Wolf poachers - would you turn one in?

[hardcorecarnivore]

What wolf poachers 

[christopheri]

I am really surprised at the 82.5% of the people would not turn in a poacher yet everyone here preaches about hunting legally... Kinda hypocritical if you ask me. Even as much as I disagree with the wolf reintroduction and hate what the wolves are doing to hunting in this state and other states, poaching is poaching and is a     

 Wait until they snack on your way of life. Gets a little more personel then. I think I would look the other way.

Don't ranchers have a right to protect their livestock with deadly force if needed? Do citizens have a right to protect their pets and live stock from a predator with out fear of prosecution?  I ask these questions because I am under the impression that there were laws already in place to protect ranchers and lives stock from wolfs. If I am wrong about this please educate me. The issue the OP was talking about was poaching a wolf.
 

[Fl0und3rz]

I wonder if the results of this vote has anything to do with the fact that WDFW did not give fair consideration to hunters, ranchers, and other wildlife management in the current wolf plan. The former director unfairly stacked the wolf working group with pro-wolf votes. How can they expect hunters to support something that was forced upon them unfairly?

Just sayin!

I can empathize with that how ever we all have allot of crap forced upon us unfairly and still have managed to remain law abiding citizens. Once again I am in no way pro wolf but I am very anti poaching.

You confuse a non-existent duty to report poachers with duties to obey otherwise annoying laws.  People generally report poaching, because it is in the interest of good management of game animals, and it is aligned with their moral compasses. 

With an ill-conceived and dishonestly executed wolf-plan put forth by the WDFW, one that subverts a person's interest in game management and neglects the input of the very customers that the WDFW depends upon, what else would you expect than for law-abiding people to look the other way in the face of street justice.

I would not fault anyone for refusing to be an agent of the man when it comes to enforcement of laws that he or she considers unjust.  Jury nullification is a completely acceptable outcome for the unjust enforcement of laws.

[pianoman9701]

No a rancher can't shoot one to protect his stock and no someone can't shoot one to protect a pet, so far anyway. They're still protected in this state and until the state delists the E 1/3 of WA, the DFW is the only authority who gets to make that decision. Unless I'm incorrect, you can only shoot one in self defense or defense of another human in danger.

[MikeWalking]

If someone was willing to poach a wolf what else might they be willing to poach?

[Curly]

If someone was willing to poach a wolf what else might they be willing to poach?

Might be a good point.  But I bet some that would smoke a wolf would only do it because they feel they really should be delisted anyway.  But I understand the argument.  (I won't shoot a wolf illegally, but I won't blame someone who actually has the balls to do it.  I'd just be afraid that one of the 20% would see me do it).

[christopheri]

I wonder if the results of this vote has anything to do with the fact that WDFW did not give fair consideration to hunters, ranchers, and other wildlife management in the current wolf plan. The former director unfairly stacked the wolf working group with pro-wolf votes. How can they expect hunters to support something that was forced upon them unfairly?

Just sayin!

I can empathize with that how ever we all have allot of crap forced upon us unfairly and still have managed to remain law abiding citizens. Once again I am in no way pro wolf but I am very anti poaching.

You confuse a non-existent duty to report poachers with duties to obey otherwise annoying laws.  People generally report poaching, because it is in the interest of good management of game animals, and it is aligned with their moral compasses. 

With an ill-conceived and dishonestly executed wolf-plan put forth by the WDFW, one that subverts a person's interest in game management and neglects the input of the very customers that the WDFW depends upon, and what else would you expect than for law-abiding people to look the other way in the face of street justice.

I would not fault anyone for refusing to be an agent of the man when it comes to enforcement of laws that he or she considers unjust.  Jury nullification is a completely acceptable outcome for the unjust enforcement of laws.

Honestly, I never thought about it that way. You make a very good point.

No a rancher can't shoot one to protect his stock and no someone can't shoot one to protect a pet, so far anyway. They're still protected in this state and until the state delists the E 1/3 of WA, the DFW is the only authority who gets to make that decision. Unless I'm incorrect, you can only shoot one in self defense or defense of another human in danger.

 Well then I stand corrected. How in the hell is it that a rancher can not protect his or hers lively hood from being decimated by a pack of wolfs?

Delisting 1/3 of the state is rather condescending.. How about delisting the whole state.  That is a whole nother topic.

[Fl0und3rz]

 Well then I stand corrected. How in the hell is it that a rancher can not protect his or hers lively hood from being decimated by a pack of wolfs?

Delisting 1/3 of the state is rather condescending.. How about delisting the whole state.  That is a whole nother topic.

My memory could be failing me, but in protecting livestock, the touchstone is that you have to catch them in the act of depredation or attack.

So merely seeing one nearby and having a dead animal from your stock on the ground does not seem to be enough. This is especially problematic with free range livestock, such as was the case with the Wedge pack problem, if I am remembering correctly.  (From what I gathered reading, it is rare to see an actual attack on such animals.)

So WDFW introduced a problem for these groups and did not give them the tools to effectively deal with it.

[Kola16]

 Well then I stand corrected. How in the hell is it that a rancher can not protect his or hers lively hood from being decimated by a pack of wolfs?

Delisting 1/3 of the state is rather condescending.. How about delisting the whole state.  That is a whole nother topic.

My memory could be failing me, but in protecting livestock, the touchstone is that you have to catch them in the act of depredation or attack.

I think the McIrvins had to get special permission before they could do that 

[Special T]

If someone was willing to poach a wolf what else might they be willing to poach?

I think this is likely the exception to that rule.   

I think Fl0und3rs  makes a good point.  When some law is wrong or not well thought out do you try to stay law abiding with the same kind of zeal?  Believe it or not we all break laws intentionally or unintentionally.  Does that mean i think we should abandon laws wholesale? No. But what it does prove is that it is much easier, and common, for excessive laws that are not well thought out. I bet i can find a negative unitended consequence for most laws...  We should strive to be better, but not whipped by our master. (The State).

[JimmyHoffa]

I'd agree with that Special T.  Kind of like...would you report all traffic violations?  The guy that passes you and is obviously speeding?  The guy that didn't signal?  The drunk guy that is weaving at head on traffic with no lights on at night?
Or a bit more extreme, would you be a witness to/report a homicide?  What if that homicide was a parent that killed a child molester that was caught with their child? 

[elkinrutdrivemenuts]

No, and I hope if someone does they aren't dumb enough to have a witness. 

[pianoman9701]

I wonder if the results of this vote has anything to do with the fact that WDFW did not give fair consideration to hunters, ranchers, and other wildlife management in the current wolf plan. The former director unfairly stacked the wolf working group with pro-wolf votes. How can they expect hunters to support something that was forced upon them unfairly?

Just sayin!

I can empathize with that how ever we all have allot of crap forced upon us unfairly and still have managed to remain law abiding citizens. Once again I am in no way pro wolf but I am very anti poaching.

You confuse a non-existent duty to report poachers with duties to obey otherwise annoying laws.  People generally report poaching, because it is in the interest of good management of game animals, and it is aligned with their moral compasses. 

With an ill-conceived and dishonestly executed wolf-plan put forth by the WDFW, one that subverts a person's interest in game management and neglects the input of the very customers that the WDFW depends upon, and what else would you expect than for law-abiding people to look the other way in the face of street justice.

I would not fault anyone for refusing to be an agent of the man when it comes to enforcement of laws that he or she considers unjust.  Jury nullification is a completely acceptable outcome for the unjust enforcement of laws.

Honestly, I never thought about it that way. You make a very good point.

No a rancher can't shoot one to protect his stock and no someone can't shoot one to protect a pet, so far anyway. They're still protected in this state and until the state delists the E 1/3 of WA, the DFW is the only authority who gets to make that decision. Unless I'm incorrect, you can only shoot one in self defense or defense of another human in danger.

 Well then I stand corrected. How in the hell is it that a rancher can not protect his or hers lively hood from being decimated by a pack of wolfs?

Delisting 1/3 of the state is rather condescending.. How about delisting the whole state.  That is a whole nother topic.

The wolves were only removed from protection under the ESA for the Northern Rocky states, to include only the eastern 1/3 of WA. They still remain protected under the ESA in the western 2/3 of WA. Our state, even if they wanted to (which they don't) couldn't delist west of that line.

[FALFire]

The problem with most people is they want to tell the world of their experiences. Once you let everyone know your story, things become complicated. When things become complicated you whine like a baby, when you whine like a baby people accuse you of being trigger happy and a wolf hater, when you become a trigger happy wolf hater you end up being mouse bait in a dark place with mice crawling around your feet nipping at your toes, don't become mouse bait.  Get rid of cable and upgrade to Direct TV...Call 1-800-DIRECTTV


 

[h2ofowlr]

I am really surprised at the 82.5% of the people would not turn in a poacher yet everyone here preaches about hunting legally... Kinda hypocritical if you ask me. Even as much as I disagree with the wolf reintroduction and hate what the wolves are doing to hunting in this state and other states, poaching is poaching and is a     

The only reason it isn't a 100% is that there are guys/ gals that haven't scene first hand what these creature have done.  They have put a lot of guides out of business in Idaho alone.  In specific areas, guys don't buy tags anymore.  When you go from having experiences that you could tell generations to stories of not even seeing animals in only 4-6 year period it opens peoples eyes wide open.  Lots of money and careful management have helped build these herds to where they were 8-10 years ago over a course of 50 years.  These wolves have changed this, like I mentioned in 4-6 years in specific areas.  This isn't the 1800's.  The old timers had ways to knock down the population from year around trapping, shooting and poisioning to get rid of them.  We have seasons, no poisioning, limits, and trapping bans in this state.  It seems minor now, but wait until this train gets rolling, it will change things drastically.  You will still find animals in peoples back yards until the wolves run low on food and come finding them.  The ones that can't jump the fence or run away will get taken out.