Wolf poachers - would you turn one in?

[copasj]

My two cents on the issue.

In the end poaching wolves will keep them protected longer.  Lower populations will prevent the state from being able to manage them.  And any kind of poaching helps anti-hunters push to restrict hunting rights.  It's a short term "solution" that delays fixing the issue.   

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

I couldn't disagree with you more.  When Idaho exceeded there goal, the groups that sided with allowing a season lied and then went to the courts to block a hunting season.  They say one thing then do another when push comes to shove.  Their is another court battle brewing in regards to this seasons hunt.  If you allow them to hit the lofty numbers they want again the antis will hit the courts even harder and tie it up. 

I agree that they will lie and fight.  But if people poach, people will be caught.  That's just bad juju for them.  And the more wolves poached, the longer it takes to even get your chance in court.  That won't happen until those quotas are reached, like it or not.  And once it does make it to court, the poaching will hurt the case.

Do you think there is a chance for a change in laws prior to reaching population goals?  Or that poaching will sufficiently control the numbers? 

I don't think either has even a slim chance personally.  It's not a question of preventing damage in my mind, thats going to happen.  It's a question of long term damage control.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

[h2ofowlr]

I wonder how long it will take to wipe out or erase 60 plus years of wildlife conservation management in this state.  Time to start a new poll.  6 / 8 or 10 years?

[NumaJohn]

Dear All,

The Washington wolf population should be carefully managed.  SSS does not lead to careful management because the "shut up" part of it disassociates those kills from any sort of systemic approach to game management.  As I understand it, the mission statements of organizations like Washington for Wildlife champion careful management because such organizations are aware that free-for-all behavior by hunters is antithetical to the future of hunting.  Logic would then dictate that anyone belonging to such an organization would oppose SSS because a) that approach is not following the best available science, b) poaching is not an ethically defensible approach unless it's for sustenance in dire situations, and c) SSS is against the current laws.

No science I have seen advocates SSS as a viable response to the growing problem we are facing with the wolves in and around WA.  Very few people can argue convincingly that wolves have (yet) caused them and their families to go hungry, as most hunters have a Plan B for the winter if all they end up with is tag soup.  And no one has made a compelling argument that SSS is somehow a legitimate example of being a conscientious objector or a compelling act of civil disobedience.  Just saying it is so doesn't make it so.  Though individuals have many rights, one of them is not to simply decide, on a case-by-case basis,  which laws are worthy of following and which are not.  I speed sometimes when driving in a 40 mph zone I think should be 55 mph, but I don't for a minute try to make the (indefensible) argument that "I was speeding because the speed limit is too slow here anyway and it's a stupid law that never should have been passed."  I may think that, I may even exercise my rights as a citizen and lobby to have the speed limit changed in that area, but my speeding (read: law breaking) is not the solution to the problem of a stupid law.  SSS is like speeding through the process of careful game management.  It breeds bad will with people who actually could be allies of hunters seeking stricter wolf control.  Don't we need allies in this complex issue?  Or do we just buy into a "take matters into our own hands" approach and serve as self-appointed judges, juries, and executioners?  Is that what our liberty and the Constitution have provided?

Just like everyone else on this site, I do NOT want wolves taking away all of the animals in the places where I hunt deer and elk.  I really don't.  But the minute we all start self-deputizing ourselves as individual wolf authorities, it does indeed become a slippery slope for our tradition of hunting in the U.S.

WA wolves definitely need to be carefully  managed.  I fully support killing some, when wolf experts and professionally-qualified game managers say such killing is warranted.  And when it's time for the killing, that should be done legally, by people who have bought tags that will help support wildlife and sound wildlife management practices.  I repeat: wolves should definitely be controlled and, when necessary, killed.

To me, it boils down to my wanting to be able to go afield with my wife and kids and not have to make an argument that poaching is okay "when it feels right by one's own standards."  Look, if we are not in some ways beholden to the laws around us, then guess what we have left?  Everybody doing what he or she wants.  If we feel--if we are--powerless, then I guess revolution is an option.  I just don't agree that such a revolution by hunters would be best served by a bunch of independent operators.  There needs to be collective, "loud" action, not individual, "shut up" law breaking.  My two cents.

By the way, if I knew a guy whose family was hungry, and he couldn't afford a deer tag, or one deer didn't suffice, I would have NO trouble turning the other way so he could harvest an extra deer or two to feed his family.  But this wolf issue is NOT the same as that sort of scenario.  We are not there yet, and it smacks as is disingenuous to claim that we are. Not yet.  Sure, if wolves are not carefully managed, there's no question then there will no longer be any deer or elk or moose in the woods for hunters to hunt and for other people to watch, photograph, etc.  That would be terrible.  I am just suggesting without any malice that careful management--not a wild west (and illegal) rebellion waged by silent individuals--is our best hope for preserving the hunting tradition that we all share and value so much.

With respect,

John

[rtspring]

Dear All,

The Washington wolf population should be carefully managed.  SSS does not lead to careful management because the "shut up" part of it disassociates those kills from any sort of systemic approach to game management.  As I understand it, the mission statements of organizations like Washington for Wildlife champion careful management because such organizations are aware that free-for-all behavior by hunters is antithetical to the future of hunting.  Logic would then dictate that anyone belonging to such an organization would oppose SSS because a) that approach is not following the best available science, b) poaching is not an ethically defensible approach unless it's for sustenance in dire situations, and c) SSS is against the current laws.

No science I have seen advocates SSS as a viable response to the growing problem we are facing with the wolves in and around WA.  Very few people can argue convincingly that wolves have (yet) caused them and their families to go hungry, as most hunters have a Plan B for the winter if all they end up with is tag soup.  And no one has made a compelling argument that SSS is somehow a legitimate example of being a conscientious objector or a compelling act of civil disobedience.  Just saying it is so doesn't make it so.  Though individuals have many rights, one of them is not to simply decide, on a case-by-case basis,  which laws are worthy of following and which are not.  I speed sometimes when driving in a 40 mph zone I think should be 55 mph, but I don't for a minute try to make the (indefensible) argument that "I was speeding because the speed limit is too slow here anyway and it's a stupid law that never should have been passed."  I may think that, I may even exercise my rights as a citizen and lobby to have the speed limit changed in that area, but my speeding (read: law breaking) is not the solution to the problem of a stupid law.  SSS is like speeding through the process of careful game management.  It breeds bad will with people who actually could be allies of hunters seeking stricter wolf control.  Don't we need allies in this complex issue?  Or do we just buy into a "take matters into our own hands" approach and serve as self-appointed judges, juries, and executioners?  Is that what our liberty and the Constitution have provided?

Just like everyone else on this site, I do NOT want wolves taking away all of the animals in the places where I hunt deer and elk.  I really don't.  But the minute we all start self-deputizing ourselves as individual wolf authorities, it does indeed become a slippery slope for our tradition of hunting in the U.S.

WA wolves definitely need to be carefully  managed.  I fully support killing some, when wolf experts and professionally-qualified game managers say such killing is warranted.  And when it's time for the killing, that should be done legally, by people who have bought tags that will help support wildlife and sound wildlife management practices.  I repeat: wolves should definitely be controlled and, when necessary, killed.

To me, it boils down to my wanting to be able to go afield with my wife and kids and not have to make an argument that poaching is okay "when it feels right by one's own standards."  Look, if we are not in some ways beholden to the laws around us, then guess what we have left?  Everybody doing what he or she wants.  If we feel--if we are--powerless, then I guess revolution is an option.  I just don't agree that such a revolution by hunters would be best served by a bunch of independent operators.  There needs to be collective, "loud" action, not individual, "shut up" law breaking.  My two cents.

By the way, if I knew a guy whose family was hungry, and he couldn't afford a deer tag, or one deer didn't suffice, I would have NO trouble turning the other way so he could harvest an extra deer or two to feed his family.  But this wolf issue is NOT the same as that sort of scenario.  We are not there yet, and it smacks as is disingenuous to claim that we are. Not yet.  Sure, if wolves are not carefully managed, there's no question then there will no longer be any deer or elk or moose in the woods for hunters to hunt and for other people to watch, photograph, etc.  That would be terrible.  I am just suggesting without any malice that careful management--not a wild west (and illegal) rebellion waged by silent individuals--is our best hope for preserving the hunting tradition that we all share and value so much.

With respect,

John

If we dont do something about it and soon, Your wife and kids will not see many deer or elk, Because of the wolves that no one managed. I liked your post but, for the most part if we sit back and wait, we might as well change the neame of our state to Idaho or Montana.  Talk to the people in these two states and see how they really feel,  some good ol boys there are for sure doing things their way, and i for one support them 100 percent....



RTSPRING

[GrousePointer]

I 100% agree.

Dear All,

The Washington wolf population should be carefully managed.  SSS does not lead to careful management because the "shut up" part of it disassociates those kills from any sort of systemic approach to game management.  As I understand it, the mission statements of organizations like Washington for Wildlife champion careful management because such organizations are aware that free-for-all behavior by hunters is antithetical to the future of hunting.  Logic would then dictate that anyone belonging to such an organization would oppose SSS because a) that approach is not following the best available science, b) poaching is not an ethically defensible approach unless it's for sustenance in dire situations, and c) SSS is against the current laws.

No science I have seen advocates SSS as a viable response to the growing problem we are facing with the wolves in and around WA.  Very few people can argue convincingly that wolves have (yet) caused them and their families to go hungry, as most hunters have a Plan B for the winter if all they end up with is tag soup.  And no one has made a compelling argument that SSS is somehow a legitimate example of being a conscientious objector or a compelling act of civil disobedience.  Just saying it is so doesn't make it so.  Though individuals have many rights, one of them is not to simply decide, on a case-by-case basis,  which laws are worthy of following and which are not.  I speed sometimes when driving in a 40 mph zone I think should be 55 mph, but I don't for a minute try to make the (indefensible) argument that "I was speeding because the speed limit is too slow here anyway and it's a stupid law that never should have been passed."  I may think that, I may even exercise my rights as a citizen and lobby to have the speed limit changed in that area, but my speeding (read: law breaking) is not the solution to the problem of a stupid law.  SSS is like speeding through the process of careful game management.  It breeds bad will with people who actually could be allies of hunters seeking stricter wolf control.  Don't we need allies in this complex issue?  Or do we just buy into a "take matters into our own hands" approach and serve as self-appointed judges, juries, and executioners?  Is that what our liberty and the Constitution have provided?

Just like everyone else on this site, I do NOT want wolves taking away all of the animals in the places where I hunt deer and elk.  I really don't.  But the minute we all start self-deputizing ourselves as individual wolf authorities, it does indeed become a slippery slope for our tradition of hunting in the U.S.

WA wolves definitely need to be carefully  managed.  I fully support killing some, when wolf experts and professionally-qualified game managers say such killing is warranted.  And when it's time for the killing, that should be done legally, by people who have bought tags that will help support wildlife and sound wildlife management practices.  I repeat: wolves should definitely be controlled and, when necessary, killed.

To me, it boils down to my wanting to be able to go afield with my wife and kids and not have to make an argument that poaching is okay "when it feels right by one's own standards."  Look, if we are not in some ways beholden to the laws around us, then guess what we have left?  Everybody doing what he or she wants.  If we feel--if we are--powerless, then I guess revolution is an option.  I just don't agree that such a revolution by hunters would be best served by a bunch of independent operators.  There needs to be collective, "loud" action, not individual, "shut up" law breaking.  My two cents.

By the way, if I knew a guy whose family was hungry, and he couldn't afford a deer tag, or one deer didn't suffice, I would have NO trouble turning the other way so he could harvest an extra deer or two to feed his family.  But this wolf issue is NOT the same as that sort of scenario.  We are not there yet, and it smacks as is disingenuous to claim that we are. Not yet.  Sure, if wolves are not carefully managed, there's no question then there will no longer be any deer or elk or moose in the woods for hunters to hunt and for other people to watch, photograph, etc.  That would be terrible.  I am just suggesting without any malice that careful management--not a wild west (and illegal) rebellion waged by silent individuals--is our best hope for preserving the hunting tradition that we all share and value so much.

With respect,

John

Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express

[Jack Diamond]

An interesting thread for sure!!

[Huntbear]

I wonder how long it will take to wipe out or erase 60 plus years of wildlife conservation management in this state.  Time to start a new poll.  6 / 8 or 10 years?

It only took 5 years to decimate the N. Yellowstone herd, and it was 24,000 head strong...   That is a lot of wolf *censored*....

[GrousePointer]

I'm no wildlife biologist, but didn't the Spokesman Review have an article a while back indicating that wolves were only one cause of the decline in Yellowstone? I seem to remember them saying the herd is more in line with historical levels now as a result.

Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express

[Gringo31]

Where people like me get real pissed off is that there IS NO SOUND SCIENCE ANYMORE!!!!

We are told the wolves are SO important to our ecoysytem, that they are native and that they only kill the weak.  We are told that WE need to move our livestock out of THEIR areas.  We are told in short that the "extra" deer and elk will be for the wolves to harvest and in the end, that will balance out.  No harvest for us, only harvest for the wolves and in the mean time WDFW can keep jacking our prices for the opportunity to actually hunt deer and elk for us to eat.

WE pay for the wolves up front and in the end.  Period!

Why are they different than a coyote.  SSS isn't necessary because its not a big deal.  This state and country used to believe in predator control.  They used to believe we had rights to private property and livestock.  They used to think we then had the right to defend our property as well.

So....back to today.  We are being lead by a group who is anti-hunting.  They want us out of the hills and to jack up prices high enough that we no longer can afford it and sell our guns.  All of these things make it difficult to respect such poor sighted authority......yet, that is what we need to do.  But, I will say, many, many, many of us have about had it with all of em.

[Huntbear]

Not sure what else would have affected the herd like that... they introduce wolves, the herd count drops by something like 50% in 5 years.   Hell, Hoof Rot in this state will not kill em off that quick.... 

[turkeyfeather]

Not me. This is one of those times that my mom was right "don't be a tattle tale".

[GrousePointer]

Not sure what else would have affected the herd like that... they introduce wolves, the herd count drops by something like 50% in 5 years.   Hell, Hoof Rot in this state will not kill em off that quick....

No, but hoof rot would weaken them enough to be taken by wolves. So would cold weather and disease.

I don't have the answer. Just thought it was interesting.

Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express

[bearpaw]

I think we need to have laws by the people, for the people, with heavy emphasis on local control. Currently eastern Washington is controlled by western Washington and the only reason it's against the law for the McIrvins to protect their livestock is because some smug wolf lovers have too much control over the WDFW in Olympia.

The eastern 1/3 of WA was delisted by the feds, wolves are officially recovered in Stevens County according to the US government. The only reason we cannot shoot wolves on sight in human inhabited areas just like they will be doing in WY is because of wolf lovers having too much influence over the WDFW decision making process.

That is a fact that cannot be disputed.

Now, I am not sure what the counties can do for sure, but I would surely vote in favor of year round wolf management in Stevens County in all human inhabited areas. I do not know if local laws passed by the people of the county can supercede state law, but the feds have already told us the wolf population is recovered.

Affected Washington counties just need to man up, I would imagine there is a way to get this done legally. 

[bearpaw]

Right now I bet Len McIrvin would win a county commissioner seat if he was running.

[Gringo31]

Spot on Dale!