Yes, I did read that part. You mention that range riding is the only tool that works. I think it's presumptive to say that the only tool - known so far to work - is the only tool that might ever be found or developed that works. I'm not in a position to say that research won't produce another tool that works as well or better or is more cost effective. Are you?
The way I look at it is that WA was and is between a rock and a hard place. People often forget, ignore, or were never aware that WA did NOT reintroduce wolves to this state. Wolves were already in southern B.C. and Idaho, and it was only a matter of time until they showed up in WA. WDFW, an agency known for its reactionary history, for once got out in front and began developing a state wolf management plan before any wolf packs were known to have moved into the state. As a long time WDFW (and predecessor agencies) observer, I'm positively amazed at that.
I think it was a certainty that any wolf management plan would be controversial. How could it not be? Conservationists would find any plan as not conserving enough for wolves, and ranchers would find any plan short of total annihilation as not conserving enough for livestock. That is why I think the state's inevitably imperfect plan did a pretty good job of "threading the needle" between ESA compliance and allowing the removal of wolves that repeatedly prey on livestock. It seems like your perfect, or more perfect, solution is to spend the research money on range riding, one tool that has shown some effectiveness. I don't know what the "right" split is between spending available funds on the one existing tool and continued research into additional tools. If you do know, then why don't you explain your credentials, and if we agree, then we can support your position?
