WDFW Offers Reward for info ................wolf killing

[idahohuntr]

RG: The issue is not about whether wolves should have been introduced.  That ship sailed in 1995.   The issue I see with wolves now is not what the government did or lied about or hid or conspired about...but how can we move forward with responsible wolf management to get (and keep) them off ESA lists.  In Washington the politics are such that we must tread carefully and not push non-hunting voters into believing the garbage of anti-hunters, which means some self-policing when it comes to asanine and ridiculous statements and lies about wolves and their impacts or lack of impacts on elk herds.  Most environmental laws impact lives of rural folks far more than the city folk...I guess thats one of the burdens of living in amazing areas    Fact is, the elk, the wolves, the public land are as much that New Yorkers as they are mine or yours...this public/equal ownership is the backbone of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and is by far the greatest model of wildlife management in the world.  I think we are seeing a very reasonable balance of wolf/ungulate management in ID/MT, which is what we should be working towards in Washington.  Assure the public who enjoys wolves that we hunters are intelligent enough to realize wolves are not always the fault/problem, that they can be managed and conserved in balance with our deer and elk herds.  Will this mean some some areas suffer reduced deer and elk populations...possibly.  Does it mean hunting will end?  NO.  The alternative in Washington to some reasonable compromise on wolf management will be more and more public referendums protecting wolves and attacking hunting rights because we are vastly outnumbered.

[RG]

I agree wolves are a fact of life. I also agree that they won't be the end of hunting. We still take elk out of the salmon unit in Idaho.  My point to you was you made it sound like you were saying a few cows here and there is no big deal to a rancher and its OK that the wolves were just thrown in there, no big deal. My point was, if that's your opinion then you're out of touch with reality.  The other point is wolves are still big business to the groups who have always promoted them. These groups and these people live very well off of the donations they receive from their followers. They have no interest in the rights of the states or how the lives of people are affected.  They never get their hands dirty they don't worry about the price of hay or beef, they've never slept in the ground.

I also agree that we need to convince an uninformed and uninterested general public that we are right in wanting sensible management and state level control of wolves.  The discouraging thing us that our state decision makers appear to be influenced by the very groups who are pushing the wolf agenda.  The fact that Idaho, and it's leadership has taken the steps they have taken is a signal that they have a pair and the backbone to say we will control our own destiny and won't allow ourselves to be bullied by these groups who are having their way with states elsewhere. Whether one elk population is saved or not isn't the root issue. When special interests find a way to control the lives if people in the states it becomes a hot button issue.

I hope our state delisted wolves and puts a sensible management plan in place but, as long as it appears they are following a political rather than scientific agenda there won't be a lot of trust placed in the decision makers by the people who are affected by their decisions.

[idahohuntr]

My point to you was you made it sound like you were saying a few cows here and there is no big deal to a rancher and its OK that the wolves were just thrown in there, no big deal. My point was, if that's your opinion then you're out of touch with reality. 

Its not that it may not be a big deal to the individual rancher, but for those that graze on public land in wolf country it needs to be included as a cost of business and at minimum hunters should not be burdened with private losses on public ground because of public wildlife.  I am not anti-grazing or anti-ranching.  I occasionally have cattle on my private land...but I absolutely do not think hunter funds should be used to subsidize ranchers in such a situation.  I can understand how a cattle rancher would view wolves being thrust upon him as a new cost that is subtracting solely from his pocket book and is unfair...but again, I am more concerned about who's dipping into hunters pocketbooks to subsidize ranchers than I am about a ranchers bottom line.   

The other point is wolves are still big business to the groups who have always promoted them. These groups and these people live very well off of the donations they receive from their followers. They have no interest in the rights of the states or how the lives of people are affected. 

These are excellent points and they could be applied to groups that hate wolves as well as the groups that promote them.  SFW, BGF...no difference in my mind than DOW or EarthJustice....parasites exploiting a contentious issue.   

I hope our state delists wolves and puts a sensible management plan in place but, as long as it appears they are following a political rather than scientific agenda there won't be a lot of trust placed in the decision makers by the people who are affected by their decisions.

I agree here too, but I also recognize how WDFW is between a rock and hard spot...political realities and biological/science based management just don't align well for wolf management in Washington.  My perception is WDFW is actually trying hard to walk this tight rope of being politically sensitive but also watching out for deer/elk herds and hunters.  They have a thankless job...I remember at a meeting with WDFW folks one of the admin staff hinted about keeping coyote derbies a little more quiet...some groups didn't heed the advice because "its perfectly legal and we won't bow to the enviro groups"...well, these derbies made the press and now its almost certain to be a bill in the next legislature banning them...hopefully it doesn't actually pass/happen...but if it does I think its just another example of how the game has to be played.  Its not good enough to say what is biologically relevant and makes sense...you have to play to the urban crowd.  We should all be describing hunting as an organic locovore movement to connect with nature and combat major corporate takeover and control of food supply      Have those seattleites eating out of the palm of our hands 

[RG]

I think WDFW's inability, unwillingness(?), to stand up and be heard and make the right decision for the resource in some cases works directly against them. I'm thinking of the hound hunting/bating ban a few years back. Even though I was told directly by their employee/biologist that if that passed it would be one of the biggest disasters to hit predator management in Washington, they stood by completely silent while the animal rights groups showered advertisements in rhe voters.  It would seem that a couple ads in which that bio was able to explain the issue and the importance of hunting for management would make a difference in allowing science to prevail over politics.  As you suggested, maybe they aren't the bad guys but they sure dont do much to communicate that or convince people.  They pretty much seem to just go along with the politics when one of those issues comes up.  I also know there are rules about them taking positions in political issues but I also know there are ways to work around that too if they felt it was important enough.

This is pretty much a dead horse that's been beat to pieces.  I do agree that sportsmen need to use finesse if the public in general us going to side with us.

[JLS]

Even though I was told directly by their employee/biologist that if that passed it would be one of the biggest disasters to hit predator management in Washington, they stood by completely silent while the animal rights groups showered advertisements in rhe voters.  It would seem that a couple ads in which that bio was able to explain the issue and the importance of hunting for management would make a difference in allowing science to prevail over politics. 

State agencies are not allowed to express opinions and/or try to influence votes on Citizen's Initiatives.

[RG]

Technically you are right. Idaho isn't having any problem expressing an opinion. They made the decision to take charge and are doing so.  Wyoming did the same with their wolf plan that the groups didnt like. Montana is trying to do the same. Somebody just needs to say I care about what is right and wrong for the resource and the residents of the state, put on their big boy pants and take a stand. All the sneaking around, whispering, and political correctness at the expense of your own constituents is weak. Most state residents don't care enough to do the research so they hear what they are told and believe it.  If the state doesn't care enough to let the experts that they hired to do the job be heard then shame on them.  It's not even so much about what action they take its about making the right decision for the right reason then standing up for it.

[RifleRidge]

This was the deciding factor for not purchasing my spring bear permit.  I am not giving any extra money to WDFW and I am on the fence right now if I am just going to hunt out of state and put the 400 bucks I normally spend here into a out of state hunt.