Analysis

By DAN WHEAT

Capital Press

The likelihood of Okanogan County gaining the ability to manage the wolves may be as remote as seeing a wolf in most parts of Washington state.

County commissioners asked the state Department of Fish and Wildlife to take the gray wolf off the endangered list in Okanogan County and let the county manage it.

The county's request is based on three points:

* That the wolf is not indigenous to the state because it's the arctic gray wolf, not the timber wolf known in Washington in prior lifetimes, and only indigenous species can be protected under the state's endangered species law;

* That the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has said there's no critical habitat for wolves in Washington;

* That wolves are a carrier of Echinococcus, a tapeworm that's a health hazard to people and dogs, and it's the county's responsibility to protect the health of its citizens.

County commissioners signed their petition to Fish and Wildlife Director Phil Anderson on Aug. 3. Department spokeswoman Madonna Luers said the department received it Aug. 25 and has 60 days from that date to respond.

She said the response likely will include an explanation of state regulations that directs the department to list native species whose declining populations place them in danger of becoming extinct and to assist their recovery.

The gray wolf, Canis lupus, is one of two species in North America known by many common names including arctic and timber wolf, Luers said. The other species is the red wolf.

To that Okanogan County Commissioner Jim Detro responds that if the arctic and timber wolves are the same species then it is not endangered because there are thousands of them over their historic range.

The state, however, contends wolves are few and endangered in Washington.

Wolves are habitat generalists and need no critical habitat for survival, according to the department.

As to Echinococcus, it is found in wolves, dogs, coyotes, foxes and other wildlife and rarely infects people, department information states. It is unknown if it was present or reintroduced with wolves into Yellowstone National Park.

So if the state is unlikely to delist wolves in Okanogan County, why does the county seek it?

"We need to exercise our authority (to protect the public) and give the groups (like the Washington Cattlemen's Association) some basis to fight," Detro said.

He and his fellow county commissioners are concerned, he said, that wolves will multiply rapidly, like they have in other states, and will be out of control because the state is ill-equipped to handle them and is more focused on recovery than management.

County management, Detro said, would mainly amount to killing wolves if deemed an emergency for public health, safety and welfare. The county's authority to do that, he said, is clearer if the state delists the wolves in the county. Any other management, he said, would come down to funding.

Wolves are known to travel extensive ranges and to multiply. Other states are finding them hard to control, one state Fish and Wildlife commissioner said, while asking not to be identified. Hunting may not be effective, he said, and techniques used 80 years ago, like cyanide and leg traps, are no longer allowed.

Whether Fish and Wildlife commissioners adopt the department's proposed wolf recovery and management plan, Dec. 2 and 3, may not be the given one might assume it would be.

Three of the seven commissioners live in Eastern Washington. Some of their questions at their Aug. 29 meeting in Ellensburg could be construed as unenthusiastic toward the plan.

Commission Chairwoman Miranda Wecker, of Naselle in Western Washington, warned against reading anything into commissioners' questions and comments. But she also said, "The wolf issue is not an issue we expect complete consensus on by all commissioners."

Public division is evident from public comments although most at the Aug. 29 meeting were opposed to the plan. Many ranchers, faced with losing livestock to wolves so environmentalists in cities can feel good knowing there are wolves in the state, view the recovery of wolves as inherently unfair.

Bill Holmes, of the Teanaway Valley near Ellensburg, put it this way:

"I've raised animals. They've been 30 percent of our annual income. So if you have gangs in town and you leave 30 percent of your income on the picnic table and the gangs take it and the police come and say they have to wait to see 10 more confirmed gangs, that's hard to swallow."