March 27 Colville wolf meeting

[Elkaholic daWg]

Once again, those that represented the WDFW appeared even more removed, aloof, disconnected, and all together unhappy about being there.  I am sure they didnt hear a thing....in one ear out the other.

THey once again, started with a totally sideways skewed presentation that would make anyone NOT familiar with WDFW think  we have the best hunting in the west along with the most thorough management.

When people spoke up, I focused on the faces of the WDFW personel rather than the speaker.  The WDFW panel was so disconected and expressionless that they may as well have been mannikens.........When bearpaw spoke, they were decidedly uninterested.
 
It was clear to myself and four hunting partners that WDFW was once again, going through the motions, only doing what is required, uncaring, uninterested, their minds already made up, and ready to move on/ahead with their direction of choice.........MORE WOLVES.   DONT LOOK FOR IT TO GET BETTER ANY TIME SOON!!!!!!!!!!

 THANK YOU buckfvr for the report on the meeting  which I was able to plageurize and change my commission conrfirmation letter and resend it to all the committee members ......here it is


To: kirk.pearson@leg.wa.gov; john.smith@leg.wa.gov; christine.rolfes@leg.wa.gov; jim.hargrove@leg.wa.gov; mike.hewitt@leg.wa.gov; adam.kline@leg.wa.gov; linda.parlette@leg.wa.gov;
Subject: Confirmation of WDFW Wildlife Commissioners
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 06:47:01 -0700

Senate Natural Resources and Parks Committee
RE: Confirmation of WDFW Wildlife Commissioners

Dear Senator,
 This is why Many oppose these confirmations  since WDFW paid employees(by us) seem to think that they are the RULING class on these issues and seem to have forgotten they are public servants- And what the original purpose of the department is. (WAS) To confirm these 2 would be stepping farther over the line  in a direction of destroying the North American wildlife management model which has been the envy of the world for almost a century! Here is an example regarding a WDFW  wolf meeting and how the seeming  "rulers" react to concerns and realities in a very affected area of northeastern Washington.
 Thanks to buckfvr @ huntingwashington.

"Once again, those that represented the WDFW appeared even more removed, aloof, disconnected, and all together unhappy about being there.  I am sure they didnt hear a thing....in one ear out the other.

They once again, started with a totally sideways skewed presentation that would make anyone NOT familiar with WDFW think  we have the best hunting in the west along with the most thorough management.

When people spoke up, I focused on the faces of the WDFW personel rather than the speaker.  The WDFW panel was so disconected and expressionless that they may as well have been mannikens.........When bearpaw spoke, they were decidedly uninterested.
 
It was clear to myself and four hunting partners that WDFW was once again, going through the motions, only doing what is required, uncaring, uninterested, their minds already made up, and ready to move on/ahead with their direction of choice.........MORE WOLVES.   DONT LOOK FOR IT TO GET BETTER ANY TIME SOON!!!!!!!!!!"




Please OPPOSE THE CONFIRMATION of Jay Kehne as an Eastern Washington Commissioner. He is a paid employee of Conservation Northwest a western Washington special interest environmental organization which opposes management of wolves, cougars, or any other predators and is often in opposition to predator hunting seasons. Kehne's employment by Conservation Northwest is a direct conflict of interest with his appointment as an Eastern Washington Commissioner. As you must know, the County Commissioners of Kehne's home county are opposed to his appointment.

Please OPPOSE THE CONFIRMATION of David Jennings an extremist environmentalist with a known radical anti-sport fishing agenda who has proposed closing Neah Bay to rock fishing a vitally important activity to the economic stability of that region. Jennings is also opposed to needed wolf management, rarely if ever supports hunting, wants to expand wilderness areas and create Marine Protected Areas (Water Wilderness). Please remove David Jennings from the Wildlife Commission he is considered by many to be the worst Wildlife Commissioner.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully,

[724wd]

http://www.kxly.com/news/spokane-news/Farmers-hunters-express-concern-over-growing-wolf-population/-/101214/19500680/-/na45uk/-/index.html

"We don't know the impact yet,"  Maddona Leurs with the Department of Fish and Wildlife said.

"We are not detecting an impact yet," she added.

"There is a good natural wild prey base for wolves here and so I think a lot of hunters are interested, curious, nervous maybe because what this is going to mean to elk and deer herds.  We've got a new competitor on the landscape," Leurs said.

Right now, there are seven documented wolf packs in the Colville area and north to the Canadian border. There are 51 wolves making up 10 wolf packs statewide The wolf will be on the endangered species list until there are 15 successful breeding pairs, statewide for three consecutive years.

"Having wolves in Washington again is really, if you think about it, a point of pride.  We are the smallest western state, second highest human population in the west, only to California.  A lot of people, little bit of land and we are still wild enough to support wolves, that's pretty cool," Leurs said.

Not everyone shares Leurs' excitement."

[buckfvr]

Thats an example of the majority that we face......brain dead majority.,

[jackelope]

Thats an example of the majority that we face......brain dead majority.,

The brain dead majority who reports:

Right now, there are seven documented wolf packs in the Colville area and north to the Canadian border. There are 51 wolves making up 10 wolf packs statewide The wolf will be on the endangered species list until there are 15 successful breeding pairs, statewide for three consecutive years.

"Having wolves in Washington again is really, if you think about it, a point of pride.  We are the smallest western state, second highest human population in the west, only to California.  A lot of people, little bit of land and we are still wild enough to support wolves, that's pretty cool," Leurs said.

Not everyone shares Leurs' excitement."

If that is true, I've seen 1/3 of the population of wolves in this state in trail camera pictures in the last month and none of those cameras were owned or operated by WDFW or any other state or federal agency.

[bearpaw]

I will be there and plan to speak. 

I appreciate you speaking and the effort you put in. My only issue....

IMO- It would be better to have a rancher etc. speak versus someone like yourself, who is an outfitter. Any of those, who you are trying to convince could possibly dismiss your presentation, based off the fact that you make money off of game, which the wolves are killing. It could be viewed that you don't care so much about the game, but more about your wallet. An outfitter or a hunter speaking is to be expected. Their views are to be expected, that they are not pro-wolf. We need non hunters, non outfitters, etc. educating those who will listen about wolves and wolf management IMO, but I appreciate your passion and effor you have put in.

I find it amazing that anyone would think I should not comment. Hunting is my life, yes it's how I earn a living, but that's no different than a rancher making a living off his cattle, a sporting goods store owner earning a living, restaurant owners selling meals to hunters, or motel owners renting rooms to hunters. The employees at WDFW even make their living off hunting and fishing. Should all these people not be allowed to have input because they earn some or all their livelihood from hunting. 

I was raised by a family of hunters, I spend as much time hunting as possible, hunting is what I do on vacation, all three of my kids are hunters to varying degrees, I maintain this forum for hunters to exchange thoughts and information, I frequently stay up half the night writing letters, and I have driven countless miles over the last 30 years to wildlife commission meetings to support hunters.

The future of hunting opportunities for all citizens is of sincere importance to me. I will continue speaking up for hunters as long as I can whether I am still an outfitter or not for as long as we have our 1st Amendment rights.

FYI - At these meetings many people get the opportunity to speak.

[bearpaw]

What did you guys expect?

You are right, we should not have expected anything real from WDFW.

[huntnphool]

I will be there and plan to speak. 

I appreciate you speaking and the effort you put in. My only issue....

IMO- It would be better to have a rancher etc. speak versus someone like yourself, who is an outfitter. Any of those, who you are trying to convince could possibly dismiss your presentation, based off the fact that you make money off of game, which the wolves are killing. It could be viewed that you don't care so much about the game, but more about your wallet. An outfitter or a hunter speaking is to be expected. Their views are to be expected, that they are not pro-wolf. We need non hunters, non outfitters, etc. educating those who will listen about wolves and wolf management IMO, but I appreciate your passion and effor you have put in.

I find it amazing that anyone would think I should not comment. Hunting is my life, yes it's how I earn a living, but that's no different than a rancher making a living off his cattle, a sporting goods store owner earning a living, restaurant owners selling meals to hunters, or motel owners renting rooms to hunters. The employees at WDFW even make their living off hunting and fishing. Should all these people not be allowed to have input because they earn some or all their livelihood from hunting. 

I was raised by a family of hunters, I spend as much time hunting as possible, hunting is what I do on vacation, all three of my kids are hunters to varying degrees, I maintain this forum for hunters to exchange thoughts and information, I frequently stay up half the night writing letters, and I have driven countless miles over the last 30 years to wildlife commission meetings to support hunters.

The future of hunting opportunities for all citizens is of sincere importance to me. I will continue speaking up for hunters as long as I can whether I am still an outfitter or not for as long as we have our 1st Amendment rights.

FYI - At these meetings many people get the opportunity to speak.

Ignorance is bliss Dale, your interests would be better served if you stood on the sideline and kept your mouth shut..............yeah right!

[KFhunter]

Wolves are going to be the ruin of WDFW - but maybe that is what is needed to clean their house up.

[Elkaholic daWg]

I will be there and plan to speak. 

I appreciate you speaking and the effort you put in. My only issue....

IMO- It would be better to have a rancher etc. speak versus someone like yourself, who is an outfitter. Any of those, who you are trying to convince could possibly dismiss your presentation, based off the fact that you make money off of game, which the wolves are killing. It could be viewed that you don't care so much about the game, but more about your wallet. An outfitter or a hunter speaking is to be expected. Their views are to be expected, that they are not pro-wolf. We need non hunters, non outfitters, etc. educating those who will listen about wolves and wolf management IMO, but I appreciate your passion and effor you have put in.

I find it amazing that anyone would think I should not comment. Hunting is my life, yes it's how I earn a living, but that's no different than a rancher making a living off his cattle, a sporting goods store owner earning a living, restaurant owners selling meals to hunters, or motel owners renting rooms to hunters. The employees at WDFW even make their living off hunting and fishing. Should all these people not be allowed to have input because they earn some or all their livelihood from hunting. 

I was raised by a family of hunters, I spend as much time hunting as possible, hunting is what I do on vacation, all three of my kids are hunters to varying degrees, I maintain this forum for hunters to exchange thoughts and information, I frequently stay up half the night writing letters, and I have driven countless miles over the last 30 years to wildlife commission meetings to support hunters.

The future of hunting opportunities for all citizens is of sincere importance to me. I will continue speaking up for hunters as long as I can whether I am still an outfitter or not for as long as we have our 1st Amendment rights.

FYI - At these meetings many people get the opportunity to speak.

[bobcat]

What did you guys expect?

You are right, we should not have expected anything real from WDFW.

What I mean is with the wolf plan being fairly new, what else do we really expect of the WDFW, other than following the plan, until wolves can be delisted?

It just doesn't seem like there is really anything happening with the wolves that wasn't predicted to happen.

Are we thinking that re-writing the wolf plan is a possibility?

[huntnphool]

When a hunter or outfitter speaks it is not going to be as well received. A) Those listening are aganist hunting, hunters, their views, etc. to begin with

So WDFW are "against hunters and their views to begin with"?

[bobcat]

I actually think the WDFW is very interested in hunters' opinions regarding wolves and their management. They want us to be happy, and to continue spending our money on hunting licenses and tags.

But I do understand your point Skywalker. I think it would be great to have people who are not associated with ranching or hunting, on our side.

Unfortunately, there aren't many who fit that description. If they're not into hunting or ranching, most people have very little interest in how wolves are managed (or not managed.)

[jackelope]

Skywalker I kind of see what you are saying, but does a Rancher not have a financial stake as well as an outfitter.
I think all should be heard regardless of their interest. Some are just better speakers and get their point across better. 

Care to elaborate BearPaw?

I agree with you. I understand what you are saying about Ranchers having a finacial stake. The difference IMO; Ranches are usually handed down from family generation to family generation, as a means of making a living. Their are strong family traditions associated with that. If wolves start killing off their means of making a living, then the wolves should be killed. You cannot just pick up your ranch, family traditions, etc. and move it. I think most listening would understand their point of view, and at least listen.

When a hunter or outfitter speaks it is not going to be as well received. A) Those listening are aganist hunting, hunters, their views, etc. to begin with B) An outfitter is taking advantage of a resource to make money. Whether that be hunting videos, TV shows, guide service, etc. I could see how an anti-hunter/pro-wolf individual would dismiss their credibility from the start. They are coming in pissed off, and likely not going to listen. My point is; choose the path of least resistence; work smart. Bearpaw presenting is not going to capture an audience and get anyone to listen. Perhaps Bearpaw take his information, facts, etc. and turn it over to somebody, who stands on neutral ground.

I don't agree with you at all.
Hunters and guides and outfitters should either  keep their mouths shut or get a puppet to speak for them and we should let the wolf lovers speak out at will because WDFW is more likely to listen?
Come on, man. Get realistic.

[huntnphool]

I will be there and plan to speak. 

I appreciate you speaking and the effort you put in. My only issue....

IMO- It would be better to have a rancher etc. speak versus someone like yourself, who is an outfitter. Any of those, who you are trying to convince could possibly dismiss your presentation, based off the fact that you make money off of game, which the wolves are killing. It could be viewed that you don't care so much about the game, but more about your wallet. An outfitter or a hunter speaking is to be expected. Their views are to be expected, that they are not pro-wolf. We need non hunters, non outfitters, etc. educating those who will listen about wolves and wolf management IMO, but I appreciate your passion and effor you have put in.

I find it amazing that anyone would think I should not comment. Hunting is my life, yes it's how I earn a living, but that's no different than a rancher making a living off his cattle, a sporting goods store owner earning a living, restaurant owners selling meals to hunters, or motel owners renting rooms to hunters. The employees at WDFW even make their living off hunting and fishing. Should all these people not be allowed to have input because they earn some or all their livelihood from hunting. 

I was raised by a family of hunters, I spend as much time hunting as possible, hunting is what I do on vacation, all three of my kids are hunters to varying degrees, I maintain this forum for hunters to exchange thoughts and information, I frequently stay up half the night writing letters, and I have driven countless miles over the last 30 years to wildlife commission meetings to support hunters.

The future of hunting opportunities for all citizens is of sincere importance to me. I will continue speaking up for hunters as long as I can whether I am still an outfitter or not for as long as we have our 1st Amendment rights.

FYI - At these meetings many people get the opportunity to speak.

I don't disagree with you Bearpaw. But everyone you are presenting to, knows this already. You views and opinions are all justified, but expected and predictible. Think about it. If somebody who is PRO WOLF (Bigtime Tree Hugger) is trying to convince you that wolves are needed in Wa, wolves are not going to damage the game, etc. Are you going to listen? or are you thinking they are an idiot, who has no clue what will happen to the resource. In other words; there is NO chance they are going to change your views about wolves in Wa. Based off the many posts I have read from you, and your involvment in this issue; you are NOT going to change your point of view.

Now jump over to the other side of it. Now you are presenting to the PRO WOLF (Big Time Tree Hugger). You are telling them what YOU expect to happen, what will hapeen, statistics, data, etc. They know you are a hunter (they dislike), they know you make money off the resource (they dislike); but you are asking them to LISTEN and attempting to change their point of view. What do you think they are thinking when you present? I am guessing that they think this guy is just trying to protect his pocket book and feels wolves are compeating with the big game resource you make money off of.

Hopefully you understand what I am saying. PRO WOLF presenting vs Anit-Wolf/Hunter/Outfitter, etc. is not a good mix to try and change either sides views. Both sides need representatives (mediator) to help each side find common ground. Otherwise all these meetings are USELESS!! Clearly based off the posts I have read; last nights Colville meeting was just that....USELESS!!

Dale is not up there addressing the Pro Wolf group, he is addressing WDFW.

[huntnphool]

Skywalker I kind of see what you are saying, but does a Rancher not have a financial stake as well as an outfitter.
I think all should be heard regardless of their interest. Some are just better speakers and get their point across better. 

Care to elaborate BearPaw?

I agree with you. I understand what you are saying about Ranchers having a finacial stake. The difference IMO; Ranches are usually handed down from family generation to family generation, as a means of making a living. Their are strong family traditions associated with that. If wolves start killing off their means of making a living, then the wolves should be killed. You cannot just pick up your ranch, family traditions, etc. and move it. I think most listening would understand their point of view, and at least listen.

When a hunter or outfitter speaks it is not going to be as well received. A) Those listening are aganist hunting, hunters, their views, etc. to begin with B) An outfitter is taking advantage of a resource to make money. Whether that be hunting videos, TV shows, guide service, etc. I could see how an anti-hunter/pro-wolf individual would dismiss their credibility from the start. They are coming in pissed off, and likely not going to listen. My point is; choose the path of least resistence; work smart. Bearpaw presenting is not going to capture an audience and get anyone to listen. Perhaps Bearpaw take his information, facts, etc. and turn it over to somebody, who stands on neutral ground.

I don't agree with you at all.
Hunters and guides and outfitters should either  keep their mouths shut or get a puppet to speak for them and we should let the wolf lovers speak out at will because WDFW is more likely to listen?
Come on, man. Get realistic.

+1