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

[timberfaller]

Went back and re-read the article!!!

Don't ya just like it when "outsiders" can come in and "close" down debate!!

18 member strong(scream and shout loudly to scare wolves) and scares the you know what out of WA employees!!!!  oh ya and they are "experts"

[cookingdaily]

Then what good is she

[CAMPMEAT]

The WDFW should hire, LOCAL EXPERTS, who actually know, see and deal with wolves, NOT PEOPLE chosen by said agency and their non-experts.

[idahohuntr]

I think most are confused about what this group does and does not do or how politically powerful some of these more pro-wolf groups are in WA state.  If the greenies don't have a seat at the table, they actually become more powerful.  Adding them as one member or voice amongst a group of other members/voices eliminates their ability to cry foul over not being included but also forces them to sit amongst pro-hunting groups and listen to other viewpoints.  This is where the personal relationship building can be very effective in working on finding common ground and solutions in controversial issues...otherwise...they certainly don't need a facilitator...post a wolf article in the seattle times and link it to Hunt-Wa and DoW webpages and let the fringe folks go at each others throats...that will work I'm sure.

If this were Idaho or Wyoming I could see telling the greenie groups to take a hike...but in WA it is a non-starter.  Also, a big part of these advisory groups is actually an opportunity for WDFW to educate multiple stakeholders on wolf management...make sure all sides are getting the same information and updates so there is less unintentional miscommunication/misinformation. 

I could go on and on about why it is essential to have folks you philosophically disagree with come to the table to discuss these issues...bottom line though is it will be a necessary part of any kind of wolf management in this state.

[Humptulips]

I was on one of these committees, Wildlife Conflict Committee. HSUS was there too.
Here is how it works. WDFW comes in with what they want to do. They are willing to modify that a bit if there is consensus. That is the only way any decisions come out of the committee. It has to be by consensus. No actual votes are taken.
By putting HSUS and in my case trappers on the same committee it guarantees there will never be consensus. In the end WDFW does what they wanted to do in the beginning and they can say they had all this good public involvement.
The public can watch but they really have no input. When the meeting is over and the public can comment all the committee members leave.

Do I sound a little jaded?

[mfswallace]

I think most are confused about what this group does and does not do or how politically powerful some of these more pro-wolf groups are in WA state.  If the greenies don't have a seat at the table, they actually become more powerful.  Adding them as one member or voice amongst a group of other members/voices eliminates their ability to cry foul over not being included but also forces them to sit amongst pro-hunting groups and listen to other viewpoints.  This is where the personal relationship building can be very effective in working on finding common ground and solutions in controversial issues...otherwise...they certainly don't need a facilitator...post a wolf article in the seattle times and link it to Hunt-Wa and DoW webpages and let the fringe folks go at each others throats...that will work I'm sure.

If this were Idaho or Wyoming I could see telling the greenie groups to take a hike...but in WA it is a non-starter.  Also, a big part of these advisory groups is actually an opportunity for WDFW to educate multiple stakeholders on wolf management...make sure all sides are getting the same information and updates so there is less unintentional miscommunication/misinformation. 

I could go on and on about why it is essential to have folks you philosophically disagree with come to the table to discuss these issues...bottom line though is it will be a necessary part of any kind of wolf management in this state.

Seems contrary to the intentional misinformation wdfw spreads   

[RadSav]

I hope you are right idahohuntr and something positive can come of this.  However, I'm not going to hold my breath.  This lady is not a neutral arbitrator even though she and her organization claim to be.  Her group has always had one goal in mind.  That has been to reduce the strength of lethal control means and embolden the people who want to be the voice for endangered wildlife.  Even when the animals in question have not been endangered their goal has been one of pushing non-lethal options and the continued expansion of the invasive species.

I see her involvement as stacking the deck against hunters and wolf control.  There are a lot of neutral arbitrators out there.  Why do you think we got her?  There is no doubt she has a proven record of reducing conflict between groups.  But in every case there has been a celebration related to how many animals the conflict resolution has saved.  Immediately evident on their Facebook page.  We need a conflict resolution that results in a limit on wolves not one that celebrates their expansion.  Her "Conservation's Blind Spot" paper reads a lot like Obama's foreign policy.  A bunch of feel good nonsense that serves only to embolden the offensive action of our enemies.

It is extremely painful to read, but WDFW did just release the love guru's report of investigations so far.  http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01719/ It's a bunch of rambling information on how the interview process has gone and what each group has said.  Basically 90% of it is all a prelude to how much the HWCC is needed and why the money spent by WDFW will be the Holy Grail.   I was left with a feeling that it was a long winded version of an Obama speech.  Lots of words and no substance.

I sincerely Hope she is better at her job of delivering Change than the last guy that tried to sell us magic beans of "Hope and Change".

[Elkaholic daWg]

 

"Ware said the report showed that WDFW could improve its handling of humans."

or would the proper word be control

[CAMPMEAT]

Anti-hunting, anti-guns, anti-public lands, anti-ATV, pro-greenie, pro-wolf, pro-greenie money takers, pro-enviromentalist supporters.
Sound familiar ?

[BOWHUNTER45]

Only one solution    OPEN FIRE  They took it upon themselves to release these things and they knew the consequences that would follow . They should have had a state vote on what (everyone thinks ) about releasing wolves back into an environment that is constantly increasing in humane life and taking away habitat . They say we do not have the Big Game like elk to continue a general season in most units but they figure we have enough elk to feed the wolves .... Birrrrrr Dirrrrrrr 

[Elkaholic daWg]

Anti-hunting, anti-guns, anti-public lands, anti-ATV, pro-greenie, pro-wolf, pro-greenie money takers, pro-enviromentalist supporters.
Sound familiar ?

 What's really  disheartening is to know that many hunters will align themselves with one of these groups on one issue (motorized access for one) and be so ignorant  of the fact  that the knife the group is hiding WILL be used on all hunters later on.

[idahohuntr]

I hope you are right idahohuntr and something positive can come of this. 

What's to lose?  If we can get some traction amongst folks on lethal control so not every removal is contested...that would be great.  Will we get HSUS to support sport hunting of wolves...no.  Nor will they get hunters and many others to support an end to all hunting.  But if we can get reasonable, diplomatic people representing these various interests to talk to one another it might be surprising where we find common ground.  Also, as hunters, we have literally centuries and billions of dollars of work that prove we are the most successful and powerful conservation group ever.  Hunting is Conservation...sound familiar?  I think MuleDeer (who is on the WAG) has already expressed some positive news at how folks many of us assumed were anti-hunters actually are not opposed to hunting.  No matter what humans do (or don't do) it is extremely unlikely we will be without wolves well into the future...if we can get non (or even anti) hunting groups to better understand or at least tolerate some of the wolf management actions WDFW and sportsmen or livestock producers see as necessary, then I would say that is moving the needle in the right direction.  We will not make any progress if folks isolate themselves from opposing viewpoints as some seem to suggest by not having these greenie groups on this WAG.   

[mfswallace]

 

  HSUS and anti-HUMAN SOCIETY don't belong on this group no matter how you keep spewing it will help!  There is no F-Ing way our ungulate populations can handle the BS wolf plan these types of groups and wdfw came up with!!

[Dave Workman]

Is Washington wolf management about to get secretive?

While most Evergreen Staters will be observing the 35th anniversary of the devastating Mount St. Helens eruption Monday, some people are talking about something else happening later this week in Spokane, a closed-door meeting of the expanded wolf advisory group, and they’re wondering why.

http://www.examiner.com/article/is-washington-wolf-management-about-to-get-secretive

[idahohuntr]

It's sad to see someone resort to eye-catching headlines at the expense of reality.  You've got 18 VOLUNTEERS who have no authority over any kind of wolf management meeting to get to know each other.  The facilitator wants a closed meeting so that these volunteers will speak openly and not hold back out of fear for who is in the audience (and what they may write)...but lets not inject reality into wolf management...that won't sell ad-space will it.