Why most probably don't see wolves as much of a public safety problem

[Special T]

You are correct Special T that wolfbait has provided more actual data and links to wolf data than anyone. Especially some of the guys calling him out who really never provide much data to support their arguments at all.

Oh most definitely...I have been in awe of how much data he has presented on wdfw transplanting wolves.   

Thank you for getting straight to the point.  Your statement makes the difference between you and Wolfbait crystal clear. WB has placed the Dots as close together as he can for all of us. If they were any closer there would already be legal action.

Do you know how to spot a bad guy when you meet them? I must admit that i'm a little slow on this learning curve. I have been able to tell if some one is a bad person just by they way they talk, thier mannerisms, how they act and what they talk about. I may not have Physically SEEN this person do anything wrong or illegal but i KNOW they are a deadbeat.  Some of us are better at reading people than others, many Leo's get LOTS of practice and have a good POS ID rate, others are slower learners.

While I may not share Wolfbaits Strong feelings bout the WDFW introducing wolves, I KNOW the WDFW is up to no good. WDFW actions prove they are not Hunters Champions they are another hurdle. What are some of these actions that speak louder than words for me?
1 They will take $ from CNW and other anti hunting groups to put up wolf poatcher rewards
2 They refused to let the Cattlemens association PAY for a trapper of thier choice to collar and document wolves, & a WDFW Bio could accompany the trapper
3 There is a uniform responce by nearly all WDFW agents responding to Wolf issues. "You MUST be mistaken, it had to be a Coyote, dog, hybrid etc."
4 All manner of predators are protected by the department beyond reason and good science. (There are numerous threads about this but my favorite example is some numbwhit trying to restrick coyote hunting to 22 cal rifles and bird shot.)

All of these points have been back up and can ber verified on THIS site, if you take the time to do some reading.

Idahohnter because you disagree with Wolfbait on the WDFW transplaning wolves Does not make the WDFW clean as the wind driven snow, Nor does it make him wrong in the other statements he has made.

[idahohuntr]

Idahohnter because you disagree with Wolfbait on the WDFW transplaning wolves Does not make the WDFW clean as the wind driven snow, Nor does it make him wrong in the other statements he has made.
[/quote]
Correct. But the same case can be made 4 WDFW. Some bad apples in the bunch does not mean the agency as a whole doesn't do a lot of good for hunters. I guess I would rather see hunters work with WDFW as opposed to constantly vilify ing them . I realize that is a 2 way street but much of what I have seen from wdfw folks is that they do care about hunters. unfortunately most of us don't see or fully understand the extraordinarily complex political issues they are faced with.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Special T]

There are other states that face issues and problems and manage to do great things. Since sportsmen PAY the department to MANAGE its game perhaps the WDFW should look at sportsmen as an ASSET instead of a hinderance.

There is a GREAT example of how the WDFW COULD work with hunters. Our Very Own Happy Gilmore worked with the New area manger to get the Cherry valley and stillwater units mowed at NO additional cost to the Department. It was such a NO BRAINER Im Surprised that it didn't happen earlier. IMO it just took some new blood with a different way of thinking.

Same kind of sucess COULD have happened with the Cattlemen Association paying for a trapper. The WDFW managed to screw up that no brainer unfortunatly.

Are there good people that work for the WDFW YES! I even know a couple of them, and THEY will tell you that plenty of the decisions made are from the top in direct oppositon to the foot soldiers who do the work.

[bobcat]

This isn't the only state where all hunters don't agree with everything their wildlife department does. Of course in states with more wildlife relative to the number of people, complaints are naturally going to be less.

There are things I don't agree with and things I would do different if I were in charge, but overall we still have it pretty good.

As for the wolves, the WDFW didn't put them here, and I'm sure they would rather not have them here at all. So let's not blame them for something they had absolutely nothing to do with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bigmacc]

There are other states that face issues and problems and manage to do great things. Since sportsmen PAY the department to MANAGE its game perhaps the WDFW should look at sportsmen as an ASSET instead of a hinderance.

There is a GREAT example of how the WDFW COULD work with hunters. Our Very Own Happy Gilmore worked with the New area manger to get the Cherry valley and stillwater units mowed at NO additional cost to the Department. It was such a NO BRAINER Im Surprised that it didn't happen earlier. IMO it just took some new blood with a different way of thinking.

Same kind of sucess COULD have happened with the Cattlemen Association paying for a trapper. The WDFW managed to screw up that no brainer unfortunatly.

Are there good people that work for the WDFW YES! I even know a couple of them, and THEY will tell you that plenty of the decisions made are from the top in direct oppositon to the foot soldiers who do the work.

Well said

[idahohuntr]

This isn't the only state where all hunters don't agree with everything their wildlife department does. Of course in states with more wildlife relative to the number of people, complaints are naturally going to be less.

There are things I don't agree with and things I would do different if I were in charge, but overall we still have it pretty good.

As for the wolves, the WDFW didn't put them here, and I'm sure they would rather not have them here at all. So let's not blame them for something they had absolutely nothing to do with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also, unlike a lot of western states WDFW gets about 15% of its money from the general fund, which means the general public (including non-hunters and I guess even anti-hunters) provide financial support to WDFW.  This in turn means they have a larger and more diverse set of stakeholders to try and please.  Its a big reason I have always supported tag fee increases when states like Idaho suggest meeting funding needs with the general fund.

[Special T]

As for the wolves, the WDFW didn't put them here, and I'm sure they would rather not have them here at all. So let's not blame them for something they had absolutely nothing to do with.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

While they didn't put them here they sure didn't do much to manage them. There are things they could have tired but failed. De-listing E WA, Real Trappers, The right to protect ones property sooner etc. Believe me when i say that i realize that the WDFW has a tough job, BUT ITS THEIR JOB! Their INACTION tell me much more about the Department than their Failure to accomplish something.

This isn't the only state where all hunters don't agree with everything their wildlife department does. Of course in states with more wildlife relative to the number of people, complaints are naturally going to be less.

There are things I don't agree with and things I would do different if I were in charge, but overall we still have it pretty good.

As for the wolves, the WDFW didn't put them here, and I'm sure they would rather not have them here at all. So let's not blame them for something they had absolutely nothing to do with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also, unlike a lot of western states WDFW gets about 15% of its money from the general fund, which means the general public (including non-hunters and I guess even anti-hunters) provide financial support to WDFW.  This in turn means they have a larger and more diverse set of stakeholders to try and please.  Its a big reason I have always supported tag fee increases when states like Idaho suggest meeting funding needs with the general fund.

First off that 15% is a VERY small slice and I would GLADLY invest more of my time and $ if we were not tied to the General Population. That 15% isn't supposed to give every bunny hugger a place at the table. It is to fund the Mandates set by the  Legislature. Have you read The Posts by BigTex that talk about how the legislature throws ANYTHING to do with animals the WDFW's way? It appears to me that Hunters are not being treated like they foot 85% of the bill. 

[jackmaster]

for someone that calls them self idahohntr it seems you would be totally against wolves, especially after witnessing the impact they have had on the elk and moose in idaho you and other wolf lovers just dont get it, wolves were taken out of the mix by people with a hell of alot more common sense than the leaders of today, you cannot compare todays lands to yesteryear lands, canada and alaska are vastly differant places then the lower 48.... you call yourself a hunter yet you will be at the head of the line crying up a storm when there are no elk left to hunt, if in fact your a hunter and not a wolf lover in hunters clothing

[idahohuntr]

First off that 15% is a VERY small slice and I would GLADLY invest more of my time and $ if we were not tied to the General Population. That 15% isn't supposed to give every bunny hugger a place at the table. It is to fund the Mandates set by the  Legislature. Have you read The Posts by BigTex that talk about how the legislature throws ANYTHING to do with animals the WDFW's way? It appears to me that Hunters are not being treated like they foot 85% of the bill. 

That 15% is something like 60 million...also I think they get revenue from a lot of other non-traditional sources, but not positive.  I'm not saying hunters shouldn't be their primary focus and I actually believe that we are...however, it explains why they have more "requirements" and stakeholders to please than most any other f&w agency in the west.  Again, I don't support it, but it maybe explains why they are more responsive to some of the bunny huggers    I will gladly pay more for an elk or deer tag in Idaho if it means keeping away from the general fund. 

[idahohuntr]

for someone that calls them self idahohntr it seems you would be totally against wolves, especially after witnessing the impact they have had on the elk and moose in idaho you and other wolf lovers just dont get it, wolves were taken out of the mix by people with a hell of alot more common sense than the leaders of today, you cannot compare todays lands to yesteryear lands, canada and alaska are vastly differant places then the lower 48.... you call yourself a hunter yet you will be at the head of the line crying up a storm when there are no elk left to hunt, if in fact your a hunter and not a wolf lover in hunters clothing

More fan mail I see   

First, do you hunt in Idaho?  If you do you should know that most of the state is actually doing really well.  This is not lipservice to try and minimize impacts of wolves...there are areas (and certainly some of the moose areas up in N.Idaho) that have taken a hit.  In fact where I killed my moose I would not put in for that hunt today.  However, wolves are declining and we've had some pretty mild winters and there is a ton of good elk hunting in Idaho.  Go read bearpaws central idaho report if you haven't already.

Second, I'm not a wolf lover.  I don't subscribe to a lot of the trumped up hysteria and bogus conspiracies (nearly all of which were being floated in Idaho 6-10 years ago) about how wolves will exterminate all the elk and eat the children etc.  I am a huge supporter of state based wolf management - wolves need to be hunted and managed by professionals just like all other species of wildlife.  I was much more anti-wolf (if you want to call it that) in the early 2000's in Idaho, but after seeing how everything played out there I no longer believe they will have the widespread devastating impacts I originally feared.  Depending on if, and where, you hunt in Idaho I understand folks may have different perspectives.  I hunt a large number of areas in Idaho...not just one place and so I may have a broader view than some   

Third, I am very much a hunter and it is something I'm very passionate about.  My family has a long history of hunting and its a heritage I'm proud of.  I spend significant portions of my time, energy, and money engaging in activities that I believe are important to protecting the hunting heritage.  Sometimes I am lock-step with the "herd"...other times I am not.  I think there is too much focus on wolves in WA, I don't like the continuing trend of making hunting a rich mans sport, I think there are lots of areas for WDFW to improve, I think WDFW has a very, very tough job, I think sportsmen need to find ways to support and work with wdfw as opposed to constantly bashing them, and a whole host of other issues.  I find it ridiculous that anyone could possibly call me an anti-hunter or an imposter because they disagree with some position I have on these issues.  It makes me wonder if you have ever met an anti-hunter. 

[KFhunter]

for someone that calls them self idahohntr it seems you would be totally against wolves, especially after witnessing the impact they have had on the elk and moose in idaho you and other wolf lovers just dont get it, wolves were taken out of the mix by people with a hell of alot more common sense than the leaders of today, you cannot compare todays lands to yesteryear lands, canada and alaska are vastly differant places then the lower 48.... you call yourself a hunter yet you will be at the head of the line crying up a storm when there are no elk left to hunt, if in fact your a hunter and not a wolf lover in hunters clothing

More fan mail I see   

First, do you hunt in Idaho?  If you do you should know that most of the state is actually doing really well.  This is not lipservice to try and minimize impacts of wolves...there are areas (and certainly some of the moose areas up in N.Idaho) that have taken a hit.  In fact where I killed my moose I would not put in for that hunt today.  However, wolves are declining and we've had some pretty mild winters and there is a ton of good elk hunting in Idaho.  Go read bearpaws central idaho report if you haven't already.

Second, I'm not a wolf lover.  I don't subscribe to a lot of the trumped up hysteria and bogus conspiracies (nearly all of which were being floated in Idaho 6-10 years ago) about how wolves will exterminate all the elk and eat the children etc.  I am a huge supporter of state based wolf management - wolves need to be hunted and managed by professionals just like all other species of wildlife.  I was much more anti-wolf (if you want to call it that) in the early 2000's in Idaho, but after seeing how everything played out there I no longer believe they will have the widespread devastating impacts I originally feared.  Depending on if, and where, you hunt in Idaho I understand folks may have different perspectives.  I hunt a large number of areas in Idaho...not just one place and so I may have a broader view than some   

Third, I am very much a hunter and it is something I'm very passionate about.  My family has a long history of hunting and its a heritage I'm proud of.  I spend significant portions of my time, energy, and money engaging in activities that I believe are important to protecting the hunting heritage.  Sometimes I am lock-step with the "herd"...other times I am not.  I think there is too much focus on wolves in WA, I don't like the continuing trend of making hunting a rich mans sport, I think there are lots of areas for WDFW to improve, I think WDFW has a very, very tough job, I think sportsmen need to find ways to support and work with wdfw as opposed to constantly bashing them, and a whole host of other issues.  I find it ridiculous that anyone could possibly call me an anti-hunter or an imposter because they disagree with some position I have on these issues.  It makes me wonder if you have ever met an anti-hunter.

If everyone in Idaho had your viewpoint that you have now " I no longer believe they will have the widespread devastating impacts I originally feared" then there wouldn't have been such pro-active management and the whole SSS mantra.   The hysteria drove wolf management to where there is a decline of wolves and good hunting in areas.

We need a little a LOT more hysteria in Washington.  We'll never be as pro-active as Idaho and thus will suffer more for it.   

That hysteria you frown upon and condemn was so powerful in Idaho it drove politics and wolf management (including SSS and State management) to levels that you now benefit from by having decent hunting in certain parts of the state.


The hysteria is also driving politics in Washington, but on a much smaller scale.  Pretty much stopping at the county level.   
In Idaho the hysteria reached all the way to the governor with Butch Otter capitalizing on it, this is what we need in Washington!

If we drummed up the same hysteria in WA as Idaho we could finally get a new anti-wolf governor in office and effect some real change within WDFW,  change that would last wellbeyond the seated anti-wolf governor.

[arees]

First off that 15% is a VERY small slice and I would GLADLY invest more of my time and $ if we were not tied to the General Population. That 15% isn't supposed to give every bunny hugger a place at the table. It is to fund the Mandates set by the  Legislature. Have you read The Posts by BigTex that talk about how the legislature throws ANYTHING to do with animals the WDFW's way? It appears to me that Hunters are not being treated like they foot 85% of the bill. 

That 15% is something like 60 million...also I think they get revenue from a lot of other non-traditional sources, but not positive.  I'm not saying hunters shouldn't be their primary focus and I actually believe that we are...however, it explains why they have more "requirements" and stakeholders to please than most any other f&w agency in the west.  Again, I don't support it, but it maybe explains why they are more responsive to some of the bunny huggers    I will gladly pay more for an elk or deer tag in Idaho if it means keeping away from the general fund. 

I hate to bring facts into a hunt-wa discussion, but here you go...



There is more information here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/budget/.  They will also tell you something about how they are spending the money.  It looks like WDFW is trying to keep this information well hidden by putting it up on their website.

[idahohuntr]

for someone that calls them self idahohntr it seems you would be totally against wolves, especially after witnessing the impact they have had on the elk and moose in idaho you and other wolf lovers just dont get it, wolves were taken out of the mix by people with a hell of alot more common sense than the leaders of today, you cannot compare todays lands to yesteryear lands, canada and alaska are vastly differant places then the lower 48.... you call yourself a hunter yet you will be at the head of the line crying up a storm when there are no elk left to hunt, if in fact your a hunter and not a wolf lover in hunters clothing

More fan mail I see   

First, do you hunt in Idaho?  If you do you should know that most of the state is actually doing really well.  This is not lipservice to try and minimize impacts of wolves...there are areas (and certainly some of the moose areas up in N.Idaho) that have taken a hit.  In fact where I killed my moose I would not put in for that hunt today.  However, wolves are declining and we've had some pretty mild winters and there is a ton of good elk hunting in Idaho.  Go read bearpaws central idaho report if you haven't already.

Second, I'm not a wolf lover.  I don't subscribe to a lot of the trumped up hysteria and bogus conspiracies (nearly all of which were being floated in Idaho 6-10 years ago) about how wolves will exterminate all the elk and eat the children etc.  I am a huge supporter of state based wolf management - wolves need to be hunted and managed by professionals just like all other species of wildlife.  I was much more anti-wolf (if you want to call it that) in the early 2000's in Idaho, but after seeing how everything played out there I no longer believe they will have the widespread devastating impacts I originally feared.  Depending on if, and where, you hunt in Idaho I understand folks may have different perspectives.  I hunt a large number of areas in Idaho...not just one place and so I may have a broader view than some   

Third, I am very much a hunter and it is something I'm very passionate about.  My family has a long history of hunting and its a heritage I'm proud of.  I spend significant portions of my time, energy, and money engaging in activities that I believe are important to protecting the hunting heritage.  Sometimes I am lock-step with the "herd"...other times I am not.  I think there is too much focus on wolves in WA, I don't like the continuing trend of making hunting a rich mans sport, I think there are lots of areas for WDFW to improve, I think WDFW has a very, very tough job, I think sportsmen need to find ways to support and work with wdfw as opposed to constantly bashing them, and a whole host of other issues.  I find it ridiculous that anyone could possibly call me an anti-hunter or an imposter because they disagree with some position I have on these issues.  It makes me wonder if you have ever met an anti-hunter.

If everyone in Idaho had your viewpoint that you have now " I no longer believe they will have the widespread devastating impacts I originally feared" then there wouldn't have been such pro-active management and the whole SSS mantra.   The hysteria drove wolf management to where there is a decline of wolves and good hunting in areas.

We need a little a LOT more hysteria in Washington.  We'll never be as pro-active as Idaho and thus will suffer more for it.   

That hysteria you frown upon and condemn was so powerful in Idaho it drove politics and wolf management (including SSS and State management) to levels that you now benefit from by having decent hunting in certain parts of the state.


The hysteria is also driving politics in Washington, but on a much smaller scale.  Pretty much stopping at the county level.   
In Idaho the hysteria reached all the way to the governor with Butch Otter capitalizing on it, this is what we need in Washington!

If we drummed up the same hysteria in WA as Idaho we could finally get a new anti-wolf governor in office and effect some real change within WDFW,  change that would last wellbeyond the seated anti-wolf governor.

You're simply wrong.  The hysteria in Idaho did not drive anything.  It created huge rifts among sportsmen and hamstrung IDFG and their ability to manage as they wanted too all along.  It set us back far more than it helped and it chewed up huge amounts of time and money and took the focus off other very important issues.  There was no pro-wolf element that needed squashed in Idaho.  De-listing stuff was accomplished not by the hysterical fringe crowd but by the reasoned folks.  All the real whack jobs screaming the loudest actually tried to de-rail the efforts to attach a rider to an appropriations bill to de-list wolves in ID and MT.  I still don't understand why, and the only thing that makes sense is those fringe groups make money off the controversy and so they have no real interest in solving the problem.  Absolutely no different than the enviro crowd.  The "hysteria" is not how we got to where we are in ID today, it is because of stand up guys like Mike Simpson and Jon Tester and an IDFG commission that did not cower to the anti-wolf fringe folks.  Nor did they cower to the fringe enviro crowd from out of state.  So, if you ever feel compelled to thank folks for the wolf management we see in Idaho today please write  Simpson and Tester.  Maybe send a note to the IDFG commissioners who stayed the course and swatted down nut jobs like Scott Rockholm at most IDFG commission meetings.  Otter is deserving of some praise too...he forced the feds hand when wolves were re-listed.

In Washington, you have a very different set of circumstances and what you are suggesting would backfire in a tremendous way IMO.  You will not yell louder, outvote, or outspend the anti's in this state.  Vastly different political landscape...its actually scary to think about how easily the people of this state could strip more hunting rights from us.  This is why I think WDFW is such an important ally...they are walking a tight-rope for us.

[idahohuntr]

That 15% is something like 60 million...

I hate to bring facts into a hunt-wa discussion, but here you go...


[/quote]
Ooops...it is 16% and 60.8 million, not 15% and 60 million. 

[KFhunter]

for someone that calls them self idahohntr it seems you would be totally against wolves, especially after witnessing the impact they have had on the elk and moose in idaho you and other wolf lovers just dont get it, wolves were taken out of the mix by people with a hell of alot more common sense than the leaders of today, you cannot compare todays lands to yesteryear lands, canada and alaska are vastly differant places then the lower 48.... you call yourself a hunter yet you will be at the head of the line crying up a storm when there are no elk left to hunt, if in fact your a hunter and not a wolf lover in hunters clothing

More fan mail I see   

First, do you hunt in Idaho?  If you do you should know that most of the state is actually doing really well.  This is not lipservice to try and minimize impacts of wolves...there are areas (and certainly some of the moose areas up in N.Idaho) that have taken a hit.  In fact where I killed my moose I would not put in for that hunt today.  However, wolves are declining and we've had some pretty mild winters and there is a ton of good elk hunting in Idaho.  Go read bearpaws central idaho report if you haven't already.

Second, I'm not a wolf lover.  I don't subscribe to a lot of the trumped up hysteria and bogus conspiracies (nearly all of which were being floated in Idaho 6-10 years ago) about how wolves will exterminate all the elk and eat the children etc.  I am a huge supporter of state based wolf management - wolves need to be hunted and managed by professionals just like all other species of wildlife.  I was much more anti-wolf (if you want to call it that) in the early 2000's in Idaho, but after seeing how everything played out there I no longer believe they will have the widespread devastating impacts I originally feared.  Depending on if, and where, you hunt in Idaho I understand folks may have different perspectives.  I hunt a large number of areas in Idaho...not just one place and so I may have a broader view than some   

Third, I am very much a hunter and it is something I'm very passionate about.  My family has a long history of hunting and its a heritage I'm proud of.  I spend significant portions of my time, energy, and money engaging in activities that I believe are important to protecting the hunting heritage.  Sometimes I am lock-step with the "herd"...other times I am not.  I think there is too much focus on wolves in WA, I don't like the continuing trend of making hunting a rich mans sport, I think there are lots of areas for WDFW to improve, I think WDFW has a very, very tough job, I think sportsmen need to find ways to support and work with wdfw as opposed to constantly bashing them, and a whole host of other issues.  I find it ridiculous that anyone could possibly call me an anti-hunter or an imposter because they disagree with some position I have on these issues.  It makes me wonder if you have ever met an anti-hunter.

If everyone in Idaho had your viewpoint that you have now " I no longer believe they will have the widespread devastating impacts I originally feared" then there wouldn't have been such pro-active management and the whole SSS mantra.   The hysteria drove wolf management to where there is a decline of wolves and good hunting in areas.

We need a little a LOT more hysteria in Washington.  We'll never be as pro-active as Idaho and thus will suffer more for it.   

That hysteria you frown upon and condemn was so powerful in Idaho it drove politics and wolf management (including SSS and State management) to levels that you now benefit from by having decent hunting in certain parts of the state.


The hysteria is also driving politics in Washington, but on a much smaller scale.  Pretty much stopping at the county level.   
In Idaho the hysteria reached all the way to the governor with Butch Otter capitalizing on it, this is what we need in Washington!

If we drummed up the same hysteria in WA as Idaho we could finally get a new anti-wolf governor in office and effect some real change within WDFW,  change that would last wellbeyond the seated anti-wolf governor.

You're simply wrong.  The hysteria in Idaho did not drive anything.  It created huge rifts among sportsmen and hamstrung IDFG and their ability to manage as they wanted too all along.  It set us back far more than it helped and it chewed up huge amounts of time and money and took the focus off other very important issues.  There was no pro-wolf element that needed squashed in Idaho.  De-listing stuff was accomplished not by the hysterical fringe crowd but by the reasoned folks.  All the real whack jobs screaming the loudest actually tried to de-rail the efforts to attach a rider to an appropriations bill to de-list wolves in ID and MT.  I still don't understand why, and the only thing that makes sense is those fringe groups make money off the controversy and so they have no real interest in solving the problem.  Absolutely no different than the enviro crowd.  The "hysteria" is not how we got to where we are in ID today, it is because of stand up guys like Mike Simpson and Jon Tester and an IDFG commission that did not cower to the anti-wolf fringe folks.  Nor did they cower to the fringe enviro crowd from out of state.  So, if you ever feel compelled to thank folks for the wolf management we see in Idaho today please write  Simpson and Tester.  Maybe send a note to the IDFG commissioners who stayed the course and swatted down nut jobs like Scott Rockholm at most IDFG commission meetings.  Otter is deserving of some praise too...he forced the feds hand when wolves were re-listed.

In Washington, you have a very different set of circumstances and what you are suggesting would backfire in a tremendous way IMO.  You will not yell louder, outvote, or outspend the anti's in this state.  Vastly different political landscape...its actually scary to think about how easily the people of this state could strip more hunting rights from us.  This is why I think WDFW is such an important ally...they are walking a tight-rope for us.

I'm not wrong

Of course the hysteria will have to be tempered somewhat where it matters in making rules,  sound reasoning is always the best course of action.  I'm not saying we should making rules based on the fringes on either side - right now all the rules are being made by the extremist fringe CNW and other activists much to the determent of Washington hunters.  I'd love to have it move a little closer to the middle, perhaps in favor of our ungulate herds. 

WDFW isn't walking a tight rope for us,  far from it.  They're making asinine predator plans for WA...You a fan of the cougar plan too?  You a fan of WA's wolf plan?  You a fan of how WDFW is running the hound permits for cats?     walking a tight rope  pffft 



You'll never convince me that public sentiment didn't drive politics in Idaho, far from it.  No movement in politics ever came without public pressure,  something we're lacking in Washington.
You're flat wrong on this.