WDFW spent $119,500 to shoot 7 wolves

By Don Jenkins

Capital Press

Published on November 7, 2016

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

A wolf rests in Washington state. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife says it spent more than $119,000 to kill seven wolves from the Profanity Peak wolfpack.

Washington spent more than $119,500 to kill seven wolves, according to Department of Fish and Wildlife wolf policy coordinator Donny Martorello, who said the agency will look at culling wolfpacks in the future in “the most frugal way we can.”
“We know that lethal removal is part of wolf management. It’s something that will occur again in Washington,” he said. “I do think that as an agency we have to think about cost-savings.”
Fish and Wildlife spent the money during an operation that began in August and ended Oct. 19 in northeastern Washington. Expenses included renting a helicopter, hiring a trapper, and paying the salaries and benefits of WDFW employees.

Public disclosure
A preliminary figure, $119,577.92, was tallied in response to public disclosure requests and was posted by an advocacy group, Protect the Wolves. Martorello said a final figure may be higher.
Fish and Wildlife had planned to eliminate the entire Profanity Peak pack, which was preying on cattle in the Colville National Forest. The department suspended the operation with four wolves surviving.
WDFW said the chances of attacks on livestock continuing were low because the grazing season was ending.
The department did enter the operation with a spending limit, Martorello said. “It’s something we think about, but money wasn’t a factor in suspending it,” he said.


The cost exceeded the roughly $26,000 spent to shoot one wolf in 2014 and the $76,000 spent to shoot seven wolves in 2012.
Cattle Producers of Washington President Scott Nielsen said lethal-removal costs will continue to be an issue.
“You have to remove the problem wolves if you ever want public acceptance in this area,” said Nielsen, a Stevens County rancher. “To say, ‘never kill a wolf,’ that is not a reasonable position.”
The state could authorize ranchers to remove wolves that are attacking livestock, he said.
“We would work collectively,” Nielsen said. “It would cost the state nothing.”
Martorello said he did not have any proposals for cutting the cost of killing wolves. He noted that Fish and Wildlife spends more on non-lethal measures to prevent wolf attacks on livestock, an expense ranchers are expected to share.

Non-lethal measures
The department’s two-year budget adopted last year included $750,000 for non-lethal measures.
Amaroq Weiss of the Center for Biological Diversity said the money spent shooting wolves would have been better used to move cattle off grazing allotments and paying for supplemental feed.
“I think the vast majority of the public would be very supportive of doing something like that, instead of killing wolves,” she said.
Wolves are not federally protected in the eastern one-third of Washington. The state’s policy calls for shooting wolves when measures such as putting more people on horseback around herds fail to stop depredations.
Ranchers are eligible for compensation for livestock attacked by wolves. Ranchers say many attacks go unconfirmed by the department and that compensation doesn’t address all the problems that have been created by wolves returning to Washington.
“I do not raise cows to feed to the department’s predators,” Nielsen said. “That is not responsible husbandry,”

source