This is the first of a multi-part series about wolves in Washington.

The Fish and Wildlife Commission meeting last Friday and Saturday was most interesting. What's more, it was actually enjoyable.

The procedure was palatable as a Department of Fish and Wildlife biologist or other such person would make a presentation. The commissioners would question the person as they saw fit and then the public was invited to comment of whatever subject had been presented.

Public comments were limited to three minutes, which was a reasonable time for most subjects. At meetings such as this, attendees could tie up the flow if 10 or 20 were to make the same comment.

Sometimes it is meaningful to let the commission know 10 or 20 persons feel the same way about a subject. However, the same weight can be measured if one person makes the comment and then tells the commissioners there are 10 or 20 others who feel the same way and asks those people to raise their hands. The commission saves 30 minutes of testimony this way. Instead of taking an extra three minutes, I watched as one person was call for his comment.

He simply stood up and said, "My concern has already been addressed."

The main theme for this meeting was hunting seasons and other related items for the next three years.

This information was interesting, yes, but what caught my eye was the draft Commission position statement about wolves in Washington.

Unfortunately the presentation by Steve Pozzanghera was scheduled for 9:15 until 10 a.m. on Saturday, during my radio show.

However the written draft of the Commission and the maps used by Pozzanghera provides a fascinating insight into the Commission's wolf plan.

This draft is dated February, 2012 and states: Wolf populations continue to grow throughout the West. Natural wolf re-colonization is occurring in parts of Washington.

Experts disagree on the question of how well wolves will fare in Washington.

With the smallest land base, the second highest human population in the western states, large gaps between expanses of suitable habitat and with smaller populations of wild prey, wolf populations may not expand as quickly in Washington as they have in Rocky Mountain States.

Conversely, wolves are resilient and adaptable animals with high fecundity and population growth potential and they may expand exceedingly well. Only time will tell.

The Department must be ready to respond to the reality on the ground no matter the pace of recovery and, in either case, wolf population monitoring and response to livestock depredations is a high priority for the department.

This is a proper way to set the foundation for the rest of the plan.

The position statement discusses securing social tolerance by stating; Without effective management of wolf impacts, social tolerance in rural areas will decline.

This is true, as people aren't going to put up with the damage to their way of life, their way of providing a living for their families and the security of their families.

Wolves have had an adverse effect on the deer and elk herds of Idaho and Montana.

This has caused hunters, some from Moses Lake, who have hunted those states for decades to end those hunts. Outfitters who are hired to take hunters into the wilderness to camp and hunt are going out of business.

We do not want the same experience in Washington. The Commission addressed the situation by stating in Washington, elk herds, with one exception, are just meeting or are below their population objectives. The Commission is concerned regarding the future impacts of wolves on ungulate (having hooves, such as deer and elk) populations and the Department's capacity to successfully monitor and respond to those changes.

The Commission also addresses the mix of wolves and livestock, calling it a significant concern, stating individual producers can experience very large losses.

The Department must establish credibility by making a high priority to use the suite of management tools available to livestock producers and exercise its management authorities assertively.

When it lacks the capacity to respond effectively, the Department must provide livestock producers with the ability to take all measures consistent with the laws and as outlined in the plan.

I applaud the Commission for their strong language concerning wolves.

However, as we have discovered while watching the reintroduction of these large predators in Idaho and Montana, the state involved doesn't always have the last word in wolf management.

We must be able to manage the wolf population by any means to insure the deer and elk populations are maintained at a proper level.

When it comes time to manage the packs by hunting, present the livestock producers with enough tags to protect their animals.

Next week: What is a wolf pack and where are they located.