"I don't come up with solutions" she says....

[MuleDeer]

Seems like lots of questions about what CNW or other groups think or will do in this situation or that...I don't know, and I can't speak for them anyway.  You need to ask them, I guess.
Who is representing hunters on the WAG? Look back at the posts where the new members were announced.  Do you think that list is a lie and there are folks listed there as hunters but really are secret agents for the "other side"?  If so, you have bigger problems than a hunting issue.  Who appointed them?  The director with assistance from WDFW.  Don't like the members or the system?  Apply next time or do something to try and fix the system.
AS for the individuals on the WAG that represent an organization.  Yes they may speak for the user group, but maybe not all of them, especially the extreme ones.  I hope to represent hunters on the WAG, not MDF.  But I will not be representing a few of you who insist on being the extremist on the hunting side.  Just as I would expect some of the "enviro's" to not represent their more extreme counterparts.
Last time I'll bother any of you with this; if you are passionate about something and want to see change, get involved.  If you won't even bother to do anything other than complain, you aren't part of the solution...

[huntnphool]

Seems like lots of questions about what CNW or other groups think or will do in this situation or that...I don't know, and I can't speak for them anyway.  You need to ask them, I guess.
Who is representing hunters on the WAG? Look back at the posts where the new members were announced.  Do you think that list is a lie and there are folks listed there as hunters but really are secret agents for the "other side"? Lets try to keep it real and slow the spin a bit. Nobody is saying those that are "supposedly" representing the hunting community are "secret agents" for pro wolfers. What I want to know is why there wasn't a process for hunters to nominate someone that the majority approved of speaking for them?

 If so, you have bigger problems than a hunting issue.  Who appointed them?  The director with assistance from WDFW.  Don't like the members or the system?  Apply next time or do something to try and fix the system. Apply? I'm not aware of any announcement that representatives for the hunting community were needed to help address future wolf policy.

AS for the individuals on the WAG that represent an organization.  Yes they may speak for the user group, but maybe not all of them, especially the extreme ones.  I hope to represent hunters on the WAG, not MDF.  But I will not be representing a few of you who insist on being the extremist on the hunting side. LOL, is it really extremism to fight for our privilege to hunt? Is it really extremism to not trust agencies or groups that have shown absolutely zero respect or regard for hunters and their tradition?

 Just as I would expect some of the "enviro's" to not represent their more extreme counterparts.
Last time I'll bother any of you with this; if you are passionate about something and want to see change, get involved.  If you won't even bother to do anything other than complain, you aren't part of the solution...

 Perhaps hunters on this site would be more supportive if they felt their best interests were being looked after. You may preach from your soap box on this site, but the truth is we have no way of knowing your stance or intentions. Surely you must see the concern and understand the apprehension.
 

[MuleDeer]

Seems like lots of questions about what CNW or other groups think or will do in this situation or that...I don't know, and I can't speak for them anyway.  You need to ask them, I guess.
Who is representing hunters on the WAG? Look back at the posts where the new members were announced.  Do you think that list is a lie and there are folks listed there as hunters but really are secret agents for the "other side"? Lets try to keep it real and slow the spin a bit. Nobody is saying those that are "supposedly" representing the hunting community are "secret agents" for pro wolfers. What I want to know is why there wasn't a process for hunters to nominate someone that the majority approved of speaking for them?
   The wasn't a process for anyone to be nominated, unless the hunting community would have set that up themselves, which they didn't.
 If so, you have bigger problems than a hunting issue.  Who appointed them?  The director with assistance from WDFW.  Don't like the members or the system?  Apply next time or do something to try and fix the system. Apply? I'm not aware of any announcement that representatives for the hunting community were needed to help address future wolf policy.
     Look back on the threads and announcements WDFW made asking for ANYONE interested in helping on the WAG...it was made very public, and wasn't hidden from anyone.
AS for the individuals on the WAG that represent an organization.  Yes they may speak for the user group, but maybe not all of them, especially the extreme ones.  I hope to represent hunters on the WAG, not MDF.  But I will not be representing a few of you who insist on being the extremist on the hunting side. LOL, is it really extremism to fight for our privilege to hunt? Is it really extremism to not trust agencies or groups that have shown absolutely zero respect or regard for hunters and their tradition?
     No, not extreme at all to fight for what you love and believe in.  But I do consider the constant bashing and spreading of rumors without any verification extreme.  And quoting someone else's opinion, isn't verification; it's just spreading rumor and opinion.  There's plenty on here that simply agree or support someone else's opinion and treat it as fact.  Extreme to me is making accusations without proof, spewing opinion as fact.  If it's your opinion and you say it is, that's great.  Too many just grab it and treat is as gospel without bothering to learn the truth, or care to, in my opinion.
 Just as I would expect some of the "enviro's" to not represent their more extreme counterparts.
Last time I'll bother any of you with this; if you are passionate about something and want to see change, get involved.  If you won't even bother to do anything other than complain, you aren't part of the solution...

 Perhaps hunters on this site would be more supportive if they felt their best interests were being looked after. You may preach from your soap box on this site, but the truth is we have no way of knowing your stance or intentions. Surely you must see the concern and understand the apprehension.

Totally agree, you don't know me or my "agenda".  Although I did post a biography when I joined this forum, gave my home address, email, telephone, etc.  Have you?  I have nothing to hide, and if you bother to read my first posts here, that's all I can offer you.  Oh, and take the time to ask any of the MANY people on this forum who know me and have known me for many years what my intentions are.  Let them speak for me, since you don't believe me. 
I don't know who you are either, or quite a few others here.  Even the ones who insist on bashing every post I make, while they do nothing to get involved.  So how do I trust you?  Guess I have to take your word for it, and I will until proven otherwise.  I'm not preaching from a soap box; I'm just tired of the ones who do nothing but complain, while I've worked in conservation for the past 20+ years for hunters, habitat and management.  I guess it's called "putting your money where your mouth is", and I don't mean just buying a hunting license.

[huntnphool]

Seems like lots of questions about what CNW or other groups think or will do in this situation or that...I don't know, and I can't speak for them anyway.  You need to ask them, I guess.
Who is representing hunters on the WAG? Look back at the posts where the new members were announced.  Do you think that list is a lie and there are folks listed there as hunters but really are secret agents for the "other side"? Lets try to keep it real and slow the spin a bit. Nobody is saying those that are "supposedly" representing the hunting community are "secret agents" for pro wolfers. What I want to know is why there wasn't a process for hunters to nominate someone that the majority approved of speaking for them?
   The wasn't a process for anyone to be nominated, unless the hunting community would have set that up themselves, which they didn't.
 If so, you have bigger problems than a hunting issue.  Who appointed them?  The director with assistance from WDFW.  Don't like the members or the system?  Apply next time or do something to try and fix the system. Apply? I'm not aware of any announcement that representatives for the hunting community were needed to help address future wolf policy.
     Look back on the threads and announcements WDFW made asking for ANYONE interested in helping on the WAG...it was made very public, and wasn't hidden from anyone.
AS for the individuals on the WAG that represent an organization.  Yes they may speak for the user group, but maybe not all of them, especially the extreme ones.  I hope to represent hunters on the WAG, not MDF.  But I will not be representing a few of you who insist on being the extremist on the hunting side. LOL, is it really extremism to fight for our privilege to hunt? Is it really extremism to not trust agencies or groups that have shown absolutely zero respect or regard for hunters and their tradition?
     No, not extreme at all to fight for what you love and believe in.  But I do consider the constant bashing and spreading of rumors without any verification extreme.  And quoting someone else's opinion, isn't verification; it's just spreading rumor and opinion.  There's plenty on here that simply agree or support someone else's opinion and treat it as fact.  Extreme to me is making accusations without proof, spewing opinion as fact.  If it's your opinion and you say it is, that's great.  Too many just grab it and treat is as gospel without bothering to learn the truth, or care to, in my opinion.
 Just as I would expect some of the "enviro's" to not represent their more extreme counterparts.
Last time I'll bother any of you with this; if you are passionate about something and want to see change, get involved.  If you won't even bother to do anything other than complain, you aren't part of the solution...

 Perhaps hunters on this site would be more supportive if they felt their best interests were being looked after. You may preach from your soap box on this site, but the truth is we have no way of knowing your stance or intentions. Surely you must see the concern and understand the apprehension.

Totally agree, you don't know me or my "agenda".  Although I did post a biography when I joined this forum, gave my home address, email, telephone, etc.  Have you?  I have nothing to hide, and if you bother to read my first posts here, that's all I can offer you.  Oh, and take the time to ask any of the MANY people on this forum who know me and have known me for many years what my intentions are.  Let them speak for me, since you don't believe me. 
I don't know who you are either, or quite a few others here.  Even the ones who insist on bashing every post I make, while they do nothing to get involved.  So how do I trust you?  Guess I have to take your word for it, and I will until proven otherwise.  I'm not preaching from a soap box; I'm just tired of the ones who do nothing but complain, while I've worked in conservation for the past 20+ years for hunters, habitat and management.  I guess it's called "putting your money where your mouth is", and I don't mean just buying a hunting license.

 I didn't use the word "agenda" and did not say I didn't believe you, I said we have no way of knowing your stance or intentions......it shouldn't surprise you a lot of us are uneasy.

 It's difficult to blindly step out on faith when dealing with WDFW or anything they are involved in. Its my opinion that the entire department, with the exception of most of the field officers, have a complete disconnect from the hunting/fishing community and pander to special interests with the deepest pockets and liberal voting base. Politics should have nothing to do with hunting/fishing policy, but sadly it seems like politics are what dictate every aspect of it these days, that and revenue.......enter the WAG!

 So in a nutshell, until the hunting community bands together and can collectively agree on a couple people to represent us and our interests, it's going to be difficult to feel comfortable sitting back, watching, and wondering how and when we get collectively screwed again.

[wolfbait]

 

Idaho’s conservative policies, people and leadership continue to protect Sportsmen and Ranchers:


Many Idahoans do not realize how truly fortunate they are to live in a state that is led primarily by conservative lawmakers and policy makers who value our 2nd amendment along with our right to hunt and fish.  Unfortunately In many progressive states, radical environmental policies prevail because environmental groups were allowed a “seat at the table” inside their own Fish and Game Departments.  Many politically progressive states like WA, OR and CA who have been infiltrated by anti-hunting and environmental groups, are witnessing radical wildlife management policies such as emphasizing  “predator preservation” over  traditional big game harvest for sustenance.

Even though Idaho has a conservative history politically, Idaho Lawmakers, Governors, and Fish and game commissioners continually have to be vigilant in keeping the more progressive IDFG managers in check within our own Idaho Fish and Game department.  For the last 40+ years our Fish and Game has become increasingly convoluted with radical extreme pro predator wildlife managers. The problem originates from leftist academia that indoctrinates most of our new biologists who later become wildlife managers throughout the state. As an example, a few years ago I interviewed a young biologist who had just graduated with a PHD in Wildlife biology.  He had just started working for Idaho Fish and Game at the time. He admitted to me that in 8 years of college, he never met another student who HAD NOT been brainwashed with radical environmental academia that his leftist professors taught regarding the religion of balanced and native ecosystems and the need for more predators. The reason this graduate was saved from this radical indoctrination was because he was raised on a small farm in Southern Idaho where he grew up hunting and fishing where his father taught and instilled in him common sense principles that he never forgot. He also told me that that very few of his classmates had ever hunted. Unfortunately IDFG forced him out within months after hiring him. He believed this decision came as a result of a discreet new policy within IDFG to hire predominantly non-hunters and applicants that met a certain environmental mindset criteria. In the 2013, IDFG Wildlife Diversity meetings, it was revealed by sportsmen that Idaho’s right wing conservative legislators were blamed as Idaho Fish and Game’s biggest threat to thwart their progressive environmental agendas within the dept.
 

Fortunately Governor Otter and his commission selection team have appointed some very capable and vigilant Fish and game commissioners the last 7+ years. These men are currently attempting to put IDFG back on course after decades of a department pursuing a progressive non-hunting agenda. Previous governors had appointed commissioners utilizing different criteria and unfortunately many of these commissioners had become “Duped” by very intelligent and sophisticated IDFG leaders who specialize in Social engineering skills. These IDFG employees receive this specialized training through their membership and participation in national organizations of Fish and Game employees. Many of these past commissioners allowed the “Tail to wag the dog” which allowed IDFG to realize their progressive Wildlife management policies. Examples of these radical environmental policies are emphasizing non consumptive management over consumptive, Pre-Columbian native ecosystem obsession and extreme pro predator policies.

 Witnessing the results and fruition of these radical bankrupt wildlife policies resulting in less big game harvest opportunity, is the primary reason sportsmen and Idaho lawmakers are so frustrated with Idaho Fish and Game in general. Experts claim that the only tools to change this bankrupt direction is to change leadership and or use the "Power of the Purse" to stop their funding.


http://idahoforwildlife.com/index.php/idfg-wildlife-summit#Unholy%20Alliances

[pianoman9701]

Seems like lots of questions about what CNW or other groups think or will do in this situation or that...I don't know, and I can't speak for them anyway.  You need to ask them, I guess.
Who is representing hunters on the WAG? Look back at the posts where the new members were announced.  Do you think that list is a lie and there are folks listed there as hunters but really are secret agents for the "other side"? Lets try to keep it real and slow the spin a bit. Nobody is saying those that are "supposedly" representing the hunting community are "secret agents" for pro wolfers. What I want to know is why there wasn't a process for hunters to nominate someone that the majority approved of speaking for them?
   The wasn't a process for anyone to be nominated, unless the hunting community would have set that up themselves, which they didn't.
 If so, you have bigger problems than a hunting issue.  Who appointed them?  The director with assistance from WDFW.  Don't like the members or the system?  Apply next time or do something to try and fix the system. Apply? I'm not aware of any announcement that representatives for the hunting community were needed to help address future wolf policy.
     Look back on the threads and announcements WDFW made asking for ANYONE interested in helping on the WAG...it was made very public, and wasn't hidden from anyone.
AS for the individuals on the WAG that represent an organization.  Yes they may speak for the user group, but maybe not all of them, especially the extreme ones.  I hope to represent hunters on the WAG, not MDF.  But I will not be representing a few of you who insist on being the extremist on the hunting side. LOL, is it really extremism to fight for our privilege to hunt? Is it really extremism to not trust agencies or groups that have shown absolutely zero respect or regard for hunters and their tradition?
     No, not extreme at all to fight for what you love and believe in.  But I do consider the constant bashing and spreading of rumors without any verification extreme.  And quoting someone else's opinion, isn't verification; it's just spreading rumor and opinion.  There's plenty on here that simply agree or support someone else's opinion and treat it as fact.  Extreme to me is making accusations without proof, spewing opinion as fact.  If it's your opinion and you say it is, that's great.  Too many just grab it and treat is as gospel without bothering to learn the truth, or care to, in my opinion.
 Just as I would expect some of the "enviro's" to not represent their more extreme counterparts.
Last time I'll bother any of you with this; if you are passionate about something and want to see change, get involved.  If you won't even bother to do anything other than complain, you aren't part of the solution...

 Perhaps hunters on this site would be more supportive if they felt their best interests were being looked after. You may preach from your soap box on this site, but the truth is we have no way of knowing your stance or intentions. Surely you must see the concern and understand the apprehension.

Totally agree, you don't know me or my "agenda".  Although I did post a biography when I joined this forum, gave my home address, email, telephone, etc.  Have you?  I have nothing to hide, and if you bother to read my first posts here, that's all I can offer you.  Oh, and take the time to ask any of the MANY people on this forum who know me and have known me for many years what my intentions are.  Let them speak for me, since you don't believe me. 
I don't know who you are either, or quite a few others here.  Even the ones who insist on bashing every post I make, while they do nothing to get involved.  So how do I trust you?  Guess I have to take your word for it, and I will until proven otherwise.  I'm not preaching from a soap box; I'm just tired of the ones who do nothing but complain, while I've worked in conservation for the past 20+ years for hunters, habitat and management.  I guess it's called "putting your money where your mouth is", and I don't mean just buying a hunting license.

A lot of us have put our money where our mouth is. We've attended wolf sessions, especially during the period up to and including the acceptance of the outrageous wolf plan. We've done conservation work as you have. Some of us do other things which support hunting like mentoring, hunter education, and activism on things we see which can negatively affect our rights and our hunting, as I'm sure you do. To those of us who do those things, and there are many of us on this forum, we have seen the WDFW take the 75% of their budget that we provide (license fees and PR funds combined), and use a good deal of it to support those who would see our heritage ended. From appointments to the Commission to the appointments to the wolf advisory group, we see a tendency of moving away from hunting to something else - all with our money. So, if you're surprised that many of us are pushing back at the agency appointing these members to the WAG, you shouldn't be. We've dealt with these groups. We've watched them attack hunting and our heritage with all they have. They're not going to change their spots because of a place at the table. They're going to use it to further their goals.

[mfswallace]

Muledeer-- Can you fill us in on the field trip portion of the meeting???

[WAcoyotehunter]

"Intelligent hunters" and "common ground" - passive aggressive Orwellian speak directed  at us on here insinuating that we're idiots because we don't want hunting seasons shut down. Aren't you guys embracing CGducksand Deer and ID huntr's  "fundamental transformation" of new and improved game management in the US?

These self important  self proclaimed ego driven intellectual superiors  will keep embracing this even when hunting seasons close down in WA due to wolves like it did in ID and MT.

A big loss for sportsmen in the US.

MuleDeer and CGDucksandDeer 

Based on your responses I think we have at least 2 great folks on this WAG.  We need intelligent, diplomatic hunters to represent us on these controversial matters and you guys seem to be a perfect fit.  The more you can do to present hunters in a positive light, the better.  There will always be disagreement...but there just might be more common ground than folks here realize.  Time will tell  And yes, Unsworth is a very avid hunter...those who suggest otherwise are either ignorant or lying, possibly both.

  Yes, by highlighting the value in having intelligent, diplomatic hunters represent the hunting community to non-hunters I am really just trying to secretly insult you in some sort of vague, indirect way as I seek opportunities to end hunting in Wa.  Let's find the dumbest most abrasive hunter out there to represent us...that will definitely make it so the anti's don't succeed in shutting hunting seasons down won't it?   

Are you seeking nominations??   

[MuleDeer]

 I didn't use the word "agenda" and did not say I didn't believe you, I said we have no way of knowing your stance or intentions......it shouldn't surprise you a lot of us are uneasy.

 It's difficult to blindly step out on faith when dealing with WDFW or anything they are involved in. Its my opinion that the entire department, with the exception of most of the field officers, have a complete disconnect from the hunting/fishing community and pander to special interests with the deepest pockets and liberal voting base. Politics should have nothing to do with hunting/fishing policy, but sadly it seems like politics are what dictate every aspect of it these days, that and revenue.......enter the WAG!

 So in a nutshell, until the hunting community bands together and can collectively agree on a couple people to represent us and our interests, it's going to be difficult to feel comfortable sitting back, watching, and wondering how and when we get collectively screwed again.

I could not possibly agree with you more in what you just said!  That's what I've been trying to tell people, in order to hopefully stir more to get involved!  The main reason we are losing ground to other groups and interests, is because we are not organized; actually just the opposite.  Hunters fight and argue publicly over what they think is right, ethical, etc, when we should keep our opinions on those things to ourselves and show unity.  Do I have opinions on different aspects of hunting?  Absolutely.  But do I make them public in a  divisive way for the public to see?  I try not to, and if I do, I hope someone will call me out on it.
We are on the same track here, and if this community wants to endorse/nominate people to represent them, I think it's a great idea.

[MuleDeer]

Muledeer-- Can you fill us in on the field trip portion of the meeting???

The field trip Friday was to visit, talk with, and see three different Livestock Producers and their operations.
First was with a sheep rancher that lost over 300 sheep last year over a very short period of time.  Hearing his stories about the events made a strong impression on how much damage a pack of wolves can do in a matter of days, and how he, his ranch hands, and WDFW on site we unable to do anything about it.  That visit showed the worst-case scenario.
The second visit was with a couple who raise cattle in and around Colville, and on leases on the Colville NF.  They have seen the wolves, but have not had issues with them, yet.  They work closely with WDFW on different strategies, as well as documentation of wolves.  They do not ask WDFW for any financial help with the deterrents, but work with them and want to see wolf management come into use before things get more out of control.  They admit they have been lucky so far.
The third visit was with the couple who had the Ruby pack around them, the two female wolves who started hanging out with the dogs.  Actually, it was their "guardian dogs" who ran away to hang out with the wolves!  They eventually caught the dogs, had them neutered, and the problem was solved.  The one wolf got hit by a car, and the other was hanging around until WDFW trapped and moved it to Wolf Haven.  During the time it was hanging around, the wolf would lay down amongst the cattle and sheep, and there was never any problems with their livestock.  This occasion, in my mind, showed that wolves are more adaptable than most think, and that doesn't bode well for what could happen again in the near future.  The couple never had any issue with the two wolves, but they admit that if the pack had been bigger, they would probably have had many problems.  They are for management, and are cautiously grateful that they haven't had any problems yet.  Currently, there is another pack of wolves on the ridge SW of them, less than a couple miles away.
The other beneficial part of the trip was the actual drive time, allowing us to speak and get to know the other people and their views.  From the hunting side, wolf side, whatever, it is better to "know your enemy" than to be stuck assuming what they think.  Like it or not, it is easier to work with someone you have some sort of relationship with, rather than the preconceived notions of their intentions.  I work with lots of people I'm not friends with, but having that working relationship enables some cooperation there.  I think that was the basic goal of this first meeting of the WAG, and I'm glad I got to meet the members one-on-one, both good and bad.
Overall, I feel like the trip was very informative to all there, but I can't speak for them.  I did hear a lot of comments from people who say they got a better perspective, seeing the ground and hearing the losses that have happened.  Some of the "West Siders" admitted that it shed some new light on their perspective of wolves.  It was a good trip, in my opinion.  They are going to try and get each user group to show their side in a trip like this in the future....I don't know how the antis would represent their side, and it may be difficult for the hunters to do the same.  Any suggestions from the forum on how and what hunters could or should show during a field trip?  It would be our best, single chance to show things specifically from our side, but we need ideas that we could pursue.  Thoughts?

[Elkaholic daWg]

I didn't use the word "agenda" and did not say I didn't believe you, I said we have no way of knowing your stance or intentions......it shouldn't surprise you a lot of us are uneasy.

 It's difficult to blindly step out on faith when dealing with WDFW or anything they are involved in. Its my opinion that the entire department, with the exception of most of the field officers, have a complete disconnect from the hunting/fishing community and pander to special interests with the deepest pockets and liberal voting base. Politics should have nothing to do with hunting/fishing policy, but sadly it seems like politics are what dictate every aspect of it these days, that and revenue.......enter the WAG!

 So in a nutshell, until the hunting community bands together and can collectively agree on a couple people to represent us and our interests, it's going to be difficult to feel comfortable sitting back, watching, and wondering how and when we get collectively screwed again.

I could not possibly agree with you more in what you just said!  That's what I've been trying to tell people, in order to hopefully stir more to get involved!  The main reason we are losing ground to other groups and interests, is because we are not organized; actually just the opposite.  Hunters fight and argue publicly over what they think is right, ethical, etc, when we should keep our opinions on those things to ourselves and show unity.  Do I have opinions on different aspects of hunting?  Absolutely.  But do I make them public in a  divisive way for the public to see?  I try not to, and if I do, I hope someone will call me out on it.
We are on the same track here, and if this community wants to endorse/nominate people to represent them, I think it's a great idea.

Those were both great posts MuleDeer.... Lack of organization comment is spot on. Hunters are too easily splintered

[mfswallace]

Somehow showing the antis wintering grounds with significantly impacted herds today compared to numbers from 10, 15, 20 years ago...
Push for more detailed ungulate studies and petition for the states records to show trends, not harvest data but real on the ground surveys that match the effort they"claim" to put into counting wolves.

Take them into towns around the northeast that are severely impacted by reduced hunting numbers or invite those impacted to speak to what that is doing to there communities.

In the northeast show them the significant amount of deer in very close proximity to humans due to the vast amount of predators. wolves, cats and bears


I'll have more.....

[MuleDeer]

Somehow showing the antis wintering grounds with significantly impacted herds today compared to numbers from 10, 15, 20 years ago...
Push for more detailed ungulate studies and petition for the states records to show trends, not harvest data but real on the ground surveys that match the effort they"claim" to put into counting wolves.

Take them into towns around the northeast that are severely impacted by reduced hunting numbers or invite those impacted to speak to what that is doing to there communities.

In the northeast show them the significant amount of deer in very close proximity to humans sure to the vast amount of predators. wolves, cats and bears

Thanks!  Some good ideas to start with and build something that all could see as to how predators are affecting not only our neighborhoods, but the $$ raised to continue conservation of all species.  A good start....


I'll have more.....

[mfswallace]

Somehow showing the antis wintering grounds with significantly impacted herds today compared to numbers from 10, 15, 20 years ago...
Push for more detailed ungulate studies and petition for the states records to show trends, not harvest data but real on the ground surveys that match the effort they"claim" to put into counting wolves.

Take them into towns around the northeast that are severely impacted by reduced hunting numbers or invite those impacted to speak to what that is doing to there communities.

In the northeast show them the significant amount of deer in very close proximity to humans sure to the vast amount of predators. wolves, cats and bears

Thanks!  Some good ideas to start with and build something that all could see as to how predators are affecting not only our neighborhoods, but the $$ raised to continue conservation of all species.  A good start....


I'll have more.....

Make it very clear with stats just how much money hunters put into conservation through different organizations and the wdfw by way of license, tags and such. Also include P&R act funds that help fed and state agencies. 

Find the amount of taxpayer and sportsmen's money fed and state agencies are forced to waste on lawsuits brought against them by anti-hunting/pro-wolf groups. Pointing out the hypocrisy that these groups have shown by supporting management plans and then suing once goals in plans are met and control measures are implemented! Some of which are on the WAG


However you feel about master hunters, the 20hrs of conservation type volunteer activities they are required to complete ads up and is an easily referenced point to our side.

[pianoman9701]

It's not just the money wasted in fighting these suits. Taxpayers also pay the claimants' fees. These organizations sue us with our own money.