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

[Dave Workman]

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.

Yep.

Deploy the tin foil helmets!!  Not all meetings are open to the public.  Closed chambers happen for county commissioners and different elected officials all the time.  Perhaps, (prepare yourself for a crazy idea) the group doesn't want to get derailed by mindless blather from the wildly anti or pro wolf crowd.....

Nope.
I know a guy who thinks there just might be a violation of the open meetings law here.

If you want to have an executive session, then declare an executive session.

What goes on in these committee meetings could ultimately affect all of us, and people have a right to know that trumps some desire to "get acquainted."

This isn't tinfoil hat stuff. No pun intended, but everyone on this forum has a "dog" in the fight, for many different reasons.

I remember 30 years ago when a series of "secret meetings" was held over fish and wildlife issues with the tribes. Nobody knew about any of it until the ink was dry.

Not a good way to go.

[mountainman]

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.

Yep.

Deploy the tin foil helmets!!  Not all meetings are open to the public.  Closed chambers happen for county commissioners and different elected officials all the time.  Perhaps, (prepare yourself for a crazy idea) the group doesn't want to get derailed by mindless blather from the wildly anti or pro wolf crowd.....

Nope.
I know a guy who thinks there just might be a violation of the open meetings law here.

If you want to have an executive session, then declare an executive session.

What goes on in these committee meetings could ultimately affect all of us, and people have a right to know that trumps some desire to "get acquainted."

This isn't tinfoil hat stuff. No pun intended, but everyone on this forum has a "dog" in the fight, for many different reasons.

I remember 30 years ago when a series of "secret meetings" was held over fish and wildlife issues with the tribes. Nobody knew about any of it until the ink was dry.

Not a good way to go.

[jasnt]

Breaking bread with your enemy only works if they are willing to compromise. HSUS does not compromise.

I have to fully agree with you on this point

[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.

Yep.

Deploy the tin foil helmets!!  Not all meetings are open to the public.  Closed chambers happen for county commissioners and different elected officials all the time.  Perhaps, (prepare yourself for a crazy idea) the group doesn't want to get derailed by mindless blather from the wildly anti or pro wolf crowd.....

Nope.
I know a guy who thinks there just might be a violation of the open meetings law here.

If you want to have an executive session, then declare an executive session.

What goes on in these committee meetings could ultimately affect all of us, and people have a right to know that trumps some desire to "get acquainted."

This isn't tinfoil hat stuff. No pun intended, but everyone on this forum has a "dog" in the fight, for many different reasons.

I remember 30 years ago when a series of "secret meetings" was held over fish and wildlife issues with the tribes. Nobody knew about any of it until the ink was dry.

Not a good way to go.

I don't really care about the bureaucratic bs on whether you call the meeting an "executive session"...the bottom line is this group, which has absolutely no power or authority, might just work better together if they have an opportunity to get to know each other on a personal level.  Ultimately, wolf management decisions will be made at open Commission meetings which any individual can attend - regardless of affiliation.  The notion that nothing can be gained by meeting with folks of opposing view points is naive and childish.  The Sierra Club and HSUS are not ISIS and Al Qaeda.   

[Special T]

I think the fact that myself, wolfbait and Aspenbud agree that your wrong is not childish... I think it is the DEFINITION of those with sound logic can put their differences alike IF they have a common goal... In this case ISIS and Al Queda CANNOT have a common goal with us. When you negotiate with those who wont do so in good faith you dont actually accomplish anything... And since you said so yourself... This group has no power anyway.

[jasnt]

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.

Yep.

Deploy the tin foil helmets!!  Not all meetings are open to the public.  Closed chambers happen for county commissioners and different elected officials all the time.  Perhaps, (prepare yourself for a crazy idea) the group doesn't want to get derailed by mindless blather from the wildly anti or pro wolf crowd.....

Nope.
I know a guy who thinks there just might be a violation of the open meetings law here.

If you want to have an executive session, then declare an executive session.

What goes on in these committee meetings could ultimately affect all of us, and people have a right to know that trumps some desire to "get acquainted."

This isn't tinfoil hat stuff. No pun intended, but everyone on this forum has a "dog" in the fight, for many different reasons.

I remember 30 years ago when a series of "secret meetings" was held over fish and wildlife issues with the tribes. Nobody knew about any of it until the ink was dry.

Not a good way to go.

I don't really care about the bureaucratic bs on whether you call the meeting an "executive session"...the bottom line is this group, which has absolutely no power or authority, might just work better together if they have an opportunity to get to know each other on a personal level.  Ultimately, wolf management decisions will be made at open Commission meetings which any individual can attend - regardless of affiliation.  The notion that nothing can be gained by meeting with folks of opposing view points is naive and childish.  The Sierra Club and HSUS are not ISIS and Al Qaeda.   

they are no better in my book!

[huntnphool]

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.

Yep.

Deploy the tin foil helmets!!  Not all meetings are open to the public.  Closed chambers happen for county commissioners and different elected officials all the time.  Perhaps, (prepare yourself for a crazy idea) the group doesn't want to get derailed by mindless blather from the wildly anti or pro wolf crowd.....

Nope.
I know a guy who thinks there just might be a violation of the open meetings law here.

If you want to have an executive session, then declare an executive session.

What goes on in these committee meetings could ultimately affect all of us, and people have a right to know that trumps some desire to "get acquainted."

This isn't tinfoil hat stuff. No pun intended, but everyone on this forum has a "dog" in the fight, for many different reasons.

I remember 30 years ago when a series of "secret meetings" was held over fish and wildlife issues with the tribes. Nobody knew about any of it until the ink was dry.

Not a good way to go.

I don't really care about the bureaucratic bs on whether you call the meeting an "executive session"...the bottom line is this group, which has absolutely no power or authority, might just work better together if they have an opportunity to get to know each other on a personal level.  Ultimately, wolf management decisions will be made at open Commission meetings which any individual can attend - regardless of affiliation.  The notion that nothing can be gained by meeting with folks of opposing view points is naive and childish.  The Sierra Club and HSUS are not ISIS and Al Qaeda.   

 What's naive Idaho is the belief that common ground can be gained with these groups.

 Can you come up with any meaningful compromise the left would accept with regards to wolves?

[idahohuntr]

I've never suggested there needs to be any compromise.  Only that there is no downside to including these groups and letting them hear from reasoned, intelligent, and diplomatic hunters and biologists.  Not allowing them at the meetings gives them ammo to whine to a sympathetic governor that they were ignored and that gives them even more political leverage on wolf issues in WA than if they are included as one of many voices in a large group with diverse opinions.   

Most of you wanting to exclude them or demanding this introductory meeting be completely open to the public...you are playing checkers when you need to open your eyes to the game of chess which is being played.

[huntnphool]

I've never suggested there needs to be any compromise.  Only that there is no downside to including these groups and letting them hear from reasoned, intelligent, and diplomatic hunters and biologists.  Not allowing them at the meetings gives them ammo to whine to a sympathetic governor that they were ignored and that gives them even more political leverage on wolf issues in WA than if they are included as one of many voices in a large group with diverse opinions.   

Most of you wanting to exclude them or demanding this introductory meeting be completely open to the public...you are playing checkers when you need to open your eyes to the game of chess which is being played.

 Fair enough, I'll rephrase the question then. Can you give me a example of meaningful common ground and solutions that the left would consider regarding wolves?

[Dave Workman]

I've never suggested there needs to be any compromise.  Only that there is no downside to including these groups and letting them hear from reasoned, intelligent, and diplomatic hunters and biologists.  Not allowing them at the meetings gives them ammo to whine to a sympathetic governor that they were ignored and that gives them even more political leverage on wolf issues in WA than if they are included as one of many voices in a large group with diverse opinions.   

Most of you wanting to exclude them or demanding this introductory meeting be completely open to the public...you are playing checkers when you need to open your eyes to the game of chess which is being played.

Whoa, time out!
Who suggested that these people should be excluded?  I didn't, and to suggest otherwise is pure B.S.
They will listen to the reasoned, intelligent, and diplomatic hunters and biologists. They will then shake hands, go back to their peeps and call all of those intelligent, reasoned people a bunch of backwards animal killers and idiots.

You want to sit down with them, fine. Just don't expect any meeting of the minds. Diplomacy goes only so far. Right about where you feel a knife in your back.

Call me names if you want, but years of experience has come with one lesson above all. You cannot trust anybody whose ultimate goal is to erase your way of life. That goes for hunting, exercising the Second Amendment, burning wood in a stove for heat, pick a subject.

This isn't a game of checkers or chess. This is serious business with potential consequences. Comparing it to a board game is what gets people in all kinds of trouble.

[grundy53]

  The Sierra Club and HSUS are not ISIS and Al Qaeda.   

To the hunting community they are.

[idahohuntr]

I've never suggested there needs to be any compromise.  Only that there is no downside to including these groups and letting them hear from reasoned, intelligent, and diplomatic hunters and biologists.  Not allowing them at the meetings gives them ammo to whine to a sympathetic governor that they were ignored and that gives them even more political leverage on wolf issues in WA than if they are included as one of many voices in a large group with diverse opinions.   

Most of you wanting to exclude them or demanding this introductory meeting be completely open to the public...you are playing checkers when you need to open your eyes to the game of chess which is being played.

Whoa, time out!
Who suggested that these people should be excluded?  I didn't, and to suggest otherwise is pure B.S.
They will listen to the reasoned, intelligent, and diplomatic hunters and biologists. They will then shake hands, go back to their peeps and call all of those intelligent, reasoned people a bunch of backwards animal killers and idiots.

You want to sit down with them, fine. Just don't expect any meeting of the minds. Diplomacy goes only so far. Right about where you feel a knife in your back.

Call me names if you want, but years of experience has come with one lesson above all. You cannot trust anybody whose ultimate goal is to erase your way of life. That goes for hunting, exercising the Second Amendment, burning wood in a stove for heat, pick a subject.

This isn't a game of checkers or chess. This is serious business with potential consequences. Comparing it to a board game is what gets people in all kinds of trouble.

Go back and read through this thread, many folks are suggesting these groups be completely excluded.  I believe this would be a huge strategic error.  As far as trust and diplomacy...again, we have nothing to lose by meeting with these groups...even if they continue to object to any lethal control.  There is only upside potential...even if its very improbable.

[idahohuntr]

  The Sierra Club and HSUS are not ISIS and Al Qaeda.   

To the hunting community they are.

No, they are not.  Having an opposing environmental management philosophy is not akin to terrorism and murder of innocent people.  Get real.

[grundy53]

  The Sierra Club and HSUS are not ISIS and Al Qaeda.   

To the hunting community they are.

No, they are not.  Having an opposing environmental management philosophy is not akin to terrorism and murder of innocent people.  Get real.

They want to end our way of life because they don't agree with us.

[pianoman9701]

What exactly is the role of HSUS and the SC on a WDFW advisory committee of any kind? The HSUS is the Hezbollah of animal rights groups. They deceive donors into thinking they support local shelters while they use taxpayer money to sue the state governments over animal rights law. They have no ability whatsoever for flexibility in their thinking towards hunting. Their stated goal is to end hunting. It is completely inappropriate for them to have a seat on any committee that has the ability to influence hunting regulations. Anyone who supports their position on a WDFW committee has no place in this forum.