Wolf poachers - would you turn one in?

[grundy53]

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

The current laws are NOT based on sound science....

[grundy53]

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.

 

[KFhunter]

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

A very heart felt and well thought out argument, but flawed. 

These wolves are eliminating a way of life, the sole sustennence for many people and not just the ranch owners but all their hired help as well.
Yes we are early in the game and aren't there quite yet but will be in a few years. 

No one in WA will be able to run cattle in open range in just a handful of years if this continues.

You argue that we must follow the laws and not break them as we see fit, then you go on to say you have no problem with the breaking of laws if someone is hungry.  Your arguement holds no merit, as you yourself are acting as judge, jury and all that.

[3nails]

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

You don't really believe that elk need to be weakened by disease to be taken by wolves do you?

[bearpaw]

The key is to change the law, then nobody is breaking the law. 

[Mudman]

I never saw anything...............

[Ridgeratt]

I doubt I would turn one in, but I strongly disagree that poaching wolves is the right way to handle this. Unless you can feasibly poach them out of the state (which you can’t), then poaching them just keeps them on the protected list longer. Ideally, we could convince the state government that they shouldn’t be here and act accordingly. Barring that, the only way to keep them in check is to open up a hunting season on them, which will never happen if people are out there poaching em all day. On the other hand, god forbid, a couple of them are coming right for you…. Well that’s self defense.

The question isn't if you yourself would poach a wolf, we cannot broach that subject within the confines of H-W user rules.

The question is if you would turn one in if you witnessed it happening - doesn't matter why, and THAT is one of the problems with our wolf plan....you are not allowed to protect your property (livestock) only your life if in immediate danger.

Last time I checked, it is not illegal to NOT turn someone in, there is no burden upon a witness to come forward.  Please correct me if I am wrong. Therefore we can discuss the ethics of it.

is this Soul Searching or do you think you have a suspect?

[KFhunter]

I think it speaks volumes that WDFW had to get a helicopter to kill them, and still only two wolves down for several days in operation, and some of the wolves have GPS collars.

I know this decision did not come lightly, the stigma of gunning them down from a helicopter is something any .gov agency would go to great lengths to avoid. 
These guys don't want to be on FOX news doing an interview 

[KFhunter]

I doubt I would turn one in, but I strongly disagree that poaching wolves is the right way to handle this. Unless you can feasibly poach them out of the state (which you can’t), then poaching them just keeps them on the protected list longer. Ideally, we could convince the state government that they shouldn’t be here and act accordingly. Barring that, the only way to keep them in check is to open up a hunting season on them, which will never happen if people are out there poaching em all day. On the other hand, god forbid, a couple of them are coming right for you…. Well that’s self defense.

The question isn't if you yourself would poach a wolf, we cannot broach that subject within the confines of H-W user rules.

The question is if you would turn one in if you witnessed it happening - doesn't matter why, and THAT is one of the problems with our wolf plan....you are not allowed to protect your property (livestock) only your life if in immediate danger.

Last time I checked, it is not illegal to NOT turn someone in, there is no burden upon a witness to come forward.  Please correct me if I am wrong. Therefore we can discuss the ethics of it.

is this Soul Searching or do you think you have a suspect?

I was responding to the folks who think this kind of topic is bad for H-W and gives hunters a black eye, or somehow helps the pro-wolf people in their adgenda.
No soul searching required 

[bugs n bones]

The key is to change the law, then nobody is breaking the law. 

I agree ten fold!!

[Axle]

If they were brought it unlawfully (and they were) then there is no crime to kill one.

[shoot-em-dead]

No I wouldn't turn in someone for shooting a wolf. I leave it at that.

In response to some other thoughts,
 I live in a country that was founded upon a rebellion against its prior government. Laws were bent and broken. If you are calling anyone who breaks a law unethical- I would suggest a one way ticket to England. Seems to me that you must be suffering much grief here among all of us Americans who are all so proud of the so called unethical actions of this country's founders.

[NumaJohn]

Dear shoot-em-dead,

I guess I need you to do a much better job of explaining yourself before your following quotation makes any sense: "If you are calling anyone who breaks a law unethical- I would suggest a one way ticket to England. Seems to me that you must be suffering much grief here among all of us Americans who are all so proud of the so called unethical actions of this country's founders."

In my earlier post, I was talking specifically about SSS.  Sorry, but your effort to derail that point by creating a specious argument won't work.  Our country was not predicated on SSS approaches.  Read your history to avoid making such ill-informed stretches toward argument.  Thank you.

John

[CoryTDF]

Big fat nope! Wouldn't condone it it, yet I wouldn't throw a guy under the bus for it!

 

[JLS]

No one in WA will be able to run cattle in open range in just a handful of years if this continues.

That might be a bit of a chicken little statement.  I have a very good friend that runs a lot of cattle in areas that have been populated by wolves for years.  They do suffer economic losses, but a well run cattle operation should not go bankrupt simply because of wolves.