Free: Contests & Raffles.
Quote from: bearpaw on October 18, 2014, 05:46:47 AMSomething that many forget is that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I will consider the statements from the individual as being truthful until proven untruthful in a court of law. So until a court (not some biased investigator looking for a high profile case to benefit his resume) proves the statements by the man who shot the wolf to be false, until then I will side with the citizen who claims he was acting in self defense. Even if the court finds the man guilty considering the consequences of wolves and their track record in Eastern Washington, I may still side with the citizen and feel that the law itself is faulty. History has shown us that many laws are unfair, untested, and in time are changed or removed entirely. I think these laws regarding wolves will be changed as wolves continue to impact Washington. What statements has this man made? I'm not aware of any. All I've seen are statements by WDFW. Can you please post this farmers statements about the events and what he claimed happened. I completely agree the guy is innocent until proven guilty, however, if guilty of violating wildlife laws then he is a poacher and he should be punished accordingly. We have to have laws, and just because you personally might not like them does not give you or others any sort of entitlement to not obey the laws. Gee...maybe I have decided this forced 3 pt. min on deer is unfair, untested, and in time will be changed or removed entirely. I think I should be able to shoot any buck. Oh, wait, I like this game. I also have decided the forced limited quota branch bull tag management in SE Wa is unfair...how do you justify which laws are ok to follow and which are not. What other wildlife laws do you support people violating? Party hunting? Spot lighting? Trespassing? Or any of it is ok as long as it involves a predator just not a deer or elk? Not at all what I said, twisting the issue again to suit your agenda?Based on your statements, I think you should probably change your wording in the thread about illegal activities and wolves so that its a little more genuine and honest.Quote from: bearpaw on June 16, 2011, 05:07:05 PMHunting-Washington does not condone the illegal killing of wolves or any other wildlife. An organized and civilized society must have laws and those laws must be enforced for a society to remain organized.You got me on that one. You are correct, perhaps I should update the language to more accurately reflect as follows? QuoteHunting-Washington does not condone the illegal killing hunting of wolves or any other wildlife. An organized and civilized society must have laws and those laws must be enforced for a society to remain organized. It is recognized that citizens should have a right to defend themselves and property from rogue wildlife especially dangerous predators.I may ask the mods what they think of this language improvement?Quote from: pianoman9701 on October 18, 2014, 06:54:59 AMI don't see hunters supporting poaching on this thread. I see hunters supporting ranchers and farmers in the right to protect their families and property. A wolf was killed by a farmer in a place where wolves will never belong and are inappropriate in any circumstance. The Palouse is farming and ranching country, mostly farming. Again, because of the short shortsightedness of the WDFW and Wildlife Commission to not designate and identify what is acceptable wolf habitat and what is not, they're being allowed to proliferate anywhere. Idahohntr, I'm aware of your great love for the wolves and I'm also aware that love has clouded your vision for any other veiwpoint. You're a rabid supporter of them without consideration of the people who are actually affected. This is the problem that we have in WA today with wildlife management by popularity instead of science. The people in Seattle got to apply the most pressure to have plans passed which will never affect them. And in deference and preference to those whiners, the WDFW pushed their ridiculous plan through, and the generations old ranches and farm families and businesses are the only ones to pay the price. That is, other than hunters paying most of the costs of the program itself.Quote from: pianoman9701 on October 18, 2014, 06:54:59 AMI don't see hunters supporting poaching on this thread. I see hunters supporting ranchers and farmers in the right to protect their families and property. I agree all folks have the right to protect themselves. If the facts and evidence in this case shows that is what the farmer was doing, then he did well. However, if the evidence supports statements by WDFW that this is not a defense of life/property, well, then the guy is a poacher and should be punished accordingly. A wolf was killed by a farmer in a place where wolves will never belong and are inappropriate in any circumstance. The Palouse is farming and ranching country, mostly farming. Again, because of the short shortsightedness of the WDFW and Wildlife Commission to not designate and identify what is acceptable wolf habitat and what is not, they're being allowed to proliferate anywhere. Your statements imply that WDFW can control where animals move at all times across the entire state. That is ridiculous. Wolves are highly migratory. It is not acceptable for any landowner to unilaterally decide what animal will and will not be allowed to cross his land.I don't think he inferred WDFW could control where wolves go, I think he is saying they should not live among human populated areas due to their dangerous nature and should be treated as vermin in human populated areas. Idahohntr, I'm aware of your great love for the wolves and I'm also aware that love has clouded your vision for any other veiwpoint. You're a rabid supporter of them without consideration of the people who are actually affected. Well, you still have it wrong. I don't love or support wolves. I love and support wildlife laws. So much so that I even follow the ones which I believe to be misguided and unfair until such time that I can change them. For you to suggest I have no consideration of people who are actually affected by wolves is grossly inaccurate. It would be akin to me saying you hate all wildlife and you hate all wildlife laws. You are a rabid supporter of poachers and your rabid support of poaching wildlife has clouded your view. Now how fair is that? This is the problem that we have in WA today with wildlife management by popularity instead of science. The people in Seattle got to apply the most pressure to have plans passed which will never affect them. And in deference and preference to those whiners, the WDFW pushed their ridiculous plan through, and the generations old ranches and farm families and businesses are the only ones to pay the price. That is, other than hunters paying most of the costs of the program itself. On this point I agree. That is why wolf management is so different in WA than in the other NRM states. You have to remember though, wildlife management is mostly social/people management and so things like acceptable predator numbers, elk numbers, harvest goals etc...those are social issues...not scientific. Wolf management has little to do with science. All wolf management is about managing the social aspects...the science part is quite easy. Wolves are here and they will not be going away. All that is left to sort out are the social issues. I always laugh when folks (on all sides of these controversial issues) say we need to use "science" when the issue is entirely social. The science (statistics) is telling me that too many cattle, sheep, and pets are being attacked in human populated areas. To improve on these problems and create better acceptance wolves should be limited to wilderness areas and parks, anywhere outside those areas they should be considered vermin and shot on sight as the science (statistical facts) show they do not fit in well.
Something that many forget is that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I will consider the statements from the individual as being truthful until proven untruthful in a court of law. So until a court (not some biased investigator looking for a high profile case to benefit his resume) proves the statements by the man who shot the wolf to be false, until then I will side with the citizen who claims he was acting in self defense. Even if the court finds the man guilty considering the consequences of wolves and their track record in Eastern Washington, I may still side with the citizen and feel that the law itself is faulty. History has shown us that many laws are unfair, untested, and in time are changed or removed entirely. I think these laws regarding wolves will be changed as wolves continue to impact Washington.
Hunting-Washington does not condone the illegal killing of wolves or any other wildlife. An organized and civilized society must have laws and those laws must be enforced for a society to remain organized.
Hunting-Washington does not condone the illegal killing hunting of wolves or any other wildlife. An organized and civilized society must have laws and those laws must be enforced for a society to remain organized. It is recognized that citizens should have a right to defend themselves and property from rogue wildlife especially dangerous predators.
I don't see hunters supporting poaching on this thread. I see hunters supporting ranchers and farmers in the right to protect their families and property. A wolf was killed by a farmer in a place where wolves will never belong and are inappropriate in any circumstance. The Palouse is farming and ranching country, mostly farming. Again, because of the short shortsightedness of the WDFW and Wildlife Commission to not designate and identify what is acceptable wolf habitat and what is not, they're being allowed to proliferate anywhere. Idahohntr, I'm aware of your great love for the wolves and I'm also aware that love has clouded your vision for any other veiwpoint. You're a rabid supporter of them without consideration of the people who are actually affected. This is the problem that we have in WA today with wildlife management by popularity instead of science. The people in Seattle got to apply the most pressure to have plans passed which will never affect them. And in deference and preference to those whiners, the WDFW pushed their ridiculous plan through, and the generations old ranches and farm families and businesses are the only ones to pay the price. That is, other than hunters paying most of the costs of the program itself.
I don't see hunters supporting poaching on this thread. I see hunters supporting ranchers and farmers in the right to protect their families and property. I agree all folks have the right to protect themselves. If the facts and evidence in this case shows that is what the farmer was doing, then he did well. However, if the evidence supports statements by WDFW that this is not a defense of life/property, well, then the guy is a poacher and should be punished accordingly. A wolf was killed by a farmer in a place where wolves will never belong and are inappropriate in any circumstance. The Palouse is farming and ranching country, mostly farming. Again, because of the short shortsightedness of the WDFW and Wildlife Commission to not designate and identify what is acceptable wolf habitat and what is not, they're being allowed to proliferate anywhere. Your statements imply that WDFW can control where animals move at all times across the entire state. That is ridiculous. Wolves are highly migratory. It is not acceptable for any landowner to unilaterally decide what animal will and will not be allowed to cross his land.I don't think he inferred WDFW could control where wolves go, I think he is saying they should not live among human populated areas due to their dangerous nature and should be treated as vermin in human populated areas. Idahohntr, I'm aware of your great love for the wolves and I'm also aware that love has clouded your vision for any other veiwpoint. You're a rabid supporter of them without consideration of the people who are actually affected. Well, you still have it wrong. I don't love or support wolves. I love and support wildlife laws. So much so that I even follow the ones which I believe to be misguided and unfair until such time that I can change them. For you to suggest I have no consideration of people who are actually affected by wolves is grossly inaccurate. It would be akin to me saying you hate all wildlife and you hate all wildlife laws. You are a rabid supporter of poachers and your rabid support of poaching wildlife has clouded your view. Now how fair is that? This is the problem that we have in WA today with wildlife management by popularity instead of science. The people in Seattle got to apply the most pressure to have plans passed which will never affect them. And in deference and preference to those whiners, the WDFW pushed their ridiculous plan through, and the generations old ranches and farm families and businesses are the only ones to pay the price. That is, other than hunters paying most of the costs of the program itself. On this point I agree. That is why wolf management is so different in WA than in the other NRM states. You have to remember though, wildlife management is mostly social/people management and so things like acceptable predator numbers, elk numbers, harvest goals etc...those are social issues...not scientific. Wolf management has little to do with science. All wolf management is about managing the social aspects...the science part is quite easy. Wolves are here and they will not be going away. All that is left to sort out are the social issues. I always laugh when folks (on all sides of these controversial issues) say we need to use "science" when the issue is entirely social.
Quote from: ICEMAN on October 18, 2014, 08:42:25 AMHas anyone suggested a campaign to ask the Whitman county prosecutor to not charge the individual in this case?Under state law if the county prosecutor declines to prosecute a case, the WA Attorney General's Office can step in and prosecute the case. While it is rare for this to happen, an endangered species take case would certainly be one that the AG's office would have to give a hard look at.
Has anyone suggested a campaign to ask the Whitman county prosecutor to not charge the individual in this case?
Quote from: KFhunter on October 17, 2014, 07:58:34 PMQuote from: bigtex on October 17, 2014, 07:28:35 PMCan I shoot every deer and elk that walks through my yard because they might eat the rose bushes? I'm protecting my property right?Every couple years there is someone who shoots a bear on their property screaming "self defense" in WA and it turns out the bear was simply walking through their property and the guy decided to shoot it.Can I walk down the street and shoot someone because they might harm me?Truth is, we don't know the 100% truth/facts about this incident. Was the wolf simply out in a field and the landowner decided to go after it? Or was the animal creeping in on livestock, people, etc?We have a bunch of people supposedly "in the know" about the incident yet they can't even agree on similar stories.How about we wait for the investigation to conclude and the Whitman County Prosecutor to say something (which in this case they will) before we decide if this was a life/property threat or someone who saw a wolf and went after it. Deer? Rosebush?Is that like timber companies slaughtering bears by the 1000's because they're peeling trees? WDFW allows that..Every year someone is prosecuted for shooting a bear, WDFW arm chair QB's those decisions. They don't take into account if that person really and truly felt threatened but rather charge based on what they see at the scene, the bear corpse and totality of the circumstances. They can't soul search and make a determination that "YA, this person thought they were going to die" It's impossible. So it is possible some of those people really did think they were going to die or be seriously hurt, or that the bear might seriously hurt a loved one or pet, or livestock in the near future. WDFW doesn't and can't take that into account. Much like the farmer that this thread is about, killing that wolf in Pullman. What did the farmer truly feel at the time this incident took place? Only the farmer and one's who believe him will know. WDFW will only look at the wolf, the evidence and totality of the circumstances and like all cases arm chair QB it and choose to send the evidence forward or not - in this case they did; but that does not mean we'll ever really know what was in the heart of this farmer when he pulled the trigger on that wolf. If I'm walking down the street and someone pulls a gun on me must I wait until they harm me? Must I wait until the bullet impacts my chest?What we have is a bunch of people each looking through their own lens at this case, some will jump to the farmers side and some will jump to the wolf huggers side having landed on what ever side of the fence they've landed on long ago. Bigtex, I'm with you on this one...an animal walking across the landscape in and of itself does not mean it is automatically a defense of life/property situation. Simply seeing a wolf or a bear or a cougar does not mean you are going to be attacked or your livestock/pets/children/neighbors/grandma/whatever are going to be attacked. Lets see the evidence presented. If this farmer was truly protecting life/property, then he did good and I support him 100%. If the evidence shows that he chased the wolf down in a vehicle for several miles and shot it when there was never any danger to life/property he is a poacher. "There's no legal definition of "poacher" so no, he's not a poacher as there's no such thing." - KF Hunter Care to qualify or clarify that statement KF? I have pasted it here in its entirety. I must not be reading/interpreting it correctly when I see you write there is no such thing as a poacher? Surely that is not what you meant??? As BT points out, we'll see what the prosecutor determines. Based on WDFW statements to date it appears charges are likely.
Quote from: bigtex on October 17, 2014, 07:28:35 PMCan I shoot every deer and elk that walks through my yard because they might eat the rose bushes? I'm protecting my property right?Every couple years there is someone who shoots a bear on their property screaming "self defense" in WA and it turns out the bear was simply walking through their property and the guy decided to shoot it.Can I walk down the street and shoot someone because they might harm me?Truth is, we don't know the 100% truth/facts about this incident. Was the wolf simply out in a field and the landowner decided to go after it? Or was the animal creeping in on livestock, people, etc?We have a bunch of people supposedly "in the know" about the incident yet they can't even agree on similar stories.How about we wait for the investigation to conclude and the Whitman County Prosecutor to say something (which in this case they will) before we decide if this was a life/property threat or someone who saw a wolf and went after it. Deer? Rosebush?Is that like timber companies slaughtering bears by the 1000's because they're peeling trees? WDFW allows that..Every year someone is prosecuted for shooting a bear, WDFW arm chair QB's those decisions. They don't take into account if that person really and truly felt threatened but rather charge based on what they see at the scene, the bear corpse and totality of the circumstances. They can't soul search and make a determination that "YA, this person thought they were going to die" It's impossible. So it is possible some of those people really did think they were going to die or be seriously hurt, or that the bear might seriously hurt a loved one or pet, or livestock in the near future. WDFW doesn't and can't take that into account. Much like the farmer that this thread is about, killing that wolf in Pullman. What did the farmer truly feel at the time this incident took place? Only the farmer and one's who believe him will know. WDFW will only look at the wolf, the evidence and totality of the circumstances and like all cases arm chair QB it and choose to send the evidence forward or not - in this case they did; but that does not mean we'll ever really know what was in the heart of this farmer when he pulled the trigger on that wolf. If I'm walking down the street and someone pulls a gun on me must I wait until they harm me? Must I wait until the bullet impacts my chest?What we have is a bunch of people each looking through their own lens at this case, some will jump to the farmers side and some will jump to the wolf huggers side having landed on what ever side of the fence they've landed on long ago.
Can I shoot every deer and elk that walks through my yard because they might eat the rose bushes? I'm protecting my property right?Every couple years there is someone who shoots a bear on their property screaming "self defense" in WA and it turns out the bear was simply walking through their property and the guy decided to shoot it.Can I walk down the street and shoot someone because they might harm me?Truth is, we don't know the 100% truth/facts about this incident. Was the wolf simply out in a field and the landowner decided to go after it? Or was the animal creeping in on livestock, people, etc?We have a bunch of people supposedly "in the know" about the incident yet they can't even agree on similar stories.How about we wait for the investigation to conclude and the Whitman County Prosecutor to say something (which in this case they will) before we decide if this was a life/property threat or someone who saw a wolf and went after it.
Question: if the farmer is charged with a violation does that necessarily mean the county has to prosecute the case?
Quote from: bigtex on October 18, 2014, 08:54:00 AMQuote from: ICEMAN on October 18, 2014, 08:42:25 AMHas anyone suggested a campaign to ask the Whitman county prosecutor to not charge the individual in this case?Under state law if the county prosecutor declines to prosecute a case, the WA Attorney General's Office can step in and prosecute the case. While it is rare for this to happen, an endangered species take case would certainly be one that the AG's office would have to give a hard look at.This is what I been warning against with Stevens CO coming out with that resolution, didn't want people to interpret that as a green light. Given the disagreement between Olympia and Stevens CO over this I could see the state snapping up a case to prove their point.
Bigtex,If a county prosecutor agrees to a very minimal penalty with a plea bargain does the state have any way of taking and trying the case in search of a harsher penalty?
Quote from: Ice Cap on October 21, 2014, 02:08:19 PMBigtex,If a county prosecutor agrees to a very minimal penalty with a plea bargain does the state have any way of taking and trying the case in search of a harsher penalty?If criminal charges are brought, this would be the State of WA v. Said Farmer. The county would have very little say in the matter.
