Wash. Wolf Advisory Group member resigns amid tension

[wolfbait]

I made the time to attend last weekend WAG meeting in Spokane. VERY VERY sad to see that hunters and individuals whom actually care about our ungulate populations in Washington do not attend. From my view point the group is definitely made up  of a bias group which I seriously doubt has 2 individuals whom give a hoot about Moose, Elk or Deer.
The conversations only referred to predation on livestock [cattle and sheep]. Never once did I hear the use of the word lethal removal, and all discussion referred to non-lethal means of harassing the wolves.
Folks you got to get involved or forget about wildlife in this state.
Next meeting is currently scheduled Feb.1st and 2nd in Olympia.

The last time I tried to attend in Spokane, it was a closed meeting. They don't want our input. They want to manage wolves without lethal measures, ever. I'm not sure how they think they'll control the population, but I believe that's their plan.

Which bring us back to the wolf recipes, it has been proven time after time that once wolves start killing livestock the only prevention is to eliminate the wolves responsible. Refusing to do so only inflicts more damage to livestock producers.

It's to bad WDFW etc. refuse to be honest with the public.

[CAMPMEAT]

Wolves are like politicians, we'll never get rid of them no matter how hard we try, protest, attend any and all meetings, because they are welcomed here by people with tons of money and the WDFW is controlled by those groups, because that's who they're afraid of. The bleeding heart liberals, with more money then god. Hunters argue and fight amongst themselves for riding a disabled LEGAL ATV, into an area they claim is their area. Give me a break. We have too many hunters that are KEYBOARD COMMANDOS on here that don't do squat, except argue. Where I live, it is farther away, probably farther than anybody on this site, so me going to a very, very left leaning meeting anyplace in the state is worthless, plus, it costs money I don't have to waste on BS, one sided, dog and pony shows. Nothing ever comes out of these meetings, except the same crap. We've lost.................

[Ridgeratt]

I guess that I can take this as a RSVP. Will not be attending!

[Eli346]

I made the time to attend last weekend WAG meeting in Spokane. VERY VERY sad to see that hunters and individuals whom actually care about our ungulate populations in Washington do not attend. From my view point the group is definitely made up  of a bias group which I seriously doubt has 2 individuals whom give a hoot about Moose, Elk or Deer.
The conversations only referred to predation on livestock [cattle and sheep]. Never once did I hear the use of the word lethal removal, and all discussion referred to non-lethal means of harassing the wolves.
Folks you got to get involved or forget about wildlife in this state.
Next meeting is currently scheduled Feb.1st and 2nd in Olympia.

If you could put up a reminder post near the end of January I will gladly show up at the Oly meetings. Spokane is a ways to go for me. Thanx, Eli

[wa.hunter]

Guarantee I will post it. SCI, WWC, HHC will have members there, as we have to get in our 2 bits worth. We need any and everyone whom cares to show up. Let them know that we do care. Better than laying down and giving up.

[MuleDeer]

Bob you got it right. He whom speaks loudest will win.
Right now our best allies appear to be tribal....substance hunting and their bio studies are a asset to us. One of the tribes [Makah] showed up and spoke about cougar predation and had other info from additional tribes. It difinitely indicated that there needs to be cougar control to maintain ungulate populations. I hope they continue to have a dialogue with the WAG group.
After the Shane Mahoney talk , the Makah's and a young lady spoke about the benefits of hunting and wildlife, one lady in the WAG group said she had learned nothing, and I heard another lady talking about she doesn't know why she was appointed to the group as she admitted she knew nothing about wolves.

Your facts aren't quite right.  Those comments were made by two ladies there, but neither of them are members of the WAG.  One was a "public" guest, and one, on the "outer U" of seats, was an invited guest rancher.  There's not a member on the WAG that doesn't know something about wolves and how it relates to their personal position in being there.

[MuleDeer]

Hahaha..haha.. and Jack field is going to stick it out and make a difference 

sorry for the sarcasm, but livestock producers and sportsmen will continue to get rolled at every turn.

from CPoW website

CPoW said that WAG meetings have usually consisted of theoretical discussions about wolves in Washington and while ignoring the data and management tools from other states. WDFW has also delayed deliberate action or failed to act as it waited for some kind of unattainable consensus from the WAG. In addition, when ranchers did have problems, lethal removal was not seriously discussed despite mounting evidence that the ranch operation was being affected to the point of crippling it.

That "unattainable consensus" was reached at the last WAG meeting, as it pertains to a specific livestock producer's plan and the actions that will be taken as the plan is executed.  This includes lethal measures.  Those measures weren't spoken about specifically at the last meeting, because they had already been agreed upon within the protocols in the wolf plan.  The WAG was working on a VERY specific producer plan and finalizing it during this last meeting, and it was a 100% unanimous agreement from all WAG members.  Something most of you have said would never happen.  The other major subject that was being worked on were the DCPA-L agreement, as well as cost-share contracts for producers and finding best ways to get more livestock producers to sign up for the help.
We're only going to get attention if more sportsmen show up at the meetings and speak during the public comment period.  There was one extremist there to speak, and he was shot down and escorted out of the room because he proved his extreme viewpoint and refusal to have a civilized discussion.  Show up and speak up if you want to help.

[MuleDeer]

Pine tar that is some amazing statistics. Too bad the financial contribution we make is overlooked. It's unfortunate that more sportsmen didn't show up. Unlike the fake conservationist that show up we have jobs to tend and families also. Facts haven't corrected the direction of the issue. The line in the article that says it all for me is that" if we move too quick we risk a lawsuit" it's laughable because history of the other states show us there will be lawsuits regardless. I believe this process is just to placate ranchers and sportsmen so that there isn't wholesale rebellion. The wdfw has those amazing $ stats and still treats sportsmen like red headed stepchildren.

It's obvious to me that the department is ok with its own slow demise but afraid of a show down with those groups that have little to no skin in the game. I sometimes wonder if I really should have raised hell with everyone who would listen when the wdfw pleaded with us to prevent a merger with don't/parks. Would we have faired well. Probably not but perhaps a bunch of the clowns that run things would have been sent packing. Who knows perhaps there would be some hunting in parks like there is in the mid west

The figures that were passed out Sunday night were very talked about on Monday, and even DofW, CNW and HSUS admitted that the contributions of hunters cannot be overlooked.  It wasn't brushed under the rug at all, but talked about by more than a few people on Monday.  Curious who the "fake conservationist" is that attends the WAG meetings?  Every sportsman's group represented there is the real deal, and care about the issues we are facing.  One thing everyone needs to realize is that the sportsman also recognize that we are going to have a lot better chance at positive results by working with the livestock producers to get things done...they are the one group with the most to lose, as far as a livelihood goes, so it is the easiest, best way to start the process.  Hunters had their weekend in Spokane, and some great points were made.  But, other than for the money we provide, we have the weakest argument and the quietist voice...good reason for more hunters to show up at the meetings, especially in Olympia!
If you really want to know what's going on in the WAG meetings, go to the website and read the transcripts.  Every word and discussion is recorded, so if you want to know exactly what was said, read it for yourself, don't take the word from one of us that was sitting in the room.  Misinformation is worse at times than no information...be informed and make your own voice heard.

[Little Dave]

I suspect we won't get very far on this issue until we make more allies in the non-hunting public.  For they don't really have a good idea of what's going on and the department will not lift a finger to make them aware of it for us.

I've been to a number of the department hosted meetings regarding wolves or hatcheries.  The fringe groups are enjoying a free ride that would not be possible at all if the general public knew how much we do to support the environmental causes they care about.

One thing I'll discuss with my sons when they visit this week for Christmas is part of their heritage: the wolf meetings in Champoeg back in the 1840's.  Wolves were a serious problem then and the meetings were well attended.  Since so many had gathered for that issue, they also took the opportunity to formally petition the United States to organize an Oregon Territory before England claimed the region.

The day may come in our time when enough gather to discuss wolf problems, and perhaps also discuss making needed changes to the government.

[grundy53]

Pine tar that is some amazing statistics. Too bad the financial contribution we make is overlooked. It's unfortunate that more sportsmen didn't show up. Unlike the fake conservationist that show up we have jobs to tend and families also. Facts haven't corrected the direction of the issue. The line in the article that says it all for me is that" if we move too quick we risk a lawsuit" it's laughable because history of the other states show us there will be lawsuits regardless. I believe this process is just to placate ranchers and sportsmen so that there isn't wholesale rebellion. The wdfw has those amazing $ stats and still treats sportsmen like red headed stepchildren.

It's obvious to me that the department is ok with its own slow demise but afraid of a show down with those groups that have little to no skin in the game. I sometimes wonder if I really should have raised hell with everyone who would listen when the wdfw pleaded with us to prevent a merger with don't/parks. Would we have faired well. Probably not but perhaps a bunch of the clowns that run things would have been sent packing. Who knows perhaps there would be some hunting in parks like there is in the mid west

The figures that were passed out Sunday night were very talked about on Monday, and even DofW, CNW and HSUS admitted that the contributions of hunters cannot be overlooked.  It wasn't brushed under the rug at all, but talked about by more than a few people on Monday.  Curious who the "fake conservationist" is that attends the WAG meetings?  Every sportsman's group represented there is the real deal, and care about the issues we are facing.  One thing everyone needs to realize is that the sportsman also recognize that we are going to have a lot better chance at positive results by working with the livestock producers to get things done...they are the one group with the most to lose, as far as a livelihood goes, so it is the easiest, best way to start the process.  Hunters had their weekend in Spokane, and some great points were made.  But, other than for the money we provide, we have the weakest argument and the quietist voice...good reason for more hunters to show up at the meetings, especially in Olympia!
If you really want to know what's going on in the WAG meetings, go to the website and read the transcripts.  Every word and discussion is recorded, so if you want to know exactly what was said, read it for yourself, don't take the word from one of us that was sitting in the room.  Misinformation is worse at times than no information...be informed and make your own voice heard.

Pretty sad that "we have the weakest argument". Why wouldn't we include the money we bring to the table? You saying that kind of reminds me of that old saying. "Other than that how was the play Mrs Lincoln?"

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[Special T]

Pine tar that is some amazing statistics. Too bad the financial contribution we make is overlooked. It's unfortunate that more sportsmen didn't show up. Unlike the fake conservationist that show up we have jobs to tend and families also. Facts haven't corrected the direction of the issue. The line in the article that says it all for me is that" if we move too quick we risk a lawsuit" it's laughable because history of the other states show us there will be lawsuits regardless. I believe this process is just to placate ranchers and sportsmen so that there isn't wholesale rebellion. The wdfw has those amazing $ stats and still treats sportsmen like red headed stepchildren.

It's obvious to me that the department is ok with its own slow demise but afraid of a show down with those groups that have little to no skin in the game. I sometimes wonder if I really should have raised hell with everyone who would listen when the wdfw pleaded with us to prevent a merger with don't/parks. Would we have faired well. Probably not but perhaps a bunch of the clowns that run things would have been sent packing. Who knows perhaps there would be some hunting in parks like there is in the mid west

The figures that were passed out Sunday night were very talked about on Monday, and even DofW, CNW and HSUS admitted that the contributions of hunters cannot be overlooked.  It wasn't brushed under the rug at all, but talked about by more than a few people on Monday.  Curious who the "fake conservationist" is that attends the WAG meetings?  Every sportsman's group represented there is the real deal, and care about the issues we are facing.  One thing everyone needs to realize is that the sportsman also recognize that we are going to have a lot better chance at positive results by working with the livestock producers to get things done...they are the one group with the most to lose, as far as a livelihood goes, so it is the easiest, best way to start the process.  Hunters had their weekend in Spokane, and some great points were made.  But, other than for the money we provide, we have the weakest argument and the quietist voice...good reason for more hunters to show up at the meetings, especially in Olympia!
If you really want to know what's going on in the WAG meetings, go to the website and read the transcripts.  Every word and discussion is recorded, so if you want to know exactly what was said, read it for yourself, don't take the word from one of us that was sitting in the room.  Misinformation is worse at times than no information...be informed and make your own voice heard.

The 3 groups you cited I highlighted in red are the ones I speak of. None of those groups have much skin in the game. DoW contributing $50k for documented depredation is a spit in the bucket. Most of my anger is directed at the state for minimizing our contributions despite the fact they should know their own numbers.

[MuleDeer]

Can't fault you for your anger, for sure.  We all have felt slighted by WDFW for not recognizing the facts.  For the other groups you mentioned, I partially agree with you.  What I mean is, I think you'd be surprised to learn that many of the staff of CNW, including the CEO, are hunters.  There are also hunters in the ranks of DoW.  Problem is, they don't really want to make it public.  My guess is, they fear losing funding from individuals who believe they are straight anti-hunting groups.  Just as bad, in my opinion, that they don't come out and say what they are doing that is good for hunters as well as watchable wildlife species.  But that's a little off the subject.  All in all, I agree with you and your frustration on this whole issue.

[CGDucksandDeer]

Can't fault you for your anger, for sure.  We all have felt slighted by WDFW for not recognizing the facts.  For the other groups you mentioned, I partially agree with you.  What I mean is, I think you'd be surprised to learn that many of the staff of CNW, including the CEO, are hunters.  There are also hunters in the ranks of DoW.  Problem is, they don't really want to make it public.  My guess is, they fear losing funding from individuals who believe they are straight anti-hunting groups.  Just as bad, in my opinion, that they don't come out and say what they are doing that is good for hunters as well as watchable wildlife species.  But that's a little off the subject.  All in all, I agree with you and your frustration on this whole issue.

There's a lot of truth to this statement. And I'm sure I can't change all the minds on this forum any more than we can change the minds of all the extreme, one-sided pro-wolfers and anti-hunters. I can't speak to other organizations, other than to say that I have a lot of disagreement with the way HSUS and DOW do business. But I am a Conservation Northwest employee and I consider the scene in the photo below one of the best days of my life. Mule deer, steelhead and semi-cold beer all in one afternoon after a hard and mostly unproductive week of hunting and fishing. Take from that what you will when it comes to our "skin in the game" regarding wolves, ungulates and conservation.



Point noted about communicating the benefits of conservation orgs work for hunters and wildlife. Some of that can be found here: http://www.conservationnw.org/what-we-do/predators-and-prey

[MuleDeer]

Can't fault you for your anger, for sure.  We all have felt slighted by WDFW for not recognizing the facts.  For the other groups you mentioned, I partially agree with you.  What I mean is, I think you'd be surprised to learn that many of the staff of CNW, including the CEO, are hunters.  There are also hunters in the ranks of DoW.  Problem is, they don't really want to make it public.  My guess is, they fear losing funding from individuals who believe they are straight anti-hunting groups.  Just as bad, in my opinion, that they don't come out and say what they are doing that is good for hunters as well as watchable wildlife species.  But that's a little off the subject.  All in all, I agree with you and your frustration on this whole issue.

Looking for the "LIKE" button!  Congrats on what was obviously a great day!
I spoke with Mitch, the CEO of CNW, about his donation for a Mule Deer Foundation project staying as "anonymous"  It bothered me that he wouldn't have CNW take credit for doing a good thing.  His response to me was "We wanted to stay anonymous for the benefit of MDF.", not wanting to potentially hurt our reputation by "consorting" with an organization who isn't perceived the best by the hunting community.  While I conveyed that I appreciate that, from here forward, MDF insist we share credit where it is due.  It is time for hunters to start learning the truth about some of what is completely misunderstood by some.  It is time for hunters to realize that CNW is an organization which welcomes, and in fact practices hunting to a large degree, including the CEO.  Thanks for the post and great pic!

There's a lot of truth to this statement. And I'm sure I can't change all the minds on this forum any more than we can change the minds of all the extreme, one-sided pro-wolfers and anti-hunters. I can't speak to other organizations, other than to say that I have a lot of disagreement with the way HSUS and DOW do business. But I am a Conservation Northwest employee and I consider the scene in the photo below one of the best days of my life. Mule deer, steelhead and semi-cold beer all in one afternoon after a hard and mostly unproductive week of hunting and fishing. Take from that what you will when it comes to our "skin in the game" regarding wolves, ungulates and conservation.



Point noted about communicating the benefits of conservation orgs work for hunters and wildlife. Some of that can be found here: http://www.conservationnw.org/what-we-do/predators-and-prey

[mfswallace]

Can't fault you for your anger, for sure.  We all have felt slighted by WDFW for not recognizing the facts.  For the other groups you mentioned, I partially agree with you.  What I mean is, I think you'd be surprised to learn that many of the staff of CNW, including the CEO, are hunters.  There are also hunters in the ranks of DoW.  Problem is, they don't really want to make it public.  My guess is, they fear losing funding from individuals who believe they are straight anti-hunting groups.  Just as bad, in my opinion, that they don't come out and say what they are doing that is good for hunters as well as watchable wildlife species.  But that's a little off the subject.  All in all, I agree with you and your frustration on this whole issue.

There's a lot of truth to this statement. And I'm sure I can't change all the minds on this forum any more than we can change the minds of all the extreme, one-sided pro-wolfers and anti-hunters. I can't speak to other organizations, other than to say that I have a lot of disagreement with the way HSUS and DOW do business. But I am a Conservation Northwest employee and I consider the scene in the photo below one of the best days of my life. Mule deer, steelhead and semi-cold beer all in one afternoon after a hard and mostly unproductive week of hunting and fishing. Take from that what you will when it comes to our "skin in the game" regarding wolves, ungulates and conservation.



Point noted about communicating the benefits of conservation orgs work for hunters and wildlife. Some of that can be found here: http://www.conservationnw.org/what-we-do/predators-and-prey

From CNW___We also support science-based wildlife management

Can we all agree that wolf management isn't being handled like a scientific issue but as a political issue and has from the start with the creation of the most ludicrous wolf management plan out of any state that has dealt with wolves???  Why not use the other states wolf information/science to our benefit, seems like the argument is that Washington is way different but that is only politically not scientifically