March 27 Colville wolf meeting

[huntnphool]

skywalker stop. just stop. Your so far out there on this topic its unbearable

[asl20bball]

Skywalker I think your missing the point...it doesn't matter who presents what b/c WDFW already had their minds made up.

Ughhhh....I think I said that way earlier bro. Go back and read. That is why I say the stupid meetings are USELESS!! They already know what they are going to do. They are just hosting meetings to try and make it look like they are listening to all sides etc. So actually...YOU missed it. Nice try thou! 

LMAO

[huntnphool]

skywalker stop. just stop. Your so far out there on this topic its unbearable

I know, but I don't care. I just like to have fun on here and stir the pot. 

Fair enough

[huntnphool]

skywalker stop. just stop. Your so far out there on this topic its unbearable

I know, but I don't care. I just like to have fun on here and stir the pot. 

Fair enough

HUNT "I KNOW IT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PHOOL

Need a hunting question answered?

Call now 1-800-KNOWIT

This weeks topic...

Natives in the Entiat, who locked the damn gates. LMFAO Call now for the answer.

back to the sauce I see.

[huntnphool]

skywalker stop. just stop. Your so far out there on this topic its unbearable

I know, but I don't care. I just like to have fun on here and stir the pot. 

Fair enough

HUNT "I KNOW IT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PHOOL

Need a hunting question answered?

Call now 1-800-KNOWIT

This weeks topic...

Natives in the Entiat, who locked the damn gates. LMFAO Call now for the answer.

back to the sauce I see.

Just firing a shot over your boww. Nothing more....
I will stop now, but you know that was funny.

[CementFinisher]

So when the big game herds crash and they implement their study to see why is the wolf plan paying for it where is the money going to come from, are there funds even allocated for it? Will they actually put boots on the ground in their research? yea 

[jackelope]

Bearpaw's view is not narrow minded.  I've read much of his research on the wolf issue and he knows his stuff.......(knows the stats and info better than WDFW).

The pro-wolf crowd are the narrow minded ones.  They want to end hunting and replace us with wolves. 

And Dale wants to end wolves in Wa. That is being narrow minded. And I know Dale knows his stuff. I follow him closely and have a ton of respect for what he does and his involvment. But that does not change the fact his presentations are failing and he is losing the battle IMO.

Sir, you need to know what you are talking about so I am going to help you.

I have said on more than one occasion that wolves could fit into Washington in reasonable numbers. I actually suggested 6 to 8 BP's as being reasonable for Washington and that wolves which move into inhabited areas should be open season in order to keep them in wilderness where they don't cause problems in our modern ecosystems. What I am adamantly opposed to is the maneuvering by WDFW to fill Washington with wolves and their wolf plan which throws NE WA to the wolves until every wolf zone has 4 BP's for 3 consecutive years. By WDFW's own admission wolf numbers doubled since last year. Is there any proven reason that wolves will not continue to double in population every year in NE WA until 4 BP's successfully breed for 3 consecutive years in all wolf zones.

WDFW is closed minded. They insisted on 15 BP's for 3 years, that's 1.5 times as many wolves as Montana's plan calls for, a state that is twice the size of Washington with a fraction of the human population. The biggest problem is that the F&G agencies do not know how many wolves are out there, WDFW even admits there are likely twice as many wolves as they have confirmed.

If one BP does not have pups at the end of the year the 3 year count will start over again, meanwhile the NE and the Methow suffer.

Please explain again who is closed minded?



oops fixed a number I had wrong

At the end of the day you were not open minded enough with your plan. If you were, then they would have accepted it. I work off bottom lines. Bottom line A) they did not accept your plan B) even your buddies on here stated YOUR presentation last night fell on deaf ears C) take accountability D) it is time to go back to the drawing board. If the wolf plan is set in stone, what was the POINT of your presentation. Answer needed please...

Ignorance is bliss...again. If you really thought Dale's input or any other person who spoke last night in Colville was going to change the wolf plan, then you, sir, have your head buried so far in the sand you will never again see daylight. You should pull up stakes and move on from here. Your credibility as far as I'm concerned,  after these pointless and meaningless comments tonight, is gone.

[bearpaw]

Fellow Members,
These wolf lovers like to get on here and try to discredit anyone who is making waves with their beloved wolf plan. We have legislators who will eventually put an end to the wolf madness. Eventually people will get fed up with the wolf lovers in WDFW, we will identify who they are and we will replace them. As I stated in the Colville meeting, Idaho had to get rid of certain people in IDFG before real management could begin. Very good chance skywalker is one of the WDFW wolf loving employees or he is simply a wolf lover who sees the wolf lies being brought to task and proven false.

At any rate skywalker it appears you are only here to promote wolves and insult members. It is my opinion you are better suited to belong to a wolf lover's site.

Goodbye 

[bearpaw]

We have a few members who support wolves. I don't agree with them but I hold nothing else against them. I also understand that some people dislike outfitters for whatever reason, everyone is entitled their opinion. But when a guy starts insulting other members too, that is uncalled for, skywalker went too far with his comments. 

[huntnphool]

I wish I could have gone to that meeting. Am I understanding correctly that even though the approved proposal has a 25% depredation decrease cap for ungulate herds, they actually said they would not adhere to it?

If this happens I think we as sportsmen should band together in a law suit against them, start saving your pennies fellas.

[buckfvr]

bearpaw, you have considerably more patience than I..............

hp, I have wondered about the prospects of a class action law suit, hunters vs. WDFW.......I am all about it.

[6x6in6]

WDFW spent a good portion of their time basically telling local residents all the reasons and excuses they will not control wolf numbers upon a 25% reduction in ungulate populations. In so many words WDFW made it very clear that they do not intend to control wolves when ungulate populations drop by 25%. They made it very clear they plan on taking years to study why an ungulate population is dropping.

Not trying to plagiarize your post Dale!!!  I do 110% support you and your efforts in this battle for all of us now and in the future.   
But and unfortunately, it looks like the WDFW is following pretty close to the wolf plan on the above subject.

Below is a copy and paste from the wolf plan.
Chapter 5 - Section F on page 115.   
Link for those who do not have the wolf plan:  http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00001/wdfw00001.pdf

During recovery stages, while wolves are listed in Washington, it is unlikely that they will have a
significant negative effect on ungulate populations in the state. However, if WDFW determined that wolf predation was a primary limiting factor for an “at-risk” ungulate population, and the wolf population in that wolf recovery region was at least 4 successful breeding pairs, WDFW could consider reducing wolf abundance in the localized area occupied by the ungulate population before state delisting occurs.

For the purposes of this plan, an at-risk ungulate population is any federal or state listed ungulate
population (e.g., Selkirk Mountain woodland caribou, Columbian white-tailed deer). An at-risk
population would also include any ungulate population which falls 25% below its population
objective for two consecutive years and/or if the harvest decreases by 25% below the 10-year  average harvest rate for two consecutive years. In ungulate populations without numeric estimates and/or without management objectives, the Department will rely on other factors of information to assess a decline, such as harvest trends, hunter effort trends, sex and age ratios, and others.


This just absolutely sucks!!!      

[6x6in6]

And I failed to say so, Thank You Dale and to all of those in attendance along with those their in spirit.   

[buckfvr]

Doesnt make alot of sense that the Feds can see to list only a portion of this state, but the state refuses to fragment the management.  Poor policy makers abound in this state.

[huntnphool]

WDFW spent a good portion of their time basically telling local residents all the reasons and excuses they will not control wolf numbers upon a 25% reduction in ungulate populations. In so many words WDFW made it very clear that they do not intend to control wolves when ungulate populations drop by 25%. They made it very clear they plan on taking years to study why an ungulate population is dropping.

Not trying to plagiarize your post Dale!!!  I do 110% support you and your efforts in this battle for all of us now and in the future.   
But and unfortunately, it looks like the WDFW is following pretty close to the wolf plan on the above subject.

Below is a copy and paste from the wolf plan.
Chapter 5 - Section F on page 115.   
Link for those who do not have the wolf plan:  http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00001/wdfw00001.pdf

During recovery stages, while wolves are listed in Washington, it is unlikely that they will have a
significant negative effect on ungulate populations in the state. However, if WDFW determined that wolf predation was a primary limiting factor for an “at-risk” ungulate population, and the wolf population in that wolf recovery region was at least 4 successful breeding pairs, WDFW could consider reducing wolf abundance in the localized area occupied by the ungulate population before state delisting occurs.

For the purposes of this plan, an at-risk ungulate population is any federal or state listed ungulate
population (e.g., Selkirk Mountain woodland caribou, Columbian white-tailed deer). An at-risk
population would also include any ungulate population which falls 25% below its population
objective for two consecutive years and/or if the harvest decreases by 25% below the 10-year  average harvest rate for two consecutive years. In ungulate populations without numeric estimates and/or without management objectives, the Department will rely on other factors of information to assess a decline, such as harvest trends, hunter effort trends, sex and age ratios, and others.


This just absolutely sucks!!!      

Yeah, another interesting point in the proposal is how they purposely mention that "days in the field" per hunter has decreased over the years, suggesting that hunters are losing interest or its by our choice, yet they never mention the fact that our general seasons have been cut back during those statistical years they are using.