Poachers more problematic than wolves?

[pianoman9701]

I don't support wolves in any way but I don't feel this article has some underlying theme of wolf support.  I also have to laugh when folks believe that WDFW has anything to do with the wolf populations in washington.  They have to follow what is set by the feds and then by what is set by our lawmakers. The majority of WDFW is on our side but at the same time they have to enforce what the people vote for.  I have never met a wdfw officer that was in support of bear bait bans or using dogs for cougar, but it was passed into law so they have to do their job.  I think the WDFW does a great job with what they are given.  We have a state with a ton of hunters and a limited amount of game and then split by 50% non-hunters and 50% hunters, their job isn't even close to easy.

You can laugh all you want but you're absolutely wrong that the DFW has nothing to do with the wolf populations in WA. It was the DFW which proposed the wolf plan which was accepted by the USFWS without reservation, a wolf plan that is way over the top given our population density and in comparison to the plans submitted by WY, MT, and ID. It's the DFW which continues to protect the wolf statewide even though they've been delisted in the eastern third of the state by the feds. In addition, MT, ID, and WY have stood up to the USFWS during the planning stages of the program and further when the wolves became a problem there. WA, on the other hand, has been doing everything they can to kiss the USFWS's butt on wolves in WA and continues to ignore the problems our citizens are experiencing daily.

The comparison of the wolf plan to the baiting and hounding bans is also way off the mark. The bait and hound bans were put in place by public referendum. So, there's no valid comparison to a wolf plan which was put in place and adopted by the DFW/Wildlife Commission. Not sure  where you're getting your information but it's incredibly inaccurate.

[AspenBud]

The bait and hound bans were put in place by public referendum.

Of all the things related to wolves that make you lose sleep, that precedent should be the one that frightens you most. With all of the posts and polls on here about poaching and poisoning wolves, all of the vitriolic talk about them, animal rights groups could scoop up all the propaganda they need off H-W alone.

But you're smarter than everyone, I know. Guess we'll see.

[pianoman9701]

I'm sure you'll alert them to it, AB.

[wolfbait]

The bait and hound bans were put in place by public referendum.

Of all the things related to wolves that make you lose sleep, that precedent should be the one that frightens you most. With all of the posts and polls on here about poaching and poisoning wolves, all of the vitriolic talk about them, animal rights groups could scoop up all the propaganda they need off H-W alone.

But you're smarter than everyone, I know. Guess we'll see.

The "environmentalists" have told so many lies by now their credibility, much like certain WDFW biologists is going down the drain. What they could get off of a hunting site pales compared to the propaganda they already run on. Your little threat is pure BS.

[AspenBud]

The bait and hound bans were put in place by public referendum.

Of all the things related to wolves that make you lose sleep, that precedent should be the one that frightens you most. With all of the posts and polls on here about poaching and poisoning wolves, all of the vitriolic talk about them, animal rights groups could scoop up all the propaganda they need off H-W alone.

But you're smarter than everyone, I know. Guess we'll see.

The "environmentalists" have told so many lies by now their credibility, much like certain WDFW biologists is going down the drain. What they could get off of a hunting site pales compared to the propaganda they already run on. Your little threat is pure BS.

I think you need to spend some time in Seattle and see how many of the "lies" you talk about are known or cared about. While you're at it go to Bellingham, Vancouver, and Spokane. I don't think you'll be happy with what you find.

If you hate wolves, great. But for God's sake shut your mouth for once and think about how what you say here can be used against allowing wolf hunting. Animal rights groups got hound hunting shut down when the internet was still on dial up and a relatively new and unknown thing, they did it with just a few misguided peoples' videos and photos slapped onto TV and newspaper ads.

[bearpaw]

This whole article is ridiculous and shows the ineptitude of some agency personnel and their lack of ability to understand wildlife, the public, and the issues. Obviously whomever wrote this was trying to make wolf impacts seem less important. The fact that it was written about Idaho speaks volumes, most everyone who lives in north Idaho is aware of the severity of wolf impacts, except for a half dozen wolf advocates (lovers) on this forum it's pretty unanimous that wolves threaten modern game management, that's why Idaho is managing wolves and other predators the way they are. Predators must be controlled.

There will be far more support against poaching if they quit trying to lie about wolf impacts being less than everyone has seen.

My Advice - Leave faulty wolf statements out of the story if you want to be taken seriously. Talk to us about poachers and the need to eliminate poaching and you will get all the support you need. 

What wolf lovers will do to try and protect their beloved wolves is simply astounding. 

[pianoman9701]

I disagree that we should hide from PETA, HSUS, the Defenders, and the like. Those wackos believe that no humans should be out in the woods at all, that we should be disarmed and never kill another animal for any reason. People need to know what a huge mistake has been made by our state officials and they won't without us telling them. They need to know what danger our wildlife and our NE economies are in from this invader. If you'd ever stood for anything in your life, AB, you'd understand what I mean. I don't believe you ever have and likely never will.

[idahohuntr]

The bait and hound bans were put in place by public referendum.

Of all the things related to wolves that make you lose sleep, that precedent should be the one that frightens you most. With all of the posts and polls on here about poaching and poisoning wolves, all of the vitriolic talk about them, animal rights groups could scoop up all the propaganda they need off H-W alone.

But you're smarter than everyone, I know. Guess we'll see.

The "environmentalists" have told so many lies by now their credibility, much like certain WDFW biologists is going down the drain. What they could get off of a hunting site pales compared to the propaganda they already run on. Your little threat is pure BS.

I think you need to spend some time in Seattle and see how many of the "lies" you talk about are known or cared about. While you're at it go to Bellingham, Vancouver, and Spokane. I don't think you'll be happy with what you find.

If you hate wolves, great. But for God's sake shut your mouth for once and think about how what you say here can be used against allowing wolf hunting. Animal rights groups got hound hunting shut down when the internet was still on dial up and a relatively new and unknown thing, they did it with just a few misguided peoples' videos and photos slapped onto TV and newspaper ads.

   

[idahohuntr]

This whole article is ridiculous and shows the ineptitude of some agency personnel and their lack of ability to understand wildlife, the public, and the issues. Obviously whomever wrote this was trying to make wolf impacts seem less important. The fact that it was written about Idaho speaks volumes, most everyone who lives in north Idaho is aware of the severity of wolf impacts, except for a half dozen wolf advocates (lovers) on this forum it's pretty unanimous that wolves threaten modern game management, that's why Idaho is managing wolves and other predators the way they are. Predators must be controlled.

There will be far more support against poaching if they quit trying to lie about wolf impacts being less than everyone has seen.

My Advice - Leave faulty wolf statements out of the story if you want to be taken seriously. Talk to us about poachers and the need to eliminate poaching and you will get all the support you need. 

What wolf lovers will do to try and protect their beloved wolves is simply astounding. 

Where to begin.

First, the agency personnel quoted in the article know far more about wolves, wildlife, hunting, poaching and the associated complexity of these issues in N-C idaho than you ever will.  If you do buy or own an outfit in the Lolo or other nearby zone I hope you get a chance to meet Mark Hill or George Fischer or Barry Cummings...you would delete this post right now if you even had a clue who these guys were, how much they know, and how much they do for wildlife in Idaho.  These guys are not saying there just aren't any wolf impacts in Idaho so stop lying about it.  For you to imply you have some superior knowledge that these "inept" staff do not is hilarious...you know how to make a dollar off of the public's resources...that's what your good at...you have no clue when it comes to the complexities and challenges of modern wildlife management.

The fact that it is nearly unanimous on this forum that wolves "threaten modern game management" is absolutely meaningless.  Several centuries ago it was unanimous that the earth was flat...popularity does not make for good science or substitute for fact.  Your notion that wolves "threaten modern game management" is another absurd statement not supported by any data.  Wolf numbers are declining and elk/deer populations are doing well...your doom and gloom bs just didn't play out...go find a new conspiracy drum to beat because there is not much credibility left for you wolf nutjobs...and that goes the same for the enviro whack jobs too who claimed wolf hunting would cause extermination...you are all the same clueless people, just on opposite ends of the spectrum.  Same goes for your statement about everyone in "North Idaho knows"...sorry if the mechanic buying a half-rack up in athol thinks wolves are the problem...I will stick with what the wildlife professionals have to say.

[stevemiller]

idahohuntr: If these individuals are doing so much how could Idaho have any kind of poaching problem?PS I never saw any rebuttal from you on my last post,Does the silence mean you agree with what I said?I cant tell because I showed you their incompetence but yet you come back without anything to say on that subject and still beat your chest at how much they know,Or do for the wildlife in Idaho.  By the way you do realize that they hunt wolves in Idaho and not here in WA. right?

[bearpaw]

This whole article is ridiculous and shows the ineptitude of some agency personnel and their lack of ability to understand wildlife, the public, and the issues. Obviously whomever wrote this was trying to make wolf impacts seem less important. The fact that it was written about Idaho speaks volumes, most everyone who lives in north Idaho is aware of the severity of wolf impacts, except for a half dozen wolf advocates (lovers) on this forum it's pretty unanimous that wolves threaten modern game management, that's why Idaho is managing wolves and other predators the way they are. Predators must be controlled.

There will be far more support against poaching if they quit trying to lie about wolf impacts being less than everyone has seen.

My Advice - Leave faulty wolf statements out of the story if you want to be taken seriously. Talk to us about poachers and the need to eliminate poaching and you will get all the support you need. 

What wolf lovers will do to try and protect their beloved wolves is simply astounding. 

Where to begin.

First, the agency personnel quoted in the article know far more about wolves, wildlife, hunting, poaching and the associated complexity of these issues in N-C idaho than you ever will.  If you do buy or own an outfit in the Lolo or other nearby zone I hope you get a chance to meet Mark Hill or George Fischer or Barry Cummings...you would delete this post right now if you even had a clue who these guys were, how much they know, and how much they do for wildlife in Idaho.  These guys are not saying there just aren't any wolf impacts in Idaho so stop lying about it.  For you to imply you have some superior knowledge that these "inept" staff do not is hilarious...you know how to make a dollar off of the public's resources...that's what your good at...you have no clue when it comes to the complexities and challenges of modern wildlife management.

The fact that it is nearly unanimous on this forum that wolves "threaten modern game management" is absolutely meaningless.  Several centuries ago it was unanimous that the earth was flat...popularity does not make for good science or substitute for fact.  Your notion that wolves "threaten modern game management" is another absurd statement not supported by any data.  Wolf numbers are declining and elk/deer populations are doing well...your doom and gloom bs just didn't play out...go find a new conspiracy drum to beat because there is not much credibility left for you wolf nutjobs...and that goes the same for the enviro whack jobs too who claimed wolf hunting would cause extermination...you are all the same clueless people, just on opposite ends of the spectrum.  Same goes for your statement about everyone in "North Idaho knows"...sorry if the mechanic buying a half-rack up in athol thinks wolves are the problem...I will stick with what the wildlife professionals have to say.

Speaking of comments that are meaningless! 

I am disappointed to hear your comment about the people, it's the people that have pushed so hard to get wolf management. The professionals were in wolf denial until the Idaho people voted in a new governor who told IDFG what to do to get wolves under control. Governor Otter told IDGF they had to stop wolf shooting investigations and they could not pass any info to USFWS. THAT IS A FACT!

It appears your wolf professionals were told how to let wolf management happen. Sorry to burst your bubble, it's obvious you think you know more than everyone else, but that is why Idaho has wolf management taking place and why Idaho is getting wolves under control, because of the people telling the wolf professionals they were wrong about wolves and it's time to manage them. 

The governor and legislature (representatives for the people) just passed more wolf legislation to further handle the wolf problem. The people are also funding Idaho trappers who are also taking care of the wolf problem.

Maybe the wardens are good guys at their job, I do hope they are. But I still think they made a mistake/miscalculation or simply love wolves, whatever the case may be with their comment, the math simply doesn't add up with their comparison. Just sayin......

I've got other things that need done, so I have to end this discussion for now. Good luck hunting this weekend if you are going.

idahohuntr: If these individuals are doing so much how could Idaho have any kind of poaching problem?PS I never saw any rebuttal from you on my last post,Does the silence mean you agree with what I said?I cant tell because I showed you their incompetence but yet you come back without anything to say on that subject and still beat your chest at how much they know,Or do for the wildlife in Idaho.  By the way you do realize that they hunt wolves in Idaho and not here in WA. right?

You do seem to make a good point there Steve. I would add a few extra comments. Wildlife agents depend on citizens for help with the poaching problem. We should all be trying to work together to reduce the poaching that does occur. I don't know any good sportsmen who like poachers, but these holier-than-thou types who look down there nose at the citizens concerns and refuse to manage wolves, continue to deny proven facts and figures from studies proving wolf impacts and herd declines, and continually blame wolf impacts on other factors, just exactly why do these people expect the citizens to want to help them with anything?

This has to be a two way street. If wildlife agencies want help from the citizens, they need to start doing their jobs at managing wolves and other predators, this nonsense of denying ranchers compensation after it was promised, this nonsense of continually bumping the wolf numbers to a higher target, this nonsense of ignoring impacts on game herds and then saying the statewide numbers are holding, this has alienated sportsmen and the citizens. Idahohntr doesn't care and as he stated he could care less what anyone on this forum thinks.

But I disagree, this forum is a huge cross section of Washington's hunters, we are the hunters of this state, we buy the hunting licenses and tags that support wildlife management, only a fool would say it doesn't matter what everyone on this forum thinks. That's my

Anyway take care everyone, I've got to go.

[idahohuntr]

I am disappointed to hear your comment about the people, it's the people that have pushed so hard to get wolf management. The professionals were in wolf denial until the Idaho people voted in a new governor who told IDFG what to do to get wolves under control. Governor Otter told IDGF they had to stop wolf shooting investigations and they could not pass any info to USFWS. THAT IS A FACT!

It appears your wolf professionals were told how to let wolf management happen. Sorry to burst your bubble, it's obvious you think you know more than everyone else, but that is why Idaho has wolf management taking place and why Idaho is getting wolves under control, because of the people telling the wolf professionals they were wrong about wolves and it's time to manage them. 

The governor and legislature (representatives for the people) just passed more wolf legislation to further handle the wolf problem. The people are also funding Idaho trappers who are also taking care of the wolf problem.

Maybe the wardens are good guys at their job, I do hope they are. But I still think they made a mistake/miscalculation or simply love wolves, whatever the case may be with their comment, the math simply doesn't add up with their comparison. Just sayin......

I've got other things that need done, so I have to end this discussion for now. Good luck hunting this weekend if you are going.

Your revisionist history is as hilarious as it is pathetic.  Everything you just described about Otter is grossly mis-characterized.  You are implying there was a wedge between IDFG and Otter/State Legislature and that demonstrates how ignorant you are on this topic.  Otter fully supported IDFG's wolf management plan as drafted by IDFG WILDLIFE PROFESSIONALS! Otter's notice was to the federal government and USFWS that Idaho would no longer serve as the designated agent of wolf management and was in response to re-listing after one successful public hunt managed by IDFG...the people of Idaho, IDFG, and Otter were all largely on the same page.  We were frustrated as hell by the re-listing by a federal judge.  Now, another little "FACT" for you to consider: Otter was elected governor in 2006.  His famous remarks about getting the first wolf tag and killing all but 100 wolves were made in 2007.  His letter to USFWS letting them know the state would not spend any money on wolf management was sent in 2010.  As a republican in Idaho there was absolutely no danger of Otter losing his seat in the 2010 election.  Your suggestion that there was some bravado election where the people of Idaho brought in a new governor to straighten out IDFG or whatever your fantasy was is about as big a lie as I have seen on this forum.  Your inability to tell the truth is actually kind of disgusting.  You know the truth and yet you sit here and spread misinformation to everyone on this forum as if any idiot that searched for Otter on Wikipedia would not be able to confirm everything I just wrote.     

Idahohntr doesn't care and as he stated he could care less what anyone on this forum thinks.

But I disagree, this forum is a huge cross section of Washington's hunters, we are the hunters of this state, we buy the hunting licenses and tags that support wildlife management, only a fool would say it doesn't matter what everyone on this forum thinks. That's my

And just where did I say I don't care what anyone thinks?  I engage in a lot of dialogue because I have an interest in other view points.  What I actually was pointing out to you is that just because a majority of members have a particular viewpoint does not mean they are "right".  Science is not the collection of popular opinion....if it were, the earth would still be flat in the views of most.  If you want to keep your head buried in the sand and be the Chairman of the Flat Earth Society....go for it.  Just don't try and use garbage about how majority opinion makes anyone right or wrong...that's not how science works...it is how democracy works though and is precisely why I am sensitive to people spouting garbage about wolves and then those same people wondering why we don't get to manage them in Washington like they are in Idaho. When it comes to hunters views on management priorities and preferences, those social issues should absolutely be made by us license buying hunters...but when it comes to things like causes of declines in elk herds or status/abundance of elk herds...those are not things to be decided by majority opinion...those are to be determined by professionals using objective data collected in an appropriate way.  Scientific management is a key principle to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation...as far as I am concerned if you don't support the basic tenets of the NAMWC then go hunt in Europe and stay the hell out of the U.S.   

[JLS]

Maybe the wardens are good guys at their job, I do hope they are. But I still think they made a mistake/miscalculation or simply love wolves, whatever the case may be with their comment, the math simply doesn't add up with their comparison. Just sayin......

Well, I stopped at the CDA office the other day on my way through to talk to them about elk hunting.  I found out that a couple of the actually TEACH wolf trapping, so I guess your lumping them as wolf lovers is likely not very correct.

And, whether you agree with their math or not really has no bearing whatsoever as to their thoughts on wolves.  YOU were the one who got it in your mind that they were trying to deflect for some reason.  Nothing whatsoever in the article supports that, other than you lacking objectivity in the matter.

The COs that I talked to were very professional, and very knowledgeable.  Hardly the clown show that some would like to portray them as.

[bearpaw]

I am disappointed to hear your comment about the people, it's the people that have pushed so hard to get wolf management. The professionals were in wolf denial until the Idaho people voted in a new governor who told IDFG what to do to get wolves under control. Governor Otter told IDGF they had to stop wolf shooting investigations and they could not pass any info to USFWS. THAT IS A FACT!

It appears your wolf professionals were told how to let wolf management happen. Sorry to burst your bubble, it's obvious you think you know more than everyone else, but that is why Idaho has wolf management taking place and why Idaho is getting wolves under control, because of the people telling the wolf professionals they were wrong about wolves and it's time to manage them. 

The governor and legislature (representatives for the people) just passed more wolf legislation to further handle the wolf problem. The people are also funding Idaho trappers who are also taking care of the wolf problem.

Maybe the wardens are good guys at their job, I do hope they are. But I still think they made a mistake/miscalculation or simply love wolves, whatever the case may be with their comment, the math simply doesn't add up with their comparison. Just sayin......

I've got other things that need done, so I have to end this discussion for now. Good luck hunting this weekend if you are going.

Your revisionist history is as hilarious as it is pathetic.  Everything you just described about Otter is grossly mis-characterized.  You are implying there was a wedge between IDFG and Otter/State Legislature and that demonstrates how ignorant you are on this topic.  Otter fully supported IDFG's wolf management plan as drafted by IDFG WILDLIFE PROFESSIONALS! Otter's notice was to the federal government and USFWS that Idaho would no longer serve as the designated agent of wolf management and was in response to re-listing after one successful public hunt managed by IDFG...the people of Idaho, IDFG, and Otter were all largely on the same page.  We were frustrated as hell by the re-listing by a federal judge.  Now, another little "FACT" for you to consider: Otter was elected governor in 2006.  His famous remarks about getting the first wolf tag and killing all but 100 wolves were made in 2007.  His letter to USFWS letting them know the state would not spend any money on wolf management was sent in 2010.  As a republican in Idaho there was absolutely no danger of Otter losing his seat in the 2010 election.  Your suggestion that there was some bravado election where the people of Idaho brought in a new governor to straighten out IDFG or whatever your fantasy was is about as big a lie as I have seen on this forum.  Your inability to tell the truth is actually kind of disgusting.  You know the truth and yet you sit here and spread misinformation to everyone on this forum as if any idiot that searched for Otter on Wikipedia would not be able to confirm everything I just wrote.     

Idahohntr doesn't care and as he stated he could care less what anyone on this forum thinks.

But I disagree, this forum is a huge cross section of Washington's hunters, we are the hunters of this state, we buy the hunting licenses and tags that support wildlife management, only a fool would say it doesn't matter what everyone on this forum thinks. That's my

And just where did I say I don't care what anyone thinks?  I engage in a lot of dialogue because I have an interest in other view points.  What I actually was pointing out to you is that just because a majority of members have a particular viewpoint does not mean they are "right".  Science is not the collection of popular opinion....if it were, the earth would still be flat in the views of most.  If you want to keep your head buried in the sand and be the Chairman of the Flat Earth Society....go for it.  Just don't try and use garbage about how majority opinion makes anyone right or wrong...that's not how science works...it is how democracy works though and is precisely why I am sensitive to people spouting garbage about wolves and then those same people wondering why we don't get to manage them in Washington like they are in Idaho. When it comes to hunters views on management priorities and preferences, those social issues should absolutely be made by us license buying hunters...but when it comes to things like causes of declines in elk herds or status/abundance of elk herds...those are not things to be decided by majority opinion...those are to be determined by professionals using objective data collected in an appropriate way.  Scientific management is a key principle to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation...as far as I am concerned if you don't support the basic tenets of the NAMWC then go hunt in Europe and stay the hell out of the U.S. 

I think you have the dates regarding Otter pretty close, no disagreement about when he made his statements. But, whether you like it or not the people I know in Idaho are voting for Otter in great part for his statements and positive actions on wolf management. I am an ardent supporter of the north American wildlife management model and most major wildlife groups. My impression and thoughts on wolf management remains as stated. You are refabricating my comments to a different context than stated, if you think I did that to you I apologize. This discussion is no longer fruitful for anyone, not the sort of discussion escalation that I want to be involved with. Have a great weekend. 

Maybe the wardens are good guys at their job, I do hope they are. But I still think they made a mistake/miscalculation or simply love wolves, whatever the case may be with their comment, the math simply doesn't add up with their comparison. Just sayin......

Well, I stopped at the CDA office the other day on my way through to talk to them about elk hunting.  I found out that a couple of the actually TEACH wolf trapping, so I guess your lumping them as wolf lovers is likely not very correct.

And, whether you agree with their math or not really has no bearing whatsoever as to their thoughts on wolves.  YOU were the one who got it in your mind that they were trying to deflect for some reason.  Nothing whatsoever in the article supports that, other than you lacking objectivity in the matter.

The COs that I talked to were very professional, and very knowledgeable.  Hardly the clown show that some would like to portray them as.

I'm pretty sure most of the regions teach wolf trapping and most of the agents I deal with are some of the best you will meet. Please don't try to distort what I say, it's the wolf supporters in agencies who try to hide the impacts of wolves that I am opposed to. Much of the best data showing wolf impacts are coming from IDFG. I applaud the efforts of these professionals in IDFG who will present the facts for everyone to see. 

[wolfbait]

After 18 years of wolves in ID, MT, and Wyoming does anyone think WA has a different wolf? Does anyone think WA is running their agency different then Idaho? Does anyone remember how long it took for IDFG to finally admit that yes it was wolves that were decimating the herds? And Finally how long do you think it will take WDFW to admit the game herds are decimated and in a predator pit?

The same WDFW that protects predators, above all else. How long? Ten years?