Lawsuit: Timber sale threatens den where Oregon's wandering wolf has settled to

[Curly]

But again, you're in Washington, not Idaho or Wyoming. You have to be able to convince the overall population and right now that general population rather loudly says they either want wolves or just don't have enough of an opinion on the matter to care.

I think some of you are missing the point. At some point this issue may well come to a state wide vote and it doesn't take a lot of looking around to realize how people would vote on an initiative. They will tell WDFW what they want it to do and cram it down your throat. Every poached wolf will ensure that.

This is Lefty land, if you think illegally blowing away animals they want in the state will garner sympathy to your cause, you are in for a disappointment on a monumental scale. The blow back won't be pretty.

   Good points.  We already got screwed in this state by the Initiatives of '96, any new wildlife type initiatives would likely go the same way.

[KFhunter]

I disagree...this is not Idaho or Wyoming.  If it becomes clear that hunters or ranchers are poaching, then it vindicates the need for further protection and safeguard in Washington.  It will not make the anti-'s compromise and it would really be a turn off to the folks with actual power as well as non-hunting voters.  It diminishes the hunter/conservation link, it undermines WDFW's ability to manage wolves...Its about the worst thing we could do.  If anything, penalties need to be increased for wolf poaching...lifetime hunting ban, huge fines, mandatory jail time, loss of truck/guns etc...no more slaps on the wrist...make the penalties so severe that people think real, real hard before committing such a crime.  I really dislike some wildlife laws in WA because they are technicalities and serve no biological/management purpose...but when it comes to flagrant violations and blatant poaching...well, a poacher is a poacher and I hope they throw the book at them!   

Yep... things have gotten SOOO  MUCH better around here since the Whites killed the wolves in the Methow.  The Anti hunters really got a strong message and backed off after that deal.....

There will never be a shortage of wolves in WA, look at the bogus wolf plan, WDFW will just keep dumping more wolves where they feel they are needed.

"My father was a member of the Wyoming House of Representatives for 24 years. He always fought against granting general fund moneys to the Game & Fish Department, arguing that the moment any State does so, it would destroy our game and fish populations.

He explained that if their funding was dependent upon the hunting and fishing industries, they would manage and protect our wildlife. If, on the other hand, the Game & Fish Departments received general funding, they would immediately turn towards the radical "enviro" anti- hunting, anti-management, anti-protection, pro-predator mentality."

http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No.%20%2033%20%20Mar%202009-%20%20Anything%20but%20Science.pdf

But again, you're in Washington, not Idaho or Wyoming. You have to be able to convince the overall population and right now that general population rather loudly says they either want wolves or just don't have enough of an opinion on the matter to care.

I think some of you are missing the point. At some point this issue may well come to a state wide vote and it doesn't take a lot of looking around to realize how people would vote on an initiative. They will tell WDFW what they want it to do and cram it down your throat. Every poached wolf will ensure that.

This is Lefty land, if you think illegally blowing away animals they want in the state will garner sympathy to your cause, you are in for a disappointment on a monumental scale. The blow back won't be pretty.

Your threat don't hold any water, folks already threw up their hands and said screw Olympia.  Good folks who wouldn't poach a fish would pop a wolf.  $20,000+ reward wouldn't even lubricate the lips of folks around Cedar creek.

Thing is, it don't matter.  Poaching just isn't going to make an impact no matter how much you all worry about it.  Even if they went to Coyote hunting rules statewide, it wouldn't do much to the wolf population.   It would educate them some though, so that'd be good.     

[rim_runner]

"My father was a member of the Wyoming House of Representatives for 24 years. He always fought against granting general fund moneys to the Game & Fish Department, arguing that the moment any State does so, it would destroy our game and fish populations.

He explained that if their funding was dependent upon the hunting and fishing industries, they would manage and protect our wildlife. If, on the other hand, the Game & Fish Departments received general funding, they would immediately turn towards the radical "enviro" anti- hunting, anti-management, anti-protection, pro-predator mentality."

Regardless of how a department gets their funding they still answer to all the citizens of the state not just those who buy licenses and tags. They are required to deal with all wildlife not just the species of interest to hunters and fishers. For better or worse, right or wrong that’s how things are. The things hunters have done for conservation in the past speak very well for us and I’m sure hunters will be in the forefront for a long time to come but there are a lot of people interested in wildlife that need to step up to the plate and help us. In the past most non-hunters have been content with letting the fish and wildlife department do its job without a lot of interference but one of the key tactics of the anti-hunters it to drive a wedge between the non-hunters and the department. If the public loses faith in the department it allows the anti-hunters to use the courts and the voters to do an end run around the department and has been the source of some very poor wildlife laws. Does this mean that the department is above reproach? No not at all but there is a difference between constructive criticism and rash statements.

[KFhunter]

"My father was a member of the Wyoming House of Representatives for 24 years. He always fought against granting general fund moneys to the Game & Fish Department, arguing that the moment any State does so, it would destroy our game and fish populations.

He explained that if their funding was dependent upon the hunting and fishing industries, they would manage and protect our wildlife. If, on the other hand, the Game & Fish Departments received general funding, they would immediately turn towards the radical "enviro" anti- hunting, anti-management, anti-protection, pro-predator mentality."

Regardless of how a department gets their funding they still answer to all the citizens of the state not just those who buy licenses and tags. They are required to deal with all wildlife not just the species of interest to hunters and fishers. For better or worse, right or wrong that’s how things are. The things hunters have done for conservation in the past speak very well for us and I’m sure hunters will be in the forefront for a long time to come but there are a lot of people interested in wildlife that need to step up to the plate and help us. In the past most non-hunters have been content with letting the fish and wildlife department do its job without a lot of interference but one of the key tactics of the anti-hunters it to drive a wedge between the non-hunters and the department. If the public loses faith in the department it allows the anti-hunters to use the courts and the voters to do an end run around the department and has been the source of some very poor wildlife laws. Does this mean that the department is above reproach? No not at all but there is a difference between constructive criticism and rash statements.

Had WDFW put out a reasonable wolf plan for WA it would still be that way,  but they over reached and "settled" for a wolf plan what would ensure a great loss of hunting opportunity in the years to come.   Right now WDFW is suppressing wolf impact in order to reach the goals set forth by the asinine wolf plan.

Hide, obscure and misdirect wolf impact, keep the pubic at large in the dark like a mushroom until the wolves are well established.

[Curly]

Had WDFW put out a reasonable wolf plan for WA it would still be that way,  but they over reached and "settled" for a wolf plan what would ensure a great loss of hunting opportunity in the years to come.   Right now WDFW is suppressing wolf impact in order to reach the goals set forth by the asinine wolf plan.

Hide, obscure and misdirect wolf impact, keep the pubic at large in the dark like a mushroom until the wolves are well established.

 

I still can't believe the bios at WDFW put together the plan they did.  And on top of that I couldn't believe the commission approved that garbage.  WTH is wrong with them?  That plan is a joke. 

[AspenBud]

I disagree...this is not Idaho or Wyoming.  If it becomes clear that hunters or ranchers are poaching, then it vindicates the need for further protection and safeguard in Washington.  It will not make the anti-'s compromise and it would really be a turn off to the folks with actual power as well as non-hunting voters.  It diminishes the hunter/conservation link, it undermines WDFW's ability to manage wolves...Its about the worst thing we could do.  If anything, penalties need to be increased for wolf poaching...lifetime hunting ban, huge fines, mandatory jail time, loss of truck/guns etc...no more slaps on the wrist...make the penalties so severe that people think real, real hard before committing such a crime.  I really dislike some wildlife laws in WA because they are technicalities and serve no biological/management purpose...but when it comes to flagrant violations and blatant poaching...well, a poacher is a poacher and I hope they throw the book at them!   

Yep... things have gotten SOOO  MUCH better around here since the Whites killed the wolves in the Methow.  The Anti hunters really got a strong message and backed off after that deal.....

There will never be a shortage of wolves in WA, look at the bogus wolf plan, WDFW will just keep dumping more wolves where they feel they are needed.

"My father was a member of the Wyoming House of Representatives for 24 years. He always fought against granting general fund moneys to the Game & Fish Department, arguing that the moment any State does so, it would destroy our game and fish populations.

He explained that if their funding was dependent upon the hunting and fishing industries, they would manage and protect our wildlife. If, on the other hand, the Game & Fish Departments received general funding, they would immediately turn towards the radical "enviro" anti- hunting, anti-management, anti-protection, pro-predator mentality."

http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No.%20%2033%20%20Mar%202009-%20%20Anything%20but%20Science.pdf

But again, you're in Washington, not Idaho or Wyoming. You have to be able to convince the overall population and right now that general population rather loudly says they either want wolves or just don't have enough of an opinion on the matter to care.

I think some of you are missing the point. At some point this issue may well come to a state wide vote and it doesn't take a lot of looking around to realize how people would vote on an initiative. They will tell WDFW what they want it to do and cram it down your throat. Every poached wolf will ensure that.

This is Lefty land, if you think illegally blowing away animals they want in the state will garner sympathy to your cause, you are in for a disappointment on a monumental scale. The blow back won't be pretty.

Your threat don't hold any water, folks already threw up their hands and said screw Olympia.  Good folks who wouldn't poach a fish would pop a wolf.  $20,000+ reward wouldn't even lubricate the lips of folks around Cedar creek.

Thing is, it don't matter. Poaching just isn't going to make an impact no matter how much you all worry about it. Even if they went to Coyote hunting rules statewide, it wouldn't do much to the wolf population.   It would educate them some though, so that'd be good.   

It's not a threat, it's a fact.

You are quite wrong if it (poaching) leads to an initiative that causes the lack of wolf management to be pushed farther into the future than it otherwise would. That would have a HUGE impact.

It also puts a giant black eye on hunting's reputation in a state where the tradition is already heavily under assault.

[bobcat]

The wolf plan could easily have been much worse. The wolf lovers were complaining that 15 breeding pairs wasn't enough. They wanted 30. 

The plan could have required wolves in western Washington. But it doesn't.

So I actually feel like we should be grateful for what we got.

[Curly]

Grateful?  You are just 

They had no science to back up the plan they came up with.  I think it's a joke what we got stuck with.  They needed to tell the wolf lovers to pound sand. 

[AspenBud]

"My father was a member of the Wyoming House of Representatives for 24 years. He always fought against granting general fund moneys to the Game & Fish Department, arguing that the moment any State does so, it would destroy our game and fish populations.

He explained that if their funding was dependent upon the hunting and fishing industries, they would manage and protect our wildlife. If, on the other hand, the Game & Fish Departments received general funding, they would immediately turn towards the radical "enviro" anti- hunting, anti-management, anti-protection, pro-predator mentality."

Regardless of how a department gets their funding they still answer to all the citizens of the state not just those who buy licenses and tags. They are required to deal with all wildlife not just the species of interest to hunters and fishers. For better or worse, right or wrong that’s how things are. The things hunters have done for conservation in the past speak very well for us and I’m sure hunters will be in the forefront for a long time to come but there are a lot of people interested in wildlife that need to step up to the plate and help us. In the past most non-hunters have been content with letting the fish and wildlife department do its job without a lot of interference but one of the key tactics of the anti-hunters it to drive a wedge between the non-hunters and the department. If the public loses faith in the department it allows the anti-hunters to use the courts and the voters to do an end run around the department and has been the source of some very poor wildlife laws. Does this mean that the department is above reproach? No not at all but there is a difference between constructive criticism and rash statements.

Had WDFW put out a reasonable wolf plan for WA it would still be that way,  but they over reached and "settled" for a wolf plan what would ensure a great loss of hunting opportunity in the years to come.   Right now WDFW is suppressing wolf impact in order to reach the goals set forth by the asinine wolf plan.

Hide, obscure and misdirect wolf impact, keep the pubic at large in the dark like a mushroom until the wolves are well established.

Most of the public doesn't understand what is going on anyhow. At best they hike in the woods and "watch nature." What WDFW does or does not tell them really depends on whether they are paying much attention anyhow and few do. If I took a random walk down the street in Seattle, Vancouver, or Spokane and asked folks if they had logged into WDFW's website in the last six months, I doubt 50% would say they have.

[KFhunter]

The wolf plan could easily have been much worse. The wolf lovers were complaining that 15 breeding pairs wasn't enough. They wanted 30. 

The plan could have required wolves in western Washington. But it doesn't.

So I actually feel like we should be grateful for what we got.

What you're not grasping is 15BP really means 30 on the ground.

In a management vacuum the wolves are breeding as they see fit,  WDFW openly admits they've no clue how many BP's or wolves there are.   15bp, 30bp  - what's the difference when there's no management?

[bobcat]

So the 30 bp's the wolf huggers wanted would be 60 pair?   

Aren't you glad the WDFW didn't listen to them?

[KFhunter]

So the 30 bp's the wolf huggers wanted would be 60 pair?   

Aren't you glad the WDFW didn't listen to them?

Without management it'll be 100+

[rim_runner]

Had WDFW put out a reasonable wolf plan for WA it would still be that way, 

I’ve never seen a plan, especially a government plan, that couldn’t use some improvement. Sometimes that kind of plan needs lots of improvement. So what can be done? Can the plan be revised or changed? 

[bobcat]

So the 30 bp's the wolf huggers wanted would be 60 pair?   

Aren't you glad the WDFW didn't listen to them?

Without management it'll be 100+

Maybe so, but would a change in the wolf plan make any difference?   

[Curly]

Here is how I envisioned the wolf plan proposal going at the time:  (boy was I ever wrong)

WDFW submits plan to USFWS and they send it back to WDFW saying "Oh, no.  You have to revise the plan.  There are not enough wolves in your plan."

Then WDFW argues their case based on available science with the USFWS representatives. 

Then wdfw revises the plan to be a little closer to what USFWS expected, but still not quite as many wolves as the feds would like.  So the Feds say to revise.

WDFW then pleads their case again based on science and the USFWS eventually gives in saying that the plan is acceptable.

Instead, we get a plan that is too heavy with wolf numbers and the USFWS just approves it. No back and forth (that I know of anyway, maybe I'm wrong).  I think it should have been a battle between State and Feds regarding the plan.........not just give them a plan they like right off the bat.