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

[grundy53]

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!

[Curly]

I just hope that the WAG will consider recommending that the flawed state wolf plan be revised.  It's ridiculous that the feds have delisted the eastern third of the state but because of the state plan, the wolves are allowed to overpopulate in the NE.

[idahohuntr]

*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.

Many excellent points MuleDeer...except the one above.  If this WAG were the only forum or process to communicate desires for wolf management...I could see wanting to try and have those groups all removed.  The fact is, these are very powerful groups and they will not be limited in their ability to convey their messages to WDFW commissioners, Governor, legislators etc. who have wolf management and policy authority.  To not include them, or to seek their removal, empowers them.  It just seems flawed to me to not include groups like this when you are trying to resolve wolf management conflicts which are driven by them.  Do folks really think we can just get a bunch of like-minded hunters and cattle ranchers in a room, get agreement we need to shoot wolves and then its done?  I also still believe as much as this group may provide input to WDFW...it is also a tool for WDFW to provide accurate and reliable information to all stakeholders on wolf management in WA so even if folks disagree on future actions, they at least have a common understanding of the situation and issues related to wolf management in the state.  Bottom line, my belief these groups need to be included is not because I support their positions; rather I see little value to this WAG or resolving wolf management conflicts if the opposing view is not represented.

[pianoman9701]

I just hope that the WAG will consider recommending that the flawed state wolf plan be revised.  It's ridiculous that the feds have delisted the eastern third of the state but because of the state plan, the wolves are allowed to overpopulate in the NE.

That would be nice but is now less likely than ever because of the group's make-up. Not only will the group be unable to come to a consensus which corrects the gaping flaws in the original outrageous plan, many will push for management only on an emergency, as-needed basis. They will certainly fight all attempts now or in the future to list wolves as game animals.

[Curly]

Yeah, I'm not sure how any headway could be gained with the likes of HSUS at the table.

[wolfbait]

How long have these groups been involved with the wolf issue? Does anyone on this forum think WA's wolves are any different then the wolves in ID, MT, and Wyoming? How many people think the wolves that WA has will behave differently then the wolves of the illegal wolf introduction? Does WA need new studies for their special wolves?

My guess-the "closed" wolf meeting isn't about getting to know each other, as each group already knows one anothers interests, this meeting will be about the next step of protecting wolves and where do they go from here.

Each state that gets wolves would like to pretend their wolves are special, they sell it to the public that special wolf plans are needed, new wolf studies etc..

Washington's wolves will do the same damage that Idaho's wolves did, we will have the same problems, the only difference is WA has never had the number of ungulates that Idaho had before wolf introduction. Washington's hunting etc. won't be able to withstand the impact of wolves near as long as Idaho. And the fake wolf numbers that WDFW throw out to the public will be proven false sooner.

So what's the next step in the wolf agenda for Washington?

[Special T]

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.

 

To pull a couple of points form Muledeer's post.

"People wont reach agreement with people they dont trust."
This is true and the lack of trust is not from misunderstanding but from previous actions taken, or not, from specific groups.

"This meeting is a way to overcome the Us Vs Them mentality."
This would be great if some sense of reason can be brought to the discussion learning from other states experiences. There may be forces that can reasoned with, however if the HSUS and DoW can be brought into agreement then the person responsible would have performed a miracle.

[Dave Workman]

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. 

Are you saying that nobody's discussing this? That nobody's concerned or upset? That there wasn't an interesting image posted on line of what appears to be a wolf? That the appearance of a wolf west of the mountains hasn't gotten quite a bit of attention, and that it hasn't opened a new area of discussion?

That's what I wrote about, along with Mount St. Helens and the 35th anniversary observance.

What was erroneous?

You seem to be suggesting that any viewpoint different than the status quo is "stirring the pot" and may be counter-productive, that it?

I don't know who you are, but I signed this with my name, and I've been writing off and on about the wolf controversy here and in other states for quite a while, so... what am I missing?

 The issue does affect a lot of people, one way or another, and the public has a right to know any detail that may contribute to a management decision as important and with the ramifications that this might have; how the decision was reached, who agreed and/or disagreed and why.

You call it "stirring the pot." That's what journalists do occasionally.

Would you rather that conflicting viewpoints not be heard? A careful read of this entire thread shows a difference of opinions, and I didn't start that. I just wrote about it.

[Dave Workman]

Whoa, time out!
Who suggested that these people should be excluded?  I didn't, and to suggest otherwise is pure B.S.

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.

Well, it wasn't me. 
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with sitting down and listening other viewpoints. I do that occasionally with gun control proponents. Just remember the track record and you will never be disappointed when you anticipate disappointment.
I think "wolf bait" posting a few messages back had some interesting observations.

[huntnphool]

*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.

Many excellent points MuleDeer...except the one above.  If this WAG were the only forum or process to communicate desires for wolf management...I could see wanting to try and have those groups all removed.  The fact is, these are very powerful groups and they will not be limited in their ability to convey their messages to WDFW commissioners, Governor, legislators etc. who have wolf management and policy authority.  To not include them, or to seek their removal, empowers them.  It just seems flawed to me to not include groups like this when you are trying to resolve wolf management conflicts which are driven by them.

    Could not be stated any better than this right here!!!

 Spot on Idaho!

[AspenBud]

If you really want to undercut HSUS, the SC, and others you have to eliminate their ability to submit wildlife management decisions via ballot proposals/initiatives. Part of the reason they are allowed in groups like this is because they can undercut the state at the ballot box.

[MuleDeer]

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!

I completely agree, otherwise, I wouldn't have applied for the WAG.  As for the comments here being seen, I also agree they are seen by many others; think about how we as hunters would like to be portrayed, and we should all phrase our comments in that responsible, sensible way.  Otherwise we get labeled as the "extremists" and "conspiracy theorists".  We do need to provide our unified voice, in a way that will appeal to the thousands of those who haven't decided yet which way they will think...those first impressions can win or lose support instantly, that's all I was saying about how things are written.  Thanks for the comment.

[MuleDeer]

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.

I agree with your concerns, and that's why I said that I will post a synopsis of what happens at this first meeting tomorrow.  I'll try to get it on here over the weekend, unless there is something that is totally out of line that needs immediate attention.  Thanks

[MuleDeer]

I just hope that the WAG will consider recommending that the flawed state wolf plan be revised.  It's ridiculous that the feds have delisted the eastern third of the state but because of the state plan, the wolves are allowed to overpopulate in the NE.

Curly, that is something that is already on the agenda for future meetings of the WAG.  I have personally spoken with many of the local and regional directors in WDFW about that point, and they agree it needs to be adapted to what, for some reason, was unforeseen when the original plan was written.  How did they not envision what has happened? That's what most of us ask, I'm sure!

[MuleDeer]

*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.

Many excellent points MuleDeer...except the one above.  If this WAG were the only forum or process to communicate desires for wolf management...I could see wanting to try and have those groups all removed.  The fact is, these are very powerful groups and they will not be limited in their ability to convey their messages to WDFW commissioners, Governor, legislators etc. who have wolf management and policy authority.  To not include them, or to seek their removal, empowers them.  It just seems flawed to me to not include groups like this when you are trying to resolve wolf management conflicts which are driven by them.  Do folks really think we can just get a bunch of like-minded hunters and cattle ranchers in a room, get agreement we need to shoot wolves and then its done?  I also still believe as much as this group may provide input to WDFW...it is also a tool for WDFW to provide accurate and reliable information to all stakeholders on wolf management in WA so even if folks disagree on future actions, they at least have a common understanding of the situation and issues related to wolf management in the state.  Bottom line, my belief these groups need to be included is not because I support their positions; rather I see little value to this WAG or resolving wolf management conflicts if the opposing view is not represented.

Thanks for the comments and support.  I do understand and agree with your point, but there is a solution: prove HSUS for what they really are, and they will lose any credibility to have influence on any mgmt. issues for wildlife.  If there was a concerted effort to expose them for what they are. like FOX news did today with the cancer charities, we would be rid of HSUS, and they would be facing charges like those charities exposed today.  At that point, their position would be removed, and there would be no advantage to them.  Guess that's asking for that miracle, but if we don't believe change can actually happen, what's the point, right?