Recent Wolf Shooting?

[antlerman]

Any hear of a recent wolf shooting up north of Colville recently?  Self defense during rifle elk season??

[KFhunter]

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/elk-hunter-run-northeast-washington-wolves/

[haulinbass]

That's to bad......I am talking about the shot grazing it and not finishing its job. Thanks Washington

[JohnVH]

guy hunting with us claimed he seen one close range north of winthrop, we seen some pretty big 'dog' tracks on the road

[BOWHUNTER45]

Sounds like another one bites the dust on Blewett Pass ...according to tonights news 

[Stein]

Wow, I was thinking about hunting not too far from there for the late deer hunt.  What's the Tueller Drill distance for a wolf?

[BOWHUNTER45]

They are everywhere  I could see how someone who has no idea how big a wolf is could mistake it for a coyote ,especially when it looks like one but much larger ...

[lokidog]

   I'm just a dumb wetsider that thinks everythings a coyote.....    

[JohnVH]

A smart person shoots big coyotes

[bearpaw]

The hunter is a friend of my son. He called last night and told the story to my son, he was surrounded by wolves they hunted him and they had him surrounded, I want to talk to the guy myself and then I will post the story as told by the hunter who this happened.

[idahohuntr]

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/elk-hunter-run-northeast-washington-wolves/

This article sure disputes some of the more absurd allegations against wdfw regarding wolf management and their position on wolf/human interactions that I've observed on this forum.  Some folks like to portray wdfw as seeking to make an example out of some innocent fella that has a run in with a wolf...but its pretty clear wdfw believes this guy did the right thing.  It also mentioned that they are using DNA to make sure the wolf shot in pullman was definitely a wolf before they even consider recommending any sort of charges...and last but not least, their website apparently advises people to kill wolves/fight back if a wolf does indeed attack or act aggressively.     While the chance of an encounter with an aggressive wolf is extremely small, there is no doubt that WDFW enforcement staff fully support the right of individuals to defend themselves.

All of this makes those silly proclamations from Stevens county politicians seem even more silly. 

[McCRIZZLEY]

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/elk-hunter-run-northeast-washington-wolves/

This article sure disputes some of the more absurd allegations against wdfw regarding wolf management and their position on wolf/human interactions that I've observed on this forum.  Some folks like to portray wdfw as seeking to make an example out of some innocent fella that has a run in with a wolf...but its pretty clear wdfw believes this guy did the right thing.  It also mentioned that they are using DNA to make sure the wolf shot in pullman was definitely a wolf before they even consider recommending any sort of charges...and last but not least, their website apparently advises people to kill wolves/fight back if a wolf does indeed attack or act aggressively.     While the chance of an encounter with an aggressive wolf is extremely small, there is no doubt that WDFW enforcement staff fully support the right of individuals to defend themselves.

All of this makes those silly proclamations from Stevens county politicians seem even more silly.

I had noticed all of these things as well...

[Alchase]

guy hunting with us claimed he seen one close range north of winthrop, we seen some pretty big 'dog' tracks on the road

I hiked in on FS Rd 4320 down to the ridge between Blue Buck and Lightning creeks ne of Winthrop on the opener. I caught something out of the corner of my eye in the cut above me. I looked up to see one wolf traveling in the same direction I was about 200 yards up the cut, trot up next to another that was sitting there staring down at me.
When I moved my rifle to grab my IPhone to try to get a pic, they both took off over the ridge line in a flash. They seemed to be very well conditioned to what a rifle is. It might just have been a coincidence, but they definately reacted when I moved my rifle.
BTW, After seeing  these two, I would find it hard to believe anyone with even a little bit of wood sense could not tell the difference between wolfs and coyotes.
There was no mistaking the two.

[brianmtsinc]

Tag

[antlerman]

Thanks KFhunter.   

[BOWHUNTER45]

Are we talking about the same wolf ? I heard of another one shot on Blewett and they said it was gut shot 

[Special T]

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/elk-hunter-run-northeast-washington-wolves/

This article sure disputes some of the more absurd allegations against wdfw regarding wolf management and their position on wolf/human interactions that I've observed on this forum.  Some folks like to portray wdfw as seeking to make an example out of some innocent fella that has a run in with a wolf...but its pretty clear wdfw believes this guy did the right thing.  It also mentioned that they are using DNA to make sure the wolf shot in pullman was definitely a wolf before they even consider recommending any sort of charges...and last but not least, their website apparently advises people to kill wolves/fight back if a wolf does indeed attack or act aggressively.     While the chance of an encounter with an aggressive wolf is extremely small, there is no doubt that WDFW enforcement staff fully support the right of individuals to defend themselves.

All of this makes those silly proclamations from Stevens county politicians seem even more silly.

I believe this to be too little too late. If i were in the Federal delisted area and defended myself i wouldn't make myself the subject of an investigation by the WDFW. To topp it off ONE instance where the WDFW gets it right does not suddenly endear themselves to me (or many others) who have had a close encounter with the Wolves.

[idahohuntr]

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/elk-hunter-run-northeast-washington-wolves/

This article sure disputes some of the more absurd allegations against wdfw regarding wolf management and their position on wolf/human interactions that I've observed on this forum.  Some folks like to portray wdfw as seeking to make an example out of some innocent fella that has a run in with a wolf...but its pretty clear wdfw believes this guy did the right thing.  It also mentioned that they are using DNA to make sure the wolf shot in pullman was definitely a wolf before they even consider recommending any sort of charges...and last but not least, their website apparently advises people to kill wolves/fight back if a wolf does indeed attack or act aggressively.     While the chance of an encounter with an aggressive wolf is extremely small, there is no doubt that WDFW enforcement staff fully support the right of individuals to defend themselves.

All of this makes those silly proclamations from Stevens county politicians seem even more silly.

I believe this to be too little too late. If i were in the Federal delisted area and defended myself i wouldn't make myself the subject of an investigation by the WDFW. To topp it off ONE instance where the WDFW gets it right does not suddenly endear themselves to me (or many others) who have had a close encounter with the Wolves.

I am unfamiliar with any legitimate or credible instance where someone defended themselves from a wolf and were mistreated by WDFW.  Perhaps you have an example I am unaware of?

[mfswallace]

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/elk-hunter-run-northeast-washington-wolves/

This article sure disputes some of the more absurd allegations against wdfw regarding wolf management and their position on wolf/human interactions that I've observed on this forum.  Some folks like to portray wdfw as seeking to make an example out of some innocent fella that has a run in with a wolf...but its pretty clear wdfw believes this guy did the right thing.  It also mentioned that they are using DNA to make sure the wolf shot in pullman was definitely a wolf before they even consider recommending any sort of charges...and last but not least, their website apparently advises people to kill wolves/fight back if a wolf does indeed attack or act aggressively.     While the chance of an encounter with an aggressive wolf is extremely small, there is no doubt that WDFW enforcement staff fully support the right of individuals to defend themselves.

All of this makes those silly proclamations from Stevens county politicians seem even more silly.

I believe this to be too little too late. If i were in the Federal delisted area and defended myself i wouldn't make myself the subject of an investigation by the WDFW. To topp it off ONE instance where the WDFW gets it right does not suddenly endear themselves to me (or many others) who have had a close encounter with the Wolves.

I am unfamiliar with any legitimate or credible instance where someone defended themselves from a wolf and were mistreated by WDFW.  Perhaps you have an example I am unaware of?

Yes ever the staunch defender of Wolves and WDFW, thanks for joining in on the first page I just won $5   

[idahohuntr]

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/elk-hunter-run-northeast-washington-wolves/

This article sure disputes some of the more absurd allegations against wdfw regarding wolf management and their position on wolf/human interactions that I've observed on this forum.  Some folks like to portray wdfw as seeking to make an example out of some innocent fella that has a run in with a wolf...but its pretty clear wdfw believes this guy did the right thing.  It also mentioned that they are using DNA to make sure the wolf shot in pullman was definitely a wolf before they even consider recommending any sort of charges...and last but not least, their website apparently advises people to kill wolves/fight back if a wolf does indeed attack or act aggressively.     While the chance of an encounter with an aggressive wolf is extremely small, there is no doubt that WDFW enforcement staff fully support the right of individuals to defend themselves.

All of this makes those silly proclamations from Stevens county politicians seem even more silly.

I believe this to be too little too late. If i were in the Federal delisted area and defended myself i wouldn't make myself the subject of an investigation by the WDFW. To topp it off ONE instance where the WDFW gets it right does not suddenly endear themselves to me (or many others) who have had a close encounter with the Wolves.

I am unfamiliar with any legitimate or credible instance where someone defended themselves from a wolf and were mistreated by WDFW.  Perhaps you have an example I am unaware of?

Yes ever the staunch defender of Wolves and WDFW, thanks for joining in on the first page I just won $5   

As usual...lacking facts the folks who whine the most turn the conversation towards me as opposed to providing something relevant to the topic. 

[KFhunter]

I can think of an instance where a guy was ridiculed online for climbing a tree because of wolves circling him in the fog and acting aggressively.

This really is the most pathetic thread I've seen here.  Good grief, some of you must be afraid of your own shadows.

[idahohuntr]

I can think of an instance where a guy was ridiculed online for climbing a tree because of wolves circling him in the fog and acting aggressively.

Could you please provide the name or online id of the wdfw employee who engaged in this ridicule you mention? Thanks.

[KFhunter]

I can think of an instance where a guy was ridiculed online for climbing a tree because of wolves circling him in the fog and acting aggressively.

Could you please provide the name or online id of the wdfw employee who engaged in this ridicule you mention? Thanks.

Best I can do is the *censored* for WDFW

You've already stated by you're own admission you do not pack a handgun while archery hunting,  you'll scurry up a tree and crap your britches.   I haven't had a close encounter, but if/when I do I will defend myself.  To do otherwise is unconscionable.

There was no threat, thus no need to defend myself.  Just seeing the wolves had me a little paranoid for the walk out at night (both times this happened was during archery elk season).  It was in 2003 and 2005, and wolves were still federally protected in Idaho.  I never made any suggestion that I would not defend myself...even with my bow at least one wolf is going to take a broadhead to the face.  However, both times, as soon as the wolf saw me it turned and ran.  Unlike you, I do not support poaching.  Period.  If I had a handgun with me at the time of those encounters it would have done no good as the wolves were gone in the blink of an eye...I would have felt a little safer in my walk out though...I was guilty of feeling irrational fear.  To suggest you could have done something to "educate" them is absurd and demonstrates your extraordinary ignorance on the topic.  One thing is clear, you sure speak a lot about wolves and how people should react to them for a guy that has 0 experience.  That is a common theme with most of the wolf whackos I know.

[idahohuntr]

Moderators...can we please nip this name calling in the behind? Thanks.

[KFhunter]

Well it is a step in a positive direction,  perhaps WDFW really does read HW.

 

[bearpaw]

An account from the hunter of what happened: http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,164173.0.html


(to whom this may concern, please do not hijack that topic too)

[Special T]

Your not required to incriminate yourself, and if you did nothing wrong in the first place why attract attention to yourself. We are innocent until proven guilty not the other way around.
Just because the I know some good people who work for the WDFW doesn't mean their bosses dont have a bone to pick.

[idahohuntr]

Your not required to incriminate yourself, and if you did nothing wrong in the first place why attract attention to yourself. We are innocent until proven guilty not the other way around.
Just because the I know some good people who work for the WDFW doesn't mean their bosses dont have a bone to pick.

Again...can you provide even one example where "wdfw bosses" set out to mistreat someone with a self defense claim?  Innocent until proven guilty extends to all people in this country... shockingly for some, it also includes the public servants so many on this forum like to trash.  So, please provide some specifics...I'm not aware of any but maybe others are?

[Special T]

I will state this differently because I think I am failing to get my point across.

If a cop comes and wants to talk to you, you do not have to respond. You certainly dont have to respond by telling him information that may or may not make you guilty of, speeding, or.....
They cop can be a good guy, his bosses can be great people. Not responding doesnt make you guilty.

It would appear from the story that the wolves ate enough of the evidence that it was impossible to ascertain the truth any way.

[mfswallace]

I will state this differently because I think I am failing to get my point across.

If a cop comes and wants to talk to you, you do not have to respond. You certainly dont have to respond by telling him information that may or may not make you guilty of, speeding, or.....
They cop can be a good guy, his bosses can be great people. Not responding doesnt make you guilty.

It would appear from the story that the wolves ate enough of the evidence that it was impossible to ascertain the truth any way.

2 things-
First you are correct you don't have to voluntarily give any info to LEO's but more than likely you will go to jail and then have to explain things in court...I've seen obstruction charges for simply not saying anything or someone else is willing to talk and since you say nothing there story is the one that is heard... 

Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like your interpreting the part about only finding a little hide and meat incorrectly... I think what was meant was that they only found a little evidence of the hunter connecting with his shot and assumed the wolf ran off     Maybe Bearpaw can add to this .....

[Special T]

Perhaps your correct that the shot did not kill and it ran away and i misunderstood.

And perhaps your right that you could be charged with obstruction and your life interrupted by going to jail, but your under no duty to talk to the police.

I think however that This case is different because the hunter went to the WDFW. So far its worked out OK for him. 

[KFhunter]

Perhaps your correct that the shot did not kill and it ran away and i misunderstood.

And perhaps your right that you could be charged with obstruction and your life interrupted by going to jail, but your under no duty to talk to the police.

I think however that This case is different because the hunter went to the WDFW. So far its worked out OK for him.

And it *should* work out good for the next guy that encounters a wolf from this same pack,  precedence has been set for these wolves when WDFW deemed it a justified shooting.
It would be tough to get convicted for poaching now unless it was too obvious.

Now knowing the history of these wolves I would defend myself a little quicker than I would have otherwise.

Might save a life down the road.

[idahohuntr]

I will state this differently because I think I am failing to get my point across.

If a cop comes and wants to talk to you, you do not have to respond. You certainly dont have to respond by telling him information that may or may not make you guilty of, speeding, or.....
They cop can be a good guy, his bosses can be great people. Not responding doesnt make you guilty.

It would appear from the story that the wolves ate enough of the evidence that it was impossible to ascertain the truth any way.

Ok...I understand now.  We are talking different issues.  Yes, I agree completely with you...the burden of proof is on the prosecution so there is no need to speak with LEO's...there's a link on this forum somewhere of a youtube video about why even the most innocent person in the world has nothing to benefit from talking to LEO's.  One of my good friends is a former prosecutor...he concurs   

My point was there is no evidence WDFW has ever engaged in any attempt to mistreat a hunter or outdoorsman who may have had a dangerous encounter with wildlife...including wolves.  What you are saying I think is that if a WDFW warden shows up asking questions about a dead wolf, he is not there to look out for your interests...and I would agree in the context that LEO's are not your friend if you are suspected of illegal activity (even if you are completely justified/innocent).  Let your lawyer answer his questions   

[Special T]

I would also point out that because there is NO body for the WDFW to examine  it would be impossible to  assertain his guilt or innocence. What if instead of shooting the wolf square in the chest it turned at the last second and he shot it in the side... the WDFW COULD argue that it was no danger to you because it wasnt attacking you...

And yes ID hnter you understand what i was trying to say. At least my thoughts came out clearly the second time...

[KFhunter]

When WDFW sends the same amount of officers and bio's to investigate a wolf incidence as a cougar or bear incidence, then perhaps I'll change my tune.

If this were a story about a cougar or bear stalking a hunter and him shooting it in self defense how many WDFW agents would have responded to the scene?  one? two?  zero?



Sounds like they fielded quite a gaggle of WDFW officers and agents, can't tell me they weren't thinking maybe they'd have a case.

[idahohuntr]

When WDFW sends the same amount of officers and bio's to investigate a wolf incidence as a cougar or bear incidence, then perhaps I'll change my tune.

If this were a story about a cougar or bear stalking a hunter and him shooting it in self defense how many WDFW agents would have responded to the scene?  one? two?  zero?



Sounds like they fielded quite a gaggle of WDFW officers and agents, can't tell me they weren't thinking maybe they'd have a case.

When wolves are de-listed like bears and cougars they probably would respond similarly...but given the intense focus on wolves by folks on all sides of the issue it does not strike me as unreasonable that wdfw would send a large cadre of folks to investigate. 

[Stein]

I was in fear of my life, the wolf was circling and charging and I tried everything and was forced to shoot to save my life.  Sound pretty much like what the guy said and nobody had any reason to doubt him.

Just like shooting a person, they needed to investigate the event and seemed to quickly determine it was self defense.  Case closed and everybody goes home happy except PETA.

[Bango skank]

Come on idaho hunter... "when wolves are delisted like bears and cougars?"  Bears and cougars were never "listed" in the first place, therefore they never had to be DElisted.  The feds already delisted these wolves but wdfw doesnt give a rats ass.  They will never delist them because theyre taking their cues from the idiot animal rights groups and the moron seattleites who swallow all the b.s. the anti hunting groups feed them.

[idahohuntr]

Delisted was not the correct word to use there...but the message is still accurate...when wolves are managed like bears and cougars without any sort of special protections (e.g., listed) there will be no cadre of wdfw staff going to investigate a wolf shooting. 

[Bango skank]

Delisted was not the correct word to use there...but the message is still accurate...when wolves are managed like bears and cougars without any sort of special protections (e.g., listed) there will be no cadre of wdfw staff going to investigate a wolf shooting.

Not going to happen.  And if it does it will be way too late and way too restricted.