Gray wolf’s not ready to come off list, two scientists say

OLYMPIA — Two of three scientists asked to review a draft plan for recovering the endangered gray wolf in Washington say the state should require higher numbers before taking them off the endangered list.

No solid numbers were proposed, although one scientist suggested that twice as many wolves — or about 30 breeding packs instead of the state’s proposal of 15 — is closer to the number needed to ensure a viable population. Each breeding pack typically has between 5 and 10 wolves.

The third scientist wrote that the state’s recovery objectives seem reasonable, but suggested using raw numbers rather than successful breeding pairs as a target.

The numbers in the state’s plan will determine how many wolves — or how many breeding pairs — will be required for three consecutive years before gray wolves are no longer protected as endangered in Washington state.

Just how many wolves are needed to recover the species is one of the most controversial aspects of the plan, now in its draft form.

A wolf working group — with members from a variety of interests, including hunters and ranchers — developed the proposed plan. The state Department of Fish and Wildlife settled on the 15 breeding pairs because it meets the goals for establishing a long-term population of wolves in the state while addressing wolf conflicts with livestock and other prey, such as deer and elk, according to the plan’s environmental impact statement.

But some members of the wolf working group believe the numbers are too high, and in a minority opinion, they suggested eight breeding pairs instead of 15.

In Idaho, gray wolves were recently delisted, and that state is holding its first public wolf hunt. Idaho has 94 documented wolf packs, with at least 65 breeding pairs, according to a report from the Idaho Fish and Game Department.

In Washington, two wolf packs are confirmed, the Lookout Pack in Twisp and the Diamond Pack in Pend Oreille County.

To review its recovery plan, the state Department of Fish and Wildlife sought what’s known as a “blind” peer review by scientists, and this week released the comments of the three unidentified scientists who reviewed the plan, said agency spokeswoman Madonna Luers.

She said the state had already sent its plan to several wolf experts asking for voluntary opinions, but also contracted with the University of Washington to seek out and pay three experts in the field to provide an intensive scrutiny of the document.

Their comments will be considered along with the many other comments the agency has received on its wolf plan, she said.

The scientists commented on many other aspects of the draft plan, and generally complimented it as thorough and unbiased.

They also complimented the plan’s effort to compensate livestock owners at higher levels than other states.

Luers said she doesn’t expect the review to delay Wildlife’s plan to review comments, meet with citizens of the Wolf Working Group who helped develop the plan, and present a final wolf recovery plan to the Fish and Wildlife Commission late this year.

K.C. Mehaffey: 997-2512

mehaffey@wenatcheeworld.com