
Setting aside the questions of how many wolves, if any, should be allowed to roam Washington and how that plan will be managed as a practical matter, perhaps a more important long-term result is that the state is establishing its authority over the issue – rather than letting the federal government make all the decisions.
The matter surely isn’t entirely settled. While adoption of the plan signals the end of discussion, it’s only the beginning of implementation. The Fish and Wildlife Commission points out that the plan is a guide for further action. How that plays out will continue to involve everyone who has a stake in the future of Washington’s wolves.
