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

[bobcat]

It's just a meeting. This is getting blown out of proportion. Let those people do their job in peace. It's not that big of a deal. 

[pianoman9701]

Apparently, we have no choice.

[bobcat]

Funny, if it was open to the public I bet nobody would show up. But since it's not open to the public people have got politicians calling and giving them a hard time about it. 

[pianoman9701]

Funny, if it was open to the public I bet nobody would show up. But since it's not open to the public people have got politicians calling and giving them a hard time about it. 

Your comment is not only unfair, but untrue. Especially in the Spokane area, a great many would show up. We on the wetside have the luxury of not attending wolf meetings and it having little effect on our lives. The luxury doesn't exist for the people of the NE. Between ranchers and concerned hunters, I believe a great many would attend.

[CAMPMEAT]

Our open wolf meetings in the NE are standing room only.

[timberfaller]

More waffling. I just called the WDFW for meeting details and was told the Thursday meeting at the Spokane Airport Ramada was closed to the public except the media. I told them Sen. Benton's office had been told the beginning would be open and would he check with wildlife. He did so and came back and said it was completely closed. Interesting developments by the moment. I'm going to be out of touch for a while but will either be back on tonight or in the AM. The full meeting will be available by video on the WDFW website.

Wow!!  EXACTLY the "type" of thing the Feds pulled at the Winthrop air port years ago over the listing of the Salmon!!

I guess the "local boys" are following suit!  Airport for the big wigs to fly into, call the meeting Open but when a County Commissioner shows up, it becomes "closed"(private) "agenda" already discussed and PASSED with out input form any LOCAL elected officials!!

Keep drinking the kool-aid and wearing the tin foil if you think for one minute its just a "get together" kum by ya meeting to bounce IDEAS off of one another!

[mfswallace]

I hope they do their handshakes and have time to meet and learn about each other without you and your buddies heckling and protesting wolves.  I know you dont believe this, but the point of the meeting is not to guide policy or make decisions.  Its to meet the other board members in a non confrontational setting.... You are the one making it confrontational, just so we are all clear.

[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.

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.

 Yeah yeah yeah, you keep saying that, but when continually asked to give examples like "nothing to lose", "upside", "opportunity", "common ground" and "solutions" you conveniently ignore the question or look for ways to confuse the obvious intent of the question.

 Let's hear it Idaho, what meaningful "good" can come out of discussions with these people? Will they EVER agree with lethal control?

 The only compromise that's EVER been accepted are those given from the anti wolf side, and I have zero faith in CNW, HSUS or any pro wolf group giving a inch, you do so let's hear where you think compromise on their side is possible.

HP -Go read the first post of mine that you quote here.  I very clearly articulate why it is to our advantage, even if they don't compromise on lethal control, to have these groups represented at this meeting. 

Anyways, this meeting of volunteers is definitely being blown out of proportion.  This group has absolutely no control or authority over wolf management decisions.

[denali]

 

[AspenBud]

Funny, if it was open to the public I bet nobody would show up. But since it's not open to the public people have got politicians calling and giving them a hard time about it. 

All of the meetings to date have been held in Olympus, central WA, and Spokane. That makes for a long drive for anyone not within an hour of that. People with jobs and families aren't going to come unless it's close.

[AspenBud]

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.

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.

 Yeah yeah yeah, you keep saying that, but when continually asked to give examples like "nothing to lose", "upside", "opportunity", "common ground" and "solutions" you conveniently ignore the question or look for ways to confuse the obvious intent of the question.

 Let's hear it Idaho, what meaningful "good" can come out of discussions with these people? Will they EVER agree with lethal control?

 The only compromise that's EVER been accepted are those given from the anti wolf side, and I have zero faith in CNW, HSUS or any pro wolf group giving a inch, you do so let's hear where you think compromise on their side is possible.

HP -Go read the first post of mine that you quote here.  I very clearly articulate why it is to our advantage, even if they don't compromise on lethal control, to have these groups represented at this meeting. 

Anyways, this meeting of volunteers is definitely being blown out of proportion.  This group has absolutely no control or authority over wolf management decisions.

Authority? No. Influence? Yes.

Again, I care less about it being about wolves and more that HSUS has their meat hooks into WDFW that deep.

[pianoman9701]

  That's a real concern.

[MuleDeer]

More waffling. I just called the WDFW for meeting details and was told the Thursday meeting at the Spokane Airport Ramada was closed to the public except the media. I told them Sen. Benton's office had been told the beginning would be open and would he check with wildlife. He did so and came back and said it was completely closed. Interesting developments by the moment. I'm going to be out of touch for a while but will either be back on tonight or in the AM. The full meeting will be available by video on the WDFW website.

Lots of comments that are similar, so I just picked this one at random to quote.  The "Open Public Meeting Act", first of all, does NOT apply to Advisory Groups.  It is absolutely legal for them to have it closed.  As far as it closing once a county commissioner wanted to be there, well, he is already ON the WAG, so he'll be there anyway.
As for Dave Workman's article, Dave, you wrote outside of your knowledge base on that one, stirring the pot even more on the issue.  With as volatile as this issue is, we should all try to do a better job of verifying facts before stating them as truth.  It's irresponsible to do otherwise.  I know that would put a damper on the comments a lot of you like to write here, but what you're all saying, is basically, "preaching to the choir". 
A couple facts:
*Wolves are here, probably for as long as any of us will be.
     The best thing we can do is try to make a difference in how they are eventually managed.
*HSUS, Defenders of Wildlife, and SC are on the WAG.
     None of us here agree with that, but that's the way it is.  So build a case for them NOT to be on the WAG by the next appointment period.  Constantly stating the same distaste for their appointment does nothing.
*The meeting is closed at the request of the WAG members, not WDFW.
       It is the first time many of the members will meet, and as proven by the comments here, it would be a great distraction to have the public there for this volatile issue in the first meeting.
*The field trip this week isn't at the request of the cattlemen and ranchers.
     This trip was requested by the antis, to better understand the trials, losses, and hardships that are being caused in NE WA.  It may, in fact, help ALL user groups to better understand the need for controlling the wolves, both with non-lethal AND lethal means.
Below is a quote regarding why the meeting is closed, and the thinking behind it.  Again, the meeting was closed at the request of the members, not WDFW or Francine Madden.
     "WAG members are not going to discuss the merits of or give advice on substantive issues at this first WAG. The most pressing concerns about WAG by most people center around a need to improve relationships (trust, team capacity, humanizing and respecting individuals and their group affiliation, etc) and process (how discussions and decisions on advice/decisions are arrived at and communicated so they are supported and sustained). In short, most people felt that the group could more effectively tackle the "what" (substantive issues) at a future meeting, if significant improvements were made to the "who" (relationships) and the "how" (process) beforehand. 

All sides have expressed a deep desire to move beyond an "us versus them" mentality that disrupts everyone's ability to work together toward acceptable, sustainable solutions. In assessing needs for this 'orientation' WAG, most people I've talked to so far felt that the group would build trust and a sense of team more effectively it they weren't on stage with an audience. They similarly expressed an appreciation for open, transparent processes as substantive decisions are addressed. As such, this first WAG meeting is an effort to 'go slow to go fast' and focus on the relationship and process piece, and then address substantive issues at future WAG meetings.

Why do we need to build a sense of team and focus on relationship-building as a first step? Because people don't make important decisions with people they don't know or trust. People don't demonstrate flexibility and accommodation to others if they don't trust them or feel empathy toward them, and if they don't understand their perspectives and reality. Members of the WAG come from very different realities of what this conflict means to them and for them -- people need to understand that reality so they can support one another and work effectively together. This is also the reason for the field trip, so that all WAG members can understand the reality of what it means to be a livestock producer in the NE today. I want to ensure that the field trip feels safe, productive and positive for those involved. This field trip is one component of a longer process to ensure that every side is understood by the other, that we can find shared values and common ground, and we can build on all of this to work together more effectively. This WAG meeting will also ensure that WAG members with varying levels of experience, history and knowledge have a shared understanding of basic, relevant information so they can be more productive when it comes to discussing substantive issues in the future.

Given the pressing needs for forward progress on substantive issues, it may feel, to some, counter-intuitive to focus on the relationships and process pieces first. In our experience, we will ultimately move faster on the substantive issues if we take the time in this first meeting to create an atmosphere of mutual respect and appreciation for each person's reality. The alternative is often a rush to failure.

Please know that while this interim step - to give folks a chance to get to know, respect and humanize one another - may seem like an effort to constrict involvement from the public, it is a short term step toward a goal of more effective, expanded involvement among those impacted by this conflict, improved transparency and fairness, and ultimately peace for those in your community and other communities/stakeholder groups who are impacted by this conflict.

As you know, my involvement in this issue around wolves will go beyond WAG. And it needs to. WAG is one forum designed to engage stakeholders at a state-wide scale, but that scale does not address the fact that this is currently an acute local issue, particularly in the NE, and that the interests in this issue are also national, and that some stakeholders are impacted immediately while others anticipate impacts down the road. As such, even if this meeting were open, it would likely not meet the needs for your community's (or any community/group) involvement, nor should it. My goal is to increase overall productive involvement, not limit it. As such, I hope to work with the different stakeholder groups to support their efforts to work together to seek strategies and solutions that meet their needs, allow for needed progress, and are widely accepted and supported. As for the WAG, my hope is the group will design a process going forward that begins to more formally include constituent groups by bringing feedback directly to them, garnering their input in more depth than in the past, and ensuring that as the WAG moves forward with advice, that advice is informed and supported by the stakeholders they represent."
Call it "kumbaya", love guru team building, whatever you want.  But from the first session of the WAG, things didn't work, and that's another fact.  Will this cure it?  We won't know until it's tried.  But it's an effort to make a difference, which is something that, sadly, too few of us as hunters and conservationists bother to do.  I realize most of us here have jobs and families; but don't let that get in the way of your convictions.  Make time to get to a meeting, apply for an advisory group, spear-head an effort to improve a situation, instead of diverting all of that effort into a public forum where everyone already agrees with you.  Get out and speak to the ones who don't know which way to lean yet; that's the only way the tide is going to turn over the long run.

[jasnt]

Speaking our mind here does not go unseen. Wdfw reads these threads. It is not pointless or preaching to the choir. Many others read them as well!  I think it's more important to let our ideas and beliefs be known.
This group may not have any authority to make or change rules but they can influence those rules or changes. Other wise it's pointless to have them at all!

[pianoman9701]

Muledeer, thanks for the thoughtful observations and respectful tone. That is missing in many posts.

I get that the meet and greet is necessary for the group to begin working together. I'm unsure that the public shouldn't be involved, but that's a moot point now. As far as the legality of whether an advisory group can be closed to the public, the jury's still out on that.

I, like a good many others see the reports from WDFW saying management could begin within 6 years, and then in the next week, find that more members of anti-hunting and pro-wolf organizations have been added to the program. I've said it once and I'll say it more: these people with whom they're bedding are the same ones who will report back to their organizations when the advisory group recommends the start of management, and they'll start the injunctions and the roadblocks to successful management with plenty of advance notice from the inside. It almost seems like the WDFW wishes to create a situation that will prevent management of wolves in WA, because that could certainly be the result. I agree with you about building arguments now to try and thwart their participation in the future, but that would be successful only if the department actually anticipates management. It sure appears from the outside as if they don't and are doing what they can to build up resistance to it from within.

For these reasons, I think it's important for the public to be allowed to attend these meetings so that we can see in a timely manner what's being recommended and  decided about the fate of out state, cattle industry, and wildlife with regards to the wolves. I am fully aware the wolves are here to stay. Anyone who isn't is delusional. What I'm not fully aware of is the extent to which they will be allowed to grow unchecked. You know as well as I that many members of the advisory group and, in fact, the Commission, will fight to block any management regardless of the effect on our citizens and other wildlife. This should not be allowed to happen behind closed doors with videos available for the public after an undisclosed period of time after the event when so much will be decided in the meantime. That the pro-wolf press will be the only watchdog at these gatherings is of zero comfort to me and many others.