Wolf shot near Pullman! Update 11/14/2014 pg. 8

[turkeyfeather]

I never said there weren't wolves in the Palouse. I said that game officials have said there are no wolves in the Palouse and I am not referring to the clerk at Wal-Mart. 

Show me where I ever said a WDFW employee told me their were no wolves. I am relaying info I was provided.

Ok, lets see if I've got this straight:  There are wolves on the Palouse.  No WDFW official ever once told you there weren't wolves on the Palouse (because obviously there are).  However, someone told you that some wdfw staff told them there weren't wolves on the Palouse?  Did I get that right?  You ever play that game "telephone" around a campfire?   

   Sorry TF, you're off the Reservation on this one.   

I understand the point you're attempting to make about how the WDFW says there weren't wolves there (if that was said) but to say the guy isn't responsible for killing a protected wolf is beneath your intellect.

You're about to label me a wolf lover so here goes...killing wolves illegally is not the way to making a positive change.

I mispoke when I said he isn't responsible. I should have said I don't fault the guy for doing it. And I also do believe he could use the defense that he believed what the "experts" said.

[Jonathan_S]

That sounds reasonable enough.  I doubt it's an airtight defense but I can see it working to lower charges.  There would probably have to be a testimony from one of those "experts" and I imagine that'd be tough to drum up if you know what I mean.

[bobcat]

Just saw this article, and it does say the guy could lose his right to hunt for two years:

Officers recommend charge in Wash. wolf shooting

November 23, 2014 @ 12:56 pm

PULLMAN, Wash. (AP) -- Washington fish and wildlife officers are recommending a misdemeanor charge against a farmer accused of illegally shooting a wolf last month.

Whitman County Prosecutor Denis Tracy tells the Moscow-Pullman Daily News (http://bit.ly/1zPAhLj ) that he'll review the investigation report and the law before making a decision about whether to file charges. The wolf was shot southwest of Pullman on Oct. 12.

Under Washington law, a wolf can only be shot if it is in the act of attacking pets or livestock.

A conviction on a misdemeanor charge could result in up to a year in jail and a two-year suspension of any hunting, fishing or trapping licenses.

[boneaddict]

http://www.krem.com/story/news/local/whitman-county/2014/11/28/whitman-co-farmer-facing-charges-for-killing-gray-wolf/19641521/

[Boss .300 winmag]

This just isn't adding up, they have him dead to rights but are being soft on him. I wonder what the press isn't being told? Don't get me wrong about this he should get a medal for his gallantry! 

Strange situation going on over there.

[cougarbart]

This is a perfect example of why Wyoming wolf management is so smart! They are protected in places with habitat and when the travel into the wrong area they are shot! Like Wyoming knows you can shoot all the wolves you can in populated areas and it still has no effect on overall wolf populations!

[HUNTINCOUPLE]

This is a perfect example of why Wyoming wolf management is so smart! They are protected in places with habitat and when the travel into the wrong area they are shot! Like Wyoming knows you can shoot all the wolves you can in populated areas and it still has no effect on overall wolf populations!

The way it should be!

[idahohuntr]

This is a perfect example of why Wyoming wolf management is so smart! They are protected in places with habitat and when the travel into the wrong area they are shot! Like Wyoming knows you can shoot all the wolves you can in populated areas and it still has no effect on overall wolf populations!

The way it should be!

Yea...I would rather have a wolf plan that allows legal harvest of wolves than a plan that sounds tough on paper but doesn't actually result in any wolf hunting... http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/news-1002256.aspx 

[Special T]

So let me get this straight... You didnt think the WY plan was good when it was legal?

Or because it held such a firm line that now the Feds have had their agreement overturned? I think before i  I think you need to clarify your position...

I personally think the WY plan was the most realistic plan where the rubber meets the road. I also think because its the most "loose" plan it MUST be the ones DoW and others must attack to push their agenda... I also dont think that appeasement works with the "environmental" groups that are involved with this issue.

[bearpaw]

This is a perfect example of why Wyoming wolf management is so smart! They are protected in places with habitat and when the travel into the wrong area they are shot! Like Wyoming knows you can shoot all the wolves you can in populated areas and it still has no effect on overall wolf populations!

The way it should be!

I agree, if all the states would have gone the WY route I think we would all have better management of wolves. Since WY had the most reasonable wolf management plan for containing wolves in the areas with fewer humans the wolf groups are all opposing it.

[idahohuntr]

So let me get this straight... You didnt think the WY plan was good when it was legal?

Or because it held such a firm line that now the Feds have had their agreement overturned? I think before i  I think you need to clarify your position...

I personally think the WY plan was the most realistic plan where the rubber meets the road. I also think because its the most "loose" plan it MUST be the ones DoW and others must attack to push their agenda... I also dont think that appeasement works with the "environmental" groups that are involved with this issue.

I agree, if all the states would have gone the WY route I think we would all have better management of wolves. Since WY had the most reasonable wolf management plan for containing wolves in the areas with fewer humans the wolf groups are all opposing it.

Any wolf plan that stops a state from hunting wolves for an entire fall hunting season (when most hunters are out) is a bad plan.  I guess if you prefer wolves to not be hunted anywhere in the state so that their numbers can increase then this is the plan for you.  You pro-wolfers crack me up.

[wolfbait]

So let me get this straight... You didnt think the WY plan was good when it was legal?

Or because it held such a firm line that now the Feds have had their agreement overturned? I think before i  I think you need to clarify your position...

I personally think the WY plan was the most realistic plan where the rubber meets the road. I also think because its the most "loose" plan it MUST be the ones DoW and others must attack to push their agenda... I also dont think that appeasement works with the "environmental" groups that are involved with this issue.

I agree, if all the states would have gone the WY route I think we would all have better management of wolves. Since WY had the most reasonable wolf management plan for containing wolves in the areas with fewer humans the wolf groups are all opposing it.

Any wolf plan that stops a state from hunting wolves for an entire fall hunting season (when most hunters are out) is a bad plan.  I guess if you prefer wolves to not be hunted anywhere in the state so that their numbers can increase then this is the plan for you.  You pro-wolfers crack me up.

If you say so Idahohunter, after all you evidently know what is truly best for everyone. 

[Special T]

I dont think i got enough clarification from IDhunter but ill go out on a limb and say i agree on principle. I would be best for the people of WY and everyone else if there is a legal season to hunt them. I must say that WY DID have an agreement with the Feds that was worked out, and WY kept its side of the bargain.

Unfortuanlty i think that organisations like DoW are a Proxy in the fight against states that do not submitt to the control of feds. The Sue and settle strategy that has been employed is evidence of this. To think that WY could have taken a more moderate stance and the Dow would have left them alone is Naive. ID took that route and it has not worked out well for them. I would say MT tired to as well and it has only worked out slightly better.

I must say that with a population density of 5 people per square mile it will be pretty hard for the Feds to enforce this ruling especially since it is unlikely the state will go out of its way to help. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around...

[idahohuntr]

The fed agencies (USFWS) have not been the road block in hunting wolves in the NRM states.  USFWS wanted wolf hunts for all states back in 09.  Greenie groups sued and won back then because of Wyomings plan...Wy is now the only state of the 3 without wolf hunting...again.  There has been substantially less wolf hunting and wolves killed in Wyoming than if they had followed ID or MT plans.

When you say ID took the route of moderation and it has not worked out well for them...what exactly are you talking about?  They hunt and trap wolves year round; have hired trappers remove wolves; have decreased wolf numbers from highs in 2009; continue to have great deer and elk hunting in most OTC units.  I don't see where you could possibly suggest things have not worked out well for Idaho, given the wolves were reintroduced.

[wolfbait]

Shooting wolves as a predator is more effective then hunting or trapping seasons. Wyoming's wolf plan provided area for wolves, predator control where wolves were not wanted.