Pro Wolf Hunters?

[bearpaw]

Good responses in this thread. I am a hunter. I hunt coyotes, deer, bear, upland, waterfowl etc and would hunt wolves too if they had a stable populations and season (yeah I know a lot of people think they're overpopulated already).

Just wanted to test the waters about how people really felt because it seems to be the cool thing to spew the antiwolf rhetoric which, you gotta admit can get out of hand. Fear of wolf attacks, conspiracy theories, "Canadian greys" and so on. If a wolf attacks your dog, shoot it, if it attacks you, shoot it and then buy a lottery ticket cause it's next to unheard of.

Like the thread about the bowhunter who thought he heard wolves and stayed in the treestand. Seems like a risk you take when you go in the woods to me.

Looks like you've got it figured out.  The anti-wolf stuff often gets ridiculous...usually from the same small crowd who don't take the time to understand how wolves have to be managed in this state or how wolf management has worked in other states.

You need to quit calling everyone who doesn't want unmanaged wolf numbers the "anti-wolf crowd". I've heard so much whining from you and others about being referenced as "wolf lovers" I would have thought you would catch on by now how hypocritical you are being by continuing to call everyone names who opposes the current state of "un-management". Just because many of us want wolves managed does not mean we want wolves wiped off the face of the earth. 

Bearpaw, with all due respect you are off base here.  I am not calling everyone anti-wolf, not you, and in fact I don't even know where all of this whining about name calling has been coming from.  Like you, I have corrected people who have called me "pro-wolf"...but I get called lots of things and I really don't care...I do set the record straight when people try to discredit me by suggesting I'm not a hunter...I can't remember if you were part of that bandwagon a while back or not...its a mute point now though. 

What I said was very true, the anti-wolf stuff often gets ridiculous...the conspiracies, the intricate felonies being committed by WDFW etc...it is nothing short of ridiculous and it is damaging to future wolf management efforts.  I call a spade a spade...some people don't like that.  Maybe you should wander over to the hoof rot turned wolf debate thread...see what I had to say to Bob Ferris, Executive Director of Cascadia Wildlands regarding their petition to basically eliminate lethal options for wolf control...then maybe you can see that I am fair in my calling out of ridiculousness...it is absolutely just as ridiculous for a group to demand no lethal wolf control as it is to suggest wdfw is engaged in felony conspiracies to plant wolves around the state...again, in these controversial and complex management problems I see no problem with calling out the ridiculous stuff.  Frankly, I bet the folks who post some of the more absurd things about wolves probably prefer the "anti-wolf" identity.

Perhaps you have not been one of the specific members to complain about "wolf lover". But, I don't think I'm off base, I've heard complaining from numerous members about the term "wolf lover" which I have been guilty of using in the past. The complaint is that the term is used by the "anti-wolf crowd" to paint anyone who opposes them as "wolf lovers". I'm acknowledging that the term probably does cause a conversation to degenerate. So, I'm asking the ones who say they are the victims of name calling and insults to play by the same rules. I don't appreciate being referred to as anti-wolf when in fact I am "pro-management"!

I also disagree with the condescending remarks and attitudes displayed that seem to insinuate some members are more intelligent than others, these sort of insults do nothing to improve the quality of conversations. No, I am not off base, we all need to take the higher road and refrain from name calling, insults, ego's, and condescending attitudes. That includes you, myself, and many others who have participated in these wolf discussions and other polarizing topics.

I completely agree on the personal nature of comments...I am as guilty of anyone as being sucked into sharper than necessary responses...I believe we should all focus on the problem, the ideas, the theories, the solutions etc...and way less on the actual people.  I am dumbfounded at how many times people want to know who I am, who I work for etc in these controversial threads...don't focus on the people...focus on the problem.  In that vein, I think it is still very reasonable to point out ridiculous ideas, solutions that simply won't work, statements that are not supported by any credible evidence etc. etc...focus on the issues, not the people.  Thats why Im just not a big fan of these witch hunts that occassionaly happen to determine if someone is a hunter or not...it shouldn't matter if we are focused on the ideas being presented and not the people. 

I would also like to see this respect carried beyond just the members who post here...all of the wdfw bashing needs to be curbed.  I have no problem with calling out specific issues/mismanagement whatever...all very necessary.  But there is an awful lot of "broad brush" painting of WDFW staff and management that I find very unnecessary and not helpful.  In fact, some folks call out specific wdfw staff who really can't defend themselves...its one thing to call out someone on here who can provide a rebuttal...I think its a little below the belt to attack wdfw staffers personally.   

It is a known fact that anti-hunters, anti-gunners, and pro-wolfers pose as gun owners and hunters to further their agenda and we have seen that on this forum which we were able to 100% verify. I've also seen it on numerous other venues. If a non-hunter wants to make a post that is fine, they are entitled to their opinion, as long as they do not represent themselves as a hunter. Most hunters I know are opposed to unmanaged numbers of wolves, some of us find it hard to believe a hunter would support unmanaged numbers of wolves, that's likely the reason when someone supports WDFW's policies that are not popular with hunters (especially policies which do not include management of wolves) you see questions arise.

Respect

1. a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.
"the director had a lot of respect for Douglas as an actor"

synonyms: esteem, regard, high opinion, admiration, reverence, deference, honor More

Respect for WDFW
Every human deserves some common respect. But does WDFW get any less respect than Obama, Bush, or Congress? My point is that there is probably very few people who don't criticize one of those people and that is tied to their performance and the viewpoints of the people they impact. Respect is something that is earned (see definition) and it's a lot like politics, few people ever have 100% respect by 100% of the people. I think it's safe to say there are certain persons in any walk of life who are more respected and those who are less respected, the amount of respect anyone receives is directly related to the actions of that person. If a person has little respect I would say it's probably for a reason. We cannot force respect, nobody can simply say "you must respect WDFW" and respect will happen, WDFW must gain respect by their own actions.

[jasnt]

Well put bearpaw. Wdfw HAVE NOT earned my respect.  As a matter a fact they seem to loose more and more every year.  I was stoked when they took out the wedge pack(or at least part of it) but then they go and lie.  Last year I was hunting coyotes with a friend. My parter saw a large black and silver wolf chasing after a yearling doe across the draw. On the way out we get checked by the game officer. My friend tells the Leo he saw a wolf chasing a deer. The Leo says no their are no wolves in this area, it was a dog.  My friends says good next time ill shoot the dog. The Leo says NO! their are wolves here and they are protected!

[Bob33]

Respect for WDFW
Every human deserves some common respect. But does WDFW get any less respect than Obama, Bush, or Congress? My point is that there is probably very few people who don't criticize one of those people and that is tied to their performance and the viewpoints of the people they impact. Respect is something that is earned (see definition) and it's a lot like politics, few people ever have 100% respect by 100% of the people. I think it's safe to say there are certain persons in any walk of life who are more respected and those who are less respected, the amount of respect anyone receives is directly related to the actions of that person. If a person has little respect I would say it's probably for a reason. We cannot force respect, nobody can simply say "you must respect WDFW" and respect will happen, WDFW must gain respect by their own actions.

That’s an interesting perspective.

Do you see WDFW being as harmful to firearms owners and hunters as Obama?

The country is pretty evenly split in support of, or in opposition to the President’s policies. I doubt that criticism of the President by Hunt WA members has much effect on his policies and actions. By contrast, in Washington about three percent of the population hunts, and the other 97 percent does not. When that three percent becomes fractured, and works actively and particularly in a derogatory manner towards the only organization responsible for managing our wildlife I believe it hurts, more than helps the cause. Certainly, they need to be aware of hunter concerns, and held accountable to the best of our abilities.

There is a difference between having respect for a person or organization, and treating the person or organization respectfully. If you met the President, would you sneer at him or call him names? What would that accomplish, besides getting yourself in the news and maybe feeling good about it?

[KFhunter]

POTUS won't allow another Joe the plumber

[JJB11B]

My Vote......You should have to fill one Wolf/Bear/Cougar tag before you get issued a Deer or Elk tag


Coming from a guy who the closest he has ever been to killing one of the three was hitting a cougar in a truck outside Walla Walla...At night...On a Date....In August

[KFhunter]

My Vote......You should have to fill one Wolf/Bear/Cougar tag before you get issued a Deer or Elk tag

Great minds........



http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,134715.msg1823128.html#msg1823128

[rim_runner]

Can we get partial credit for coyotes?

[KFhunter]

Can we get partial credit for coyotes?

Heck ya,  and welcome to Hunting Washington 

[Bob33]

My Vote......You should have to fill one Wolf/Bear/Cougar tag before you get issued a Deer or Elk tag


Coming from a guy who the closest he has ever been to killing one of the three was hitting a cougar in a truck outside Walla Walla...At night...On a Date....In August

It got that far from Pullman?

[JJB11B]

My Vote......You should have to fill one Wolf/Bear/Cougar tag before you get issued a Deer or Elk tag


Coming from a guy who the closest he has ever been to killing one of the three was hitting a cougar in a truck outside Walla Walla...At night...On a Date....In August

It got that far from Pullman?

you mean from the bar in walla walla?

[bearpaw]

Respect for WDFW
Every human deserves some common respect. But does WDFW get any less respect than Obama, Bush, or Congress? My point is that there is probably very few people who don't criticize one of those people and that is tied to their performance and the viewpoints of the people they impact. Respect is something that is earned (see definition) and it's a lot like politics, few people ever have 100% respect by 100% of the people. I think it's safe to say there are certain persons in any walk of life who are more respected and those who are less respected, the amount of respect anyone receives is directly related to the actions of that person. If a person has little respect I would say it's probably for a reason. We cannot force respect, nobody can simply say "you must respect WDFW" and respect will happen, WDFW must gain respect by their own actions.

That’s an interesting perspective.

Do you see WDFW being as harmful to firearms owners and hunters as Obama?

The country is pretty evenly split in support of, or in opposition to the President’s policies. I doubt that criticism of the President by Hunt WA members has much effect on his policies and actions. By contrast, in Washington about three percent of the population hunts, and the other 97 percent does not. When that three percent becomes fractured, and works actively and particularly in a derogatory manner towards the only organization responsible for managing our wildlife I believe it hurts, more than helps the cause. Certainly, they need to be aware of hunter concerns, and held accountable to the best of our abilities.

There is a difference between having respect for a person or organization, and treating the person or organization respectfully. If you met the President, would you sneer at him or call him names? What would that accomplish, besides getting yourself in the news and maybe feeling good about it?

If you read my first sentence I stated that "Every human deserves some common respect." When I meet or talk on the phone with members of WDFW I show them the same respect anyone should receive. Does that mean I have to agree with every one of them all the time, NO! Does it mean that I think they are all doing everything they can to improve hunting and fishing opportunities in Washington, NO. Does it mean I view each person in WDFW the same, NO, definitely not. Does it mean I have no respect, of course not, but I could have greater respect if: there had been a fair field of options with the wolf plan rather than WDFW forcing 15 BP's on eastern Washington residents without even offering an option for fewer BP's, if predators were managed more effectively, if hunter education was available for all who want to take it, if WDFW was taking more steps to make game herds more productive in Washington, if WDFW hired knowledgeable trappers to verify wolf numbers, and many other issues that I will refrain from mentioning.

Does this mean that I think WDFW is not doing anything right, of course not, but as a whole I feel the agency has somewhat forgotten that hunters, fishers, gun owners and sporting goods buyers are responsible for the lion's share of their budget and wildlife management. I am not going to sugar coat that to make anyone feel better, WDFW needs to know that people are unhappy and they need to know why. The agency needs to shift their priorities a bit and work harder to improve hunting and fishing opportunities, then greater respect will have been earned.

[RG]

Respect for WDFW
Every human deserves some common respect. But does WDFW get any less respect than Obama, Bush, or Congress? My point is that there is probably very few people who don't criticize one of those people and that is tied to their performance and the viewpoints of the people they impact. Respect is something that is earned (see definition) and it's a lot like politics, few people ever have 100% respect by 100% of the people. I think it's safe to say there are certain persons in any walk of life who are more respected and those who are less respected, the amount of respect anyone receives is directly related to the actions of that person. If a person has little respect I would say it's probably for a reason. We cannot force respect, nobody can simply say "you must respect WDFW" and respect will happen, WDFW must gain respect by their own actions.

That’s an interesting perspective.

Do you see WDFW being as harmful to firearms owners and hunters as Obama?

The country is pretty evenly split in support of, or in opposition to the President’s policies. I doubt that criticism of the President by Hunt WA members has much effect on his policies and actions. By contrast, in Washington about three percent of the population hunts, and the other 97 percent does not. When that three percent becomes fractured, and works actively and particularly in a derogatory manner towards the only organization responsible for managing our wildlife I believe it hurts, more than helps the cause. Certainly, they need to be aware of hunter concerns, and held accountable to the best of our abilities.

There is a difference between having respect for a person or organization, and treating the person or organization respectfully. If you met the President, would you sneer at him or call him names? What would that accomplish, besides getting yourself in the news and maybe feeling good about it?

If you read my first sentence I stated that "Every human deserves some common respect." When I meet or talk on the phone with members of WDFW I show them the same respect anyone should receive. Does that mean I have to agree with every one of them all the time, NO! Does it mean that I think they are all doing everything they can to improve hunting and fishing opportunities in Washington, NO. Does it mean I view each person in WDFW the same, NO, definitely not. Does it mean I have no respect, of course not, but I could have greater respect if: there had been a fair field of options with the wolf plan rather than WDFW forcing 15 BP's on eastern Washington residents without even offering an option for fewer BP's, if predators were managed more effectively, if hunter education was available for all who want to take it, if WDFW was taking more steps to make game herds more productive in Washington, if WDFW hired knowledgeable trappers to verify wolf numbers, and many other issues that I will refrain from mentioning.

Does this mean that I think WDFW is not doing anything right, of course not, but as a whole I feel the agency has somewhat forgotten that hunters, fishers, gun owners and sporting goods buyers are responsible for the lion's share of their budget and wildlife management. I am not going to sugar coat that to make anyone feel better, WDFW needs to know that people are unhappy and they need to know why. The agency needs to shift their priorities a bit and work harder to improve hunting and fishing opportunities, then greater respect will have been earned.

You are right.  I have a tremendous amount of respect for most of the WDFW employees who wear boots in the field.  They work really hard and are absolutely understaffed.  They do a lot of work and earn every penny they are paid.  My complaint, and maybe I am more outspoken than I should be but I've seen the difference, is when decisions affecting the entire wildlife resource in Washington get made based upon politics and special interest rather than science.  I started following my father on hunting and fishing trips in Washington in the 1950's and have been a very active fisherman and hunter since then.  I've also been a professional guide in other states and one Canadian province and owned a sporting goods store which allowed me to make my living in the fishing, hunting, and backcountry horse packing industry.  I say all this to qualify my opinion not to try to make myself seem special.  I love these activities and it hurts me to see changes that negatively affect the sportsmen and women of our state and our children and grandchildren when those changes are based upon special interest or the political influence of somebody like Senator Ranker from the San Juan Islands rather than the scientific knowledge and research of our own state biologists.  I've communicated for years and years with people on the inside of our game department and those of other states and I'm pretty sure I'm accurate on my opinion. Not every time but often, the information developed by our biologists is pushed under the table, modified, or even replaced before it ever makes it to the decision making table.

Our government, both at the state level and nationally has become so slick at managing by back room deals and special interest that it no longer listens to the wants and needs of the constituents.  They pat us on the head and smile then turn their back on us and develop policy. Over the decades people have become lulled into believing what they are told instead of coming up with their own opinion and we are becoming a nation of suckers and dupes.

All I, and most people, ask for is straight up honesty and transparency in government.  It's too bad it's even something to talk about because one would think that would be a given when a person enters public service.   

[bearpaw]

   RG, I totally agree with everything you just wrote, that was very well detailed and accurate. I do think we also have some good managers if they would get back to managing by unbiased science. It's getting tougher and tougher to find unbiased science. It's not good enough to just say that we need to manage by science, all of the anti-hunting and wolf groups are employing their own biologists and even some biologists working for F&G agencies seem to have an agenda other than providing for plentiful wildlife numbers of all species and greater opportunities for users of all types. What is the science, that is the new battlefield, groups claim they want management by science while at the same time attempting to skew the science to fit their agendas.

[wolfbait]

  RG, I totally agree with everything you just wrote, that was very well detailed and accurate. I do think we also have some good managers if they would get back to managing by unbiased science. It's getting tougher and tougher to find unbiased science. It's not good enough to just say that we need to manage by science, all of the anti-hunting and wolf groups are employing their own biologists and even some biologists working for F&G agencies seem to have an agenda other than providing for plentiful wildlife numbers of all species and greater opportunities for users of all types. What is the science, that is the new battlefield, groups claim they want management by science while at the same time attempting to skew the science to fit their agendas.

x2 

[RG]

 

  RG, I totally agree with everything you just wrote, that was very well detailed and accurate. I do think we also have some good managers if they would get back to managing by unbiased science. It's getting tougher and tougher to find unbiased science. It's not good enough to just say that we need to manage by science, all of the anti-hunting and wolf groups are employing their own biologists and even some biologists working for F&G agencies seem to have an agenda other than providing for plentiful wildlife numbers of all species and greater opportunities for users of all types. What is the science, that is the new battlefield, groups claim they want management by science while at the same time attempting to skew the science to fit their agendas.

x2 

As I "contemplate the universe" it seems that somewhere we developed a shortage of people who are willing to step out from the group and say "I believe in doing what's is right, honest, and ethical even if it isn't popular".  All the political correctness and niceness and other agendas have brought about a serious herd bound mentality it seems. Nobody wants to be that guy and go against the grain and have to wear the labels they put on you if you don't go with the herd. It's too bad because that is supposed to be what America is about.  I appreciate people who do the cliche "right thing at the right time for the right reason" even if it means they bring opposition on themselves. We have taught the masses to be afraid of people like that.