Wolf poachers - would you turn one in?

[turbo]

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

Sorry - It's war and YOU are GIVING up YOUR rights. The wolfs were planted to control our hunting rights!! I 100% disagree with you.

The Methow Valley is in crisis mode and most are done playing games because we do not have a level playing field. We are being lied to repeatedly. Scott Fitkin is a dirty liar POS. It's game over and WE will win. The decision has been made by many of the locals that the wolfs have to go this winter. I would never risk my hunting rights but I fully support the locals, they know whats best and a lot of their local economy depends on the mule deer, not wolfs.

It's not poaching!! It's conservation of one of the best mule deer units in WA that has been decimated. All you have to do is look at the deer kill rate for car VS deer. It used to be almost 400 deer killed by cars every year and now, since the wolfs have been PLANTED it's almost down to 200 per year. More cars, more people, less deer getting hit, fewer deer getting tagged, there's your science.

I would highly recommend that anyone who has dogs and enjoys the out doors in the Methow Valley to keep them on a leash or stick to the valley floor. Nobody wants collateral damage but it's war. Snowmobiles vs wolfs = no contest..

[dscubame]

I love the wolf debate....love it!

[Wenatcheejay]

According to the laws of H-W every poster must be politically correct and an advocate for the total and complete following and enforcement of all said laws to the maximun degree in punishment of lawbreakers as well as agreeing with all self appointed ethical hunting experts in matters that the law may not apply. 

Although there is not a H-W Bill of Rights I will still invoke my 5th Amendment Rights on this subject.   

[KFhunter]

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.

So tell me does your friend lease open range and run cattle on public lands in Washington?  My statement was regarding open range, not private lands, and in the state of Washington. 
I stick by my statement.

[Bean Counter]

Nope. Look the other way.

Some of you Barney Fife's have a lot of self-reporting to do...

• Have you ever gone out in public with the cold? Guess what? You're a criminal! ~RCW 70.54.050.
• If you own a house in Eagle, Idaho, you'd better not sweep dirt from your house into the street, lest you be arrested. ~5-2-2: (Ord. 1, 5-24-1971).

[GrousePointer]

When they shut down your favorite hunting areas due to poaching, don't come crying.

Thanks for nothing ahead of time.

Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express

[turbo]

When they shut down your favorite hunting areas due to poaching, don't come crying.

Thanks for nothing ahead of time.

Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express

Please tell us when and where this has ever happened? Ever??

[GrousePointer]

When they shut down your favorite hunting areas due to poaching, don't come crying.

Thanks for nothing ahead of time.

Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express

Please tell us when and where this has ever happened? Ever??

You live in Washington. What do you think will happen when wolf poaching gets in the news on the west side? What will you do when an initiative gets put forward?

Remember, citizens can literally play wildlife biologist and vote in a law against your right to hunt an animal and potentially an entire area just as they did with hound hunting.

This is something that can blow up in your face and make a bad situation much worse. Think it through before pulling that trigger illegally.

Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express

[KFhunter]

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/07/11/wolf-poachers-get-more-than-slap-on-wrist/

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2012/04/19/two-more-people-plead-guilty-in-killing-of-wolves-from-washingtons-first-wolf-pack-in-decades/
http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2012/jul/12/wolf-poachers-get-tougher-sentence-than-plea-deal/

[csaaphill]

I voted no, but understand those that would turn someone in views. I would rather see them use permits for shooting wolves and keep thier numbers way down. I think also for the decimation of that one wolf pack instead of us paying for it why not let us do it.
I'd shoot a wolf if it was to be killed anyhows and probably wouldn't think twice on it. But no I would not turn someone in for poaching a wolf.

[NumaJohn]

Dear All,

I agree the laws need to be changed, I agree that there's a big problem with wolves, and I know this is a frustrating and often infuriating issue for hunters.  Deer and elk hunting are passions of mine, second only to the non-hunting time with my family.  My main point, I guess, boils down to the reality that we hunters (and other people who recreate and/or live off of the land) are in the extreme minority in this country.  If you really think SSS is the way to counter the majority, that's your prerogative.  But the logic of SSS could be applied to livestock being allowed on public land.  I do not by any means advocate SSS for that, but some people might.  Anyone objecting to SSS in THAT context would be right to point out that killing cattle or sheep is violating the law, that if they don't want private businesses (i.e., ranches) to be able to graze on public lands, they should lobby to put an end to that practice, not take matters into their own hands.

One could try to say that I am comparing apples to oranges, that cattle and sheep are someone's private property, that there's a longstanding tradition of public grazing, that ranchers helped settle the West.  All of those elements are true, but the comparison still holds that SSS advocates--whatever they want to shoot, shovel, and shut up about--are not noble practitioners of civil disobedience or highly principled Constitutionalists fighting for our very way of life.  They are people who are putting their individual interests and livelihoods ahead of all other Americans.  They are in fact bending the laws to their own (and their families' and friends' and neighbors') will rather than operating in a way that feeds into the common good.  I know a lot of people who have served in the military, and I have yet to meet one who would say they served so that hunters and ranchers could feel "covered" when they decided to take the laws into their own hands.  SSS is the wrong approach to this problem.  I am hoping Dale and others involved with Washington for Wildlife will come out with a strong, public condemnation against SSS and in support of the principles articulated in the organization's mission statement.  That sort of unified, organized voice is exactly what is needed.  As Dale noted in a previous post, bad laws need to be changed.  That change will only occur through collective action.  SSS will work against the kind of change that will be more than a temporary solution.  We need change that is lasting, and that will come through policy, not SSS.

My two cents,

John

[bonkellekter]

When they shut down your favorite hunting areas due to poaching, don't come crying.

Thanks for nothing ahead of time.

Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express

Please tell us when and where this has ever happened? Ever??

You live in Washington. What do you think will happen when wolf poaching gets in the news on the west side? What will you do when an initiative gets put forward?

Remember, citizens can literally play wildlife biologist and vote in a law against your right to hunt an animal and potentially an entire area just as they did with hound hunting.

This is something that can blow up in your face and make a bad situation much worse. Think it through before pulling that trigger illegally.

Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express

Dear All,

I agree the laws need to be changed, I agree that there's a big problem with wolves, and I know this is a frustrating and often infuriating issue for hunters.  Deer and elk hunting are passions of mine, second only to the non-hunting time with my family.  My main point, I guess, boils down to the reality that we hunters (and other people who recreate and/or live off of the land) are in the extreme minority in this country.  If you really think SSS is the way to counter the majority, that's your prerogative.  But the logic of SSS could be applied to livestock being allowed on public land.  I do not by any means advocate SSS for that, but some people might.  Anyone objecting to SSS in THAT context would be right to point out that killing cattle or sheep is violating the law, that if they don't want private businesses (i.e., ranches) to be able to graze on public lands, they should lobby to put an end to that practice, not take matters into their own hands.

One could try to say that I am comparing apples to oranges, that cattle and sheep are someone's private property, that there's a longstanding tradition of public grazing, that ranchers helped settle the West.  All of those elements are true, but the comparison still holds that SSS advocates--whatever they want to shoot, shovel, and shut up about--are not noble practitioners of civil disobedience or highly principled Constitutionalists fighting for our very way of life.  They are people who are putting their individual interests and livelihoods ahead of all other Americans.  They are in fact bending the laws to their own (and their families' and friends' and neighbors') will rather than operating in a way that feeds into the common good.  I know a lot of people who have served in the military, and I have yet to meet one who would say they served so that hunters and ranchers could feel "covered" when they decided to take the laws into their own hands.  SSS is the wrong approach to this problem.  I am hoping Dale and others involved with Washington for Wildlife will come out with a strong, public condemnation against SSS and in support of the principles articulated in the organization's mission statement.  That sort of unified, organized voice is exactly what is needed.  As Dale noted in a previous post, bad laws need to be changed.  That change will only occur through collective action.  SSS will work against the kind of change that will be more than a temporary solution.  We need change that is lasting, and that will come through policy, not SSS.

My two cents,

John

First of all no one here is advocating pulling the trigger illiegally or promoting SSS..... Simply stating that NO they would not turn in someone who did. I most definately would not turn in any individual who shoots a woof!! I am not even sure that I would turn myself in for shooting one in self defense.....

[Kola16]

I would never turn in a wolf poacher. Never!!!!

[Gringo31]

First of all no one here is advocating pulling the trigger illiegally or promoting SSS..... Simply stating that NO they would not turn in someone who did. I most definately would not turn in any individual who shoots a woof!! I am not even sure that I would turn myself in for shooting one in self defense.....

Let's face it, if the same poll was for bear, deer, elk, grouse etc.....it wouldn't be a 100% in favor of turning people in poll result.

[KFhunter]

First of all no one here is advocating pulling the trigger illiegally or promoting SSS..... Simply stating that NO they would not turn in someone who did. I most definately would not turn in any individual who shoots a woof!! I am not even sure that I would turn myself in for shooting one in self defense.....

Let's face it, if the same poll was for bear, deer, elk, grouse etc.....it wouldn't be a 100% in favor of turning people in poll result.

I bet it would be a lot higher 
I'd guess 97% in favor and maybe 3% would not. 
Some folks have had a bad run in with WDFW Officers and wouldn't talk to one if their lives depended on it.