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

[MuleDeer]

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.

d

Dave, what I was referring to in my comment about your article was your successful attempt at finding a headline that would grab people's attention without even knowing why the meeting was proposed to be closed, and who asked for it to be that way.  I did post why, just too late for you to use the information in your article, whether you would choose to or not.  I know it's not as sexy as accusing the WAG of turning to secret management, though.
As for your other points, I agree completely with you.  As for who I am and what I stand for, query my posts and/or username and you'll find out.  When I first joined this forum, my motives were, of course, questioned by some here, trying to find my "hidden agenda".  I don't have one, and I'm more than happy to talk to you anytime about what we are doing across this state, and show you the numbers, paperwork, etc to back it up.  If you ever want to talk, drop me a line.
Dan McKinley
509-995-0819
dan@muledeer.org

[Dave Workman]

Dave, what I was referring to in my comment about your article was your successful attempt at finding a headline that would grab people's attention without even knowing why the meeting was proposed to be closed, and who asked for it to be that way.  I did post why, just too late for you to use the information in your article, whether you would choose to or not.  I know it's not as sexy as accusing the WAG of turning to secret management, though.
As for your other points, I agree completely with you.  As for who I am and what I stand for, query my posts and/or username and you'll find out.  When I first joined this forum, my motives were, of course, questioned by some here, trying to find my "hidden agenda".  I don't have one, and I'm more than happy to talk to you anytime about what we are doing across this state, and show you the numbers, paperwork, etc to back it up.  If you ever want to talk, drop me a line.
Dan McKinley
509-995-0819
dan@muledeer.org

Well, Dan I knew why the meeting was proposed to be closed when I wrote the piece. I also knew who asked. That was spelled out in the piece.
I didn't accuse anybody of anything. The headline was a question, not a statement.

Wolf management is a divisive issue. It doesn't need to be made more divisive with meetings held behind closed doors, even ostensibly to allow people to speak frankly and exchange ideas, make new friends or whatever.

[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.

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

Thanks very much! 

[ribka]

Anyone who is naive enough to think that there is any negotiating with anti hunting anti gun anti human fanatics like HSUS is a lost cause.

These are show comittees that will be used later by the WDFW  to later publically state that all groups were represented and were heard from when they start closing down hunting areas and introduce  more wolves and declare public hunting areas as "protected wolf preserves"  and shut down all access. When hunters start to complain they will be marginalized and labeled as irrational and anti wildlife.  one only has to look at Michigan, Wisconsin Minnesota to see how these anti hunting groups work

They have a no surrender policy and negotiating with them is a losing proposition  for any sportsmen's groups.

AS a member of the Maryland Bowhunters I have dealt with HSUS and PETA in the 1990s in Maryland.

Both groups protested the opening day of archery season and would follow Bowhunters out into the woods and harass them. The would often slash tires, break windows on cars and trucks in hunting area parking areas when hunters would be in the woods.


Good luck dealing with these loonies

It doesn't matter guys. This is a livestock oriented group. They'll try to find a way to placate the ranchers and get them off their back. If they take the economics out of it it becomes a fight over who is right, not if it's right to cause someone economic harm. If they can get the cattlemen out of the picture it becomes a lot easier for them to have their way with a disorganized group like hunters in WA.

But what should bother everyone most is that HSUS and the Sierra Club have such a foothold in such matters. That shows you just how much influence they have in all areas of wildlife management here. Wolves are but one small item in their meddling. These are out of state groups with out of state money that are no friends to hunting, or fishing for that matter (yes, HSUS would like to attack that as well), and they are being allowed to LOBBY wildlife management decisions...and they are in close.

[wolfbait]

Anyone who is naive enough to think that there is any negotiating with anti hunting anti gun anti human fanatics like HSUS is a lost cause.

These are show comittees that will be used later by the WDFW  to later publically state that all groups were represented and were heard from when they start closing down hunting areas and introduce  more wolves and declare public hunting areas as "protected wolf preserves"  and shut down all access. WheHUD oryx en will complain they will be marginalized and labeled as irrational and anti wildlife.  one only has to look at Michigan, Wisconsin Minnesota to see how these anti hunting groups work

They have a no surrender policy and negotiating with them is a losing proposition  for any sportsmen's groups.

AS a member of the Maryland Bowhunters I have dealt with HSUS and PETA in the 1990s in Maryland.

Both groups protested the opening day of archery season and would follow Bowhunters out into the woods and harass them. The would often slash tires, break windows on cars and trucks in hunting area parking areas when hunters would be in the woods.


Good luck dealing with these loonies

It doesn't matter guys. This is a livestock oriented group. They'll try to find a way to placate the ranchers and get them off their back. If they take the economics out of it it becomes a fight over who is right, not if it's right to cause someone economic harm. If they can get the cattlemen out of the picture it becomes a lot easier for them to have their way with a disorganized group like hunters in WA.

But what should bother everyone most is that HSUS and the Sierra Club have such a foothold in such matters. That shows you just how much influence they have in all areas of wildlife management here. Wolves are but one small item in their meddling. These are out of state groups with out of state money that are no friends to hunting, or fishing for that matter (yes, HSUS would like to attack that as well), and they are being allowed to LOBBY wildlife management decisions...and they are in close.

Managing wolves doesn't take more studies or a specialized group of people to figure out the how. The topic for WDFW and the environmental groups is to decide how long they can protect wolves and how much they can accomplish towards their end goal using wolves before the public decides enough is enough.

Look at Idaho and Montana with their hunting and trapping seasons on Wolves, and tell me how Washington's wolves are different and need special management?


Yellowstone is Dead 

[ribka]

There is no greater blood enemy to a bird hunter and his dogs than HSUS other than possibly PETA. Houndsmen feel the same way.

There is no compromise.

Both PETA and HSUS members have been investigated for acts of terrorism

[nwwanderer]

$83,000 for the facilitator, more money down the rabbit hole.  Give them the status of a coyote on private land and spend only prowolf group money on public land for wolf advancement.  The state is almost half public, that should be enough.

[jasnt]

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.

i completely agree. But can we trust wdfw to do what's right after that is accomplished....idk

[denali]

Consultant Francine Madden worked to help Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's wolf advisory group overcome deep-rooted conflict between different groups during a Spokane meeting.

AIRWAY HEIGHTS, Wash. — The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s wolf advisory group needs to build trust to work on wolf issues together, its director said May 21 during a meeting closed to the public.

Department director Jim Unsworth told the advisory group it will take time to see how wolves affect different aspects of the Washington landscape compared to previous wolf introductions in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.

“I predict, with lots of confidence, wolves will not have the dire impacts some people predict, nor will they have the benign influence others predict,” he said during the group’s meeting in Airway Heights, Wash.

Unsworth said it’s appropriate to start thinking about a plan now for when wolves are taken off the endangered species list, as he expects the wolf population to begin to rapidly increase.

The advisory group met in the morning, allowing only members of the media to attend. It met in private during the afternoon and planned to take a private field trip to talk with ranchers on May 22. According to the advisory group’s guidelines, all meetings are open to the public unless a majority of the 18-member group votes to change the guideline.

Unsworth declined to comment on closing the meeting, saying it was consultant Francine Madden, co-founder and executive director of the Human-Wildlife Conflict Collaboration, who asked that the meeting be closed to the public.

Madden will work with the group for the first few meetings, he said. He hopes to see a funding mechanism from the state Legislature to keep her on board, Unsworth told reporters outside the meeting.

Madden said the feeling of advisory group members during her assessment was that the group was not productive and had no relationship building or trust.

“You’re not going to get one side to respect the needs of the other side if they don’t respect each other as individuals and you’re not going to build trust if you don’t have respect,” she said.

Many in the group are new to the process, she said. The advisory group recently grew from nine members to 18.

“We want to use every opportunity to learn what is going to work in this system and how do we engage in a way where people can start to build trust in a broader community and build engagement,” she said.

Madden said her goal is to expand involvement and not constrict it. The closed meeting was a “one-off,” she said.

“The goal of the closed meeting was to build some trust so we can get everybody to trust each other enough so we can start to expand that involvement,” she said. “To compensate for the closed meeting, we said we would audiotape the whole thing so people would know there’s no hidden agenda, there are no secrets here.”

An audio recording of the entire meeting will be available on the department website, Madden and department public affairs and outreach manager Bruce Botka said.

“As a department, we try to do our business openly and transparently as possible,” Botka said. “Making the information available is one way we can people engaged at a level of detail some of them want to pursue.”

Brendon Wold, deputy communications director of the Washington House of Representatives House Republican Caucus, was told he would not be allowed to attend the meeting as a member of the public. Wold said he represents Eastern Washington legislators and their constituents.

“This would be the first time I’ve ever been asked to leave a state agency meeting, advisory meeting, some sort of council, where the media is able to be,” Wold said. “It is a little bit concerning. I have representatives who are very involved in this issue and the outcome, so they would like somebody here to take notes and listen.”

Stevens County commissioner Don Dashiell is an advisory group member, but remained outside the meeting, only entering during breaks to interact with new and returning members. As an elected official, he said, state law doesn’t allow him to attend a meeting that excludes the public.

The advisory group doesn’t set policy, but will be “incredibly powerful and influential” if they can speak with one voice, Unsworth told members.

The majority of advisory group members supported closing the meeting to focus relationship building, Madden said.

“All of them said, ‘We want a transparent and open process when we’re talking about the substance,’” she said. “Certainly, there is an urgency to address this issue and people are frustrated with lack of progress. So this is a ‘go slow to go fast’ approach, so we’re not rushing to failure.”

Madden said the “conflict transformation” approach works when conflict is very complex, particularly when people’s identity or way of life is threatened, and the perception is that another group is the threat. It’s hard for people to step out of that conflict to get to the long-term goal, she said.

“Every one of you is going to have to ask yourselves if you are willing to take a risk to move into a direction of peace, rather than staying with what is familiar and really comfortable, even if it’s not getting you where you want to go,” she told members.

Madden said that the physical and economic element to the wolf conflict right now is most felt by livestock producers in northeastern Washington. Environmentalists place high value on ecosystems, wildlife and humane treatment of animals, she said.

“There is common ground here — livestock producers are conservationists, they take care of the land,” she said. “(All sides) care about those resources for their current way of life, but also for their children and their children’s children. We need to build on that, but we have to do it by respecting others and including that diversity. Each side needs the other side’s support if we’re going to have a diverse state that is a vibrant society.”

Media were allowed into the first half of the meeting, which was closed to the public. During the first half, activities included an introduction and question-and-answer session for members with Unsworth; an ice breaker in which advisory group members went around the room and had to remember each other’s names and a fruit, vegetable or flower that corresponded with the first letter of their first name and a review of the department’s wolf management program.

The second half of the meeting, closed to the media and public, included brainstorming ideas and perceptions behind concerns associated with wolf recovery, said Jack Field, executive vice president of the Washington Cattlemen’s Association, and a member of the advisory group.

“We talked about some of the basic things: what does respect mean, respect one another in terms of discussion and that everybody feels comfortable in speaking and sharing their thoughts and opinions,” Field said. “I think this is more of, we have a brand-new facilitator and a new process. My perception is that they want to make sure we start from an even playing field and everybody feels comfortable going forward.”

Advisory group member Bob Aegerter represents the Washington chapter of the Sierra Club.

“It has been difficult for individuals to speak things in public that we hope will improve a group dynamic that can lead to a resolution of a very difficult problem,” he said. “It involves some very deeply held values by the conflicting groups.”

Aegerter said he was beginning to see some difference in group members’ body language that perhaps the group would be more welcoming.

“I think this process, which is not going to be easy and is going to have to be ongoing, is going to be successful,” he said.

Dan Paul, Washington director for the Humane Society of the United States, said the afternoon session was “encouraging and enlightening.” The advisory group explored the potential views of all the different opinions its members represent, he said. Communication had improved, he said.

“The trust was there (before), but there was a lot of falling into similar patterns of offense versus defense,” he said. “One of the messages Francine had for us was to start envisioning a future that doesn’t exist yet: It’s going to be looking different than what we had before. I don’t think it was a trust issue, it was just a fear of showing your hand. Now we realize it’s not really about holding your cards or not holding your cards.”

“I really do think the media can be a really positive agent for change,” Madden said.

[mfswallace]

Muledeer and anyone else in the group care to share your notes and thoughts??? Are hunters interest represented ??

"Department director Jim Unsworth told the advisory group it will take time to see how wolves affect different aspects of the Washington landscape compared to previous wolf introductions in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming."

What a load of 💩     

A wolf is a wolf I a MF wolf 

[timberfaller]

Well after reading denali's post all I can say is,

I've always wondered how "Gobbles" pulled the wool over all those Germans way back when!!

Nothing new under the sun, they say!!

"He hopes to see a funding mechanism from the state Legislature to keep her on board,"

ding ding goes the trolly is another ole saying!!

[Curly]

Shouldn't this stuff been hashed out already during the creation of the current state wolf management plan? Am I  reading right that there is no plan on what management is to happen once delisting occurs? Seems like that all should have been determined prior to approving a wolf management plan. Now they want more funding for the advisory group? Screw that. Quit trying to reinvent the wheel.

[CAMPMEAT]

Unsworth is a wolf lover. Go to Idaho for Wildlife on Facebook and read your hearts out about how much he is disliked there...

[idahohuntr]

“I predict, with lots of confidence, wolves will not have the dire impacts some people predict, nor will they have the benign influence others predict,” he (Unsworth) said during the group’s meeting in Airway Heights, Wash.

Dang it Jim, there you go using logic and reason on wolf management again!   

[bobcat]

Unsworth is a wolf lover. Go to Idaho for Wildlife on Facebook and read your hearts out about how much he is disliked there...

From what I know about him I believe that couldn't be further from the truth. He's a hunter and probably, like most of us, does not want an unreasonable number of wolves, impacting our deer and elk herds. But you've got to be realistic as well. Wolves are here, they're a native species, on the endangered list, and they're not going away.