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

[mfswallace]

“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!   

What logic and reason? He said nothing if you actually read it he says, it won't be bad and it won't be good 
Why predict when all any intelligent person has to do is look at history.

  Idhuntr-what percentage of elk are left in Yellowstone after wolf introduction? Don't give me habitat and winter bs because while I'll give u that as making up a fraction of loss it can't compare to the decimation from wolves. 

Keep trolling and using your indoctrinated biological science you recently received. I find it funny that you constantly dispute wolf topics by calling out anyone who doesn't believe wdfw or pro-wolf biologist like yourself but turn around and do the same thing when other biologists show the negative impacts of wolves on a grand scale

[mfswallace]

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.

Not by true definition as they usurped the true native wolves that were already around when feds overstepped and introduced Canadian grays...

http://nwoutback.blogspot.com/2011/07/non-native-canadian-gray-wolves-vs.html

[MuleDeer]

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 

Yes, hunter's interests are represented well in the group.  I spoke with every member there, and spent extra time talking to the members from CNW, DofW, Sierra Club, and HSUS.  3 of these members grew up in and understand our hunting heritage, and are not opposed to hunting personally or as a representative of their group.  The other member has never been exposed to hunting, but is not against hunting at all.  We are currently working on a time to hit the woods, so he can see what we do and why we do it.  I was very pleased to find that there is not one "anti hunter" in this group.  Of all groups represented, only one has ever had an anti-hunting agenda published, and it was HSUS.  But that statement was made over 20 years ago, and not all members, including their rep on the WAG, are anti hunting.  I spent time personally with all of these members, and I have no doubt this group can have one voice, and it will be for management of wolves.  Everyone there agrees that mgmt. needs to happen; it is when and how we will get there that we need to get changed now.  As for the folks who say we won't ever get anything done because of "one bad apple", I brought that up at the meeting.  I suggested that there be a way to remove a person from the WAG if their aim there is to be a barrier to any progress.  The resulting solution was for us to always seek a "majority consensus".  That means, if there is one or two people (or groups) holding up progress on a vote or issue, their input can be discarded, based on what the majority desires.  With that in mind, we as hunters have a ton of support in this group, and I feel confident that we actually will have many unanimous decisions, and they won't be "pro-wolf" ones.  Rather, they will be in the interest of managing the wolves as well as we are allowed by state law, until those laws change allowing for more mgmt. practices, including lethal means.
I would suggest that all of you interested look up the audio of the meeting.  I believe they are also putting together notes of the whole meeting.  Before you decide your judgment, I would encourage you to hear it straight from the meeting instead of conjecture and rumors from authors of articles.  As for Director Unsworth, I spoke with him, too, and all he wanted to do was talk about hunting, especially mule deer.  He does share concern about managing wolves, as was evident by his statements at our meeting.  I look forward to sharing some time with him talking about the concerns of hunters in WA.  Feel free to bend my ear about those, as long as they are respectful, sincere ideas to share.  We will have his ear; we must take advantage of that.
I am from a "science based" mgmt. philosophy, as many hunters are.  He and others no longer have the luxury of thinking that way.  What I mean by that is the social impacts are going to be the biggest challenge of wolves in WA.  Are they "special"?  Absolutely not, wolfbait; they are the same wolves as in ID, WY, and MT.  The difference isn't our wolves, it's our population and demographics.  Do we need to manage wolves with lethal measures?  Absolutely, but not in all cases, as some want.  Fact is, the population sector that has had the most impact on mgmt. issues in the past 10-15 years hasn't been hunters, and that's the sad truth.  If we had been as organized and outspoken in positive ways than other "user groups", we may have seen things move faster.  But the fact is, we don't speak as one voice...just look at the baiting issue for deer and elk.  On the chopping block because of hunters, not any anti hunting groups.
It's time we unite and speak with a unified voice if we want to make a difference....

[huntnphool]

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 

Yes, hunter's interests are represented well in the group.  I spoke with every member there, and spent extra time talking to the members from CNW, DofW, Sierra Club, and HSUS.  3 of these members grew up in and understand our hunting heritage, and are not opposed to hunting personally or as a representative of their group.  The other member has never been exposed to hunting, but is not against hunting at all.  We are currently working on a time to hit the woods, so he can see what we do and why we do it.  I was very pleased to find that there is not one "anti hunter" in this group.  Of all groups represented, only one has ever had an anti-hunting agenda published, and it was HSUS.  But that statement was made over 20 years ago, and not all members, including their rep on the WAG, are anti hunting.  I spent time personally with all of these members, and I have no doubt this group can have one voice, and it will be for management of wolves.  Everyone there agrees that mgmt. needs to happen; it is when and how we will get there that we need to get changed now.  As for the folks who say we won't ever get anything done because of "one bad apple", I brought that up at the meeting.  I suggested that there be a way to remove a person from the WAG if their aim there is to be a barrier to any progress.  The resulting solution was for us to always seek a "majority consensus".  That means, if there is one or two people (or groups) holding up progress on a vote or issue, their input can be discarded, based on what the majority desires.  With that in mind, we as hunters have a ton of support in this group, and I feel confident that we actually will have many unanimous decisions, and they won't be "pro-wolf" ones.  Rather, they will be in the interest of managing the wolves as well as we are allowed by state law, until those laws change allowing for more mgmt. practices, including lethal means.
I would suggest that all of you interested look up the audio of the meeting.  I believe they are also putting together notes of the whole meeting.  Before you decide your judgment, I would encourage you to hear it straight from the meeting instead of conjecture and rumors from authors of articles.  As for Director Unsworth, I spoke with him, too, and all he wanted to do was talk about hunting, especially mule deer.  He does share concern about managing wolves, as was evident by his statements at our meeting.  I look forward to sharing some time with him talking about the concerns of hunters in WA.  Feel free to bend my ear about those, as long as they are respectful, sincere ideas to share.  We will have his ear; we must take advantage of that.
I am from a "science based" mgmt. philosophy, as many hunters are.  He and others no longer have the luxury of thinking that way.  What I mean by that is the social impacts are going to be the biggest challenge of wolves in WA.  Are they "special"?  Absolutely not, wolfbait; they are the same wolves as in ID, WY, and MT.  The difference isn't our wolves, it's our population and demographics.  Do we need to manage wolves with lethal measures?  Absolutely, but not in all cases, as some want.  Fact is, the population sector that has had the most impact on mgmt. issues in the past 10-15 years hasn't been hunters, and that's the sad truth.  If we had been as organized and outspoken in positive ways than other "user groups", we may have seen things move faster.  But the fact is, we don't speak as one voice...just look at the baiting issue for deer and elk.  On the chopping block because of hunters, not any anti hunting groups.
It's time we unite and speak with a unified voice if we want to make a difference....

 I am interested to know specifically who are speaking for hunters and who appointed them to speak for us?

[pianoman9701]

"Of all groups represented, only one has ever had an anti-hunting agenda published, and it was HSUS." The HSUS, DOW, and Sierra Club have all been involved in lawsuits to stop wolf hunting in the states which had opened it up. They may not be anti-hunting (at least two of these are, though), but they're certainly anti-wolf/game management. I appreciate your perspectives and observations, Muledeer. But, DOW and HSUS are anti-hunting organizations. Go read their websites. It's plain.

[wolfbait]

"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."

Yep, Washington's wolves are special. If you are pro-wolf then Unsworth is the right choice to to lead the wolf recovery program?  Shouldn't be too hard to get everyone on the same page with a spoon fed media. Bet there won't be too much mentioned about what happened with the Lolo elk herd or the ungulates in the Yellowstone, after all that's all history and WA's wolves are a whole new experiment.


How many more bogus wolf studies will there be for Washington's special wolves?

Existence of Many Wolves Ignored

Bangs also explained that it was too difficult to locate individual wolves or small groups of wolves that were not packs and emphasized that the existence of these wolves was not important to recovery. Once the transplanted wolves began pairing and successfully raising young, the Nez Perce and FWS recovery teams declined to investigate sightings of individual wolves or groups of wolves unless they involved livestock killing.

But even then, if the livestock was moved to a different location and/or the wolf predation stopped, any investigation abruptly ceased. In some parts of Idaho where wolf populations are excessive, including the county we live in, local citizens report frustration over the Wolf Teams’ refusal to investigate reports of apparent pack activity unless there is evidence of at least two pups.

The excuse used by the FWS/NezPerce Team for its failure to investigate such activity is that it is too expensive but it also is not interested in recording wolves unless they meet the confirmed wolf criteria agreed upon by Bangs, Ted Koch and Steve Fritts in 1994. The exception is the need to radio-collar one or more wolves to facilitate removal of one or more members of a pack that continues to kill livestock.

http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf


"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."

What Unsworth is really trying to say, is the wolves are getting hard to lie about, and they will have to confirm a few obvious packs, course breeding pair confirmation will have to be scheduled so that delisting does not occur for another six years.

Washington could end up with hundreds of wolves and only 15 BP's, imagine that.



“Ignore All But Known Breeding Pairs and Packs”

In his 1984 letter to Lobdell, Bangs listed the “key recovery issues that will be consistently presented to the public.” Issue number 6 stated, “Only breeding pairs of wolves that have successfully raised young are important to the recovery of viable wolf populations.

“At this time there is no such thing as a truly ‘confirmed’ wolf’ until it has been determined to have successfully raised young in the wild or has been captured, examined, and monitored with radio telemetry. (F)rom this day forward we (will) use the strictest definition of confirmed wolf activity (i.e. individual wolves or members of packs that have been examined, radiocollared and monitored in the wild).

“We should be comfortable with this definition in all phases of wolf recovery such as when discussing the criteria for use of an experimental rule or for delisting the species because the population viability criteria have been reached.” (emphasis added)

http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf

 Every wolf sighting in the Okanogan is part of the lookout pack, even when two different packs are seen on the same day in two different locations 20 miles apart.


Muledeer, your little write up sure does sound good, I kind of think you might have spread it on a little too thick. You say the people representing the environmental groups have nothing against hunting, and that may be true but their groups do, we have seen that with lawsuit after lawsuit in other states. You  would like us to believe that not only the wolves changed when they were hauled across state lines into WA but the environmental groups have taken on a whole new outlook for WA's wolves also?.

So far WDFW have followed the same wolf introduction plans as the USFWS and IDFG, and now Unsworth and the pro-hunting environmentalists are going to turn honest, confirm known wolf packs/BP's, control livestock killing wolves, monitor the impact the wolves are having on WA ungulates?  That's a little hard to swallow, maybe it's WA's air, it changes wolves and environmentalist.

Everyone just needs to get on the same page and trust the wolf loving environmental groups and WDFW?

 

[wolfbait]

“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!   

What logic and reason? He said nothing if you actually read it he says, it won't be bad and it won't be good 
Why predict when all any intelligent person has to do is look at history.

  Idhuntr-what percentage of elk are left in Yellowstone after wolf introduction? Don't give me habitat and winter bs because while I'll give u that as making up a fraction of loss it can't compare to the decimation from wolves. 

Keep trolling and using your indoctrinated biological science you recently received. I find it funny that you constantly dispute wolf topics by calling out anyone who doesn't believe wdfw or pro-wolf biologist like yourself but turn around and do the same thing when other biologists show the negative impacts of wolves on a grand scale

"Why predict when all any intelligent person has to do is look at history."

The USFWS and State game agencies had looked at the wolf history in the beginning but they have an agenda, if they would have been honest, wolves would never have been introduced.

Every state that gets wolves has to have there own "new" wolf plan. It's like a brand new wolf experiment that promotes the wolves and people as different with special needs.

Brain-washed agencies, brain-washing the public. 

The environmental groups are pro-hunting they just want to manage WA wolves so everyone is happy.


 

[CAMPMEAT]

A friend of mine lives in Kemmerer Wyoming and she told me wolves killed 85 domestic sheep in one night near her house. Wolves are very good for the animals we raise..

[ribka]

I wonder
It's a game of politics not wildlife management dealing with these groups


Having dealt with members of PETA and HSUS I can tell you from dozens of encounters with these antihunting loons tha the overwhelming majority of members want hunting abolished and I don't care what their representative said. I have met many anti-hunting members of the Sierra Club too. I used to be a member years ago until they shifted away from hunting as a way to manage and protect our resources.

Their representative at the meetings can say whatever to placate hunting groups but both organizations PETA and HSUS are anti hunting. Cannot see why the go along to get along strategy for hunters will work. And I base this  on what is happening with wolf management in WI, MI and MN. They'll agree to a management plan then file lawsuits to stop any management and in the meantime the wolf numbers will increase to a point where they will be unmanageable  without trapping and poisoning. Those management  methods will never be allowed in WA and HSUS and PETA and Sierra know this. This isn't a checkers  game.

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 

Yes, hunter's interests are represented well in the group.  I spoke with every member there, and spent extra time talking to the members from CNW, DofW, Sierra Club, and HSUS.  3 of these members grew up in and understand our hunting heritage, and are not opposed to hunting personally or as a representative of their group.  The other member has never been exposed to hunting, but is not against hunting at all.  We are currently working on a time to hit the woods, so he can see what we do and why we do it.  I was very pleased to find that there is not one "anti hunter" in this group.  Of all groups represented, only one has ever had an anti-hunting agenda published, and it was HSUS.  But that statement was made over 20 years ago, and not all members, including their rep on the WAG, are anti hunting.  I spent time personally with all of these members, and I have no doubt this group can have one voice, and it will be for management of wolves.  Everyone there agrees that mgmt. needs to happen; it is when and how we will get there that we need to get changed now.  As for the folks who say we won't ever get anything done because of "one bad apple", I brought that up at the meeting.  I suggested that there be a way to remove a person from the WAG if their aim there is to be a barrier to any progress.  The resulting solution was for us to always seek a "majority consensus".  That means, if there is one or two people (or groups) holding up progress on a vote or issue, their input can be discarded, based on what the majority desires.  With that in mind, we as hunters have a ton of support in this group, and I feel confident that we actually will have many unanimous decisions, and they won't be "pro-wolf" ones.  Rather, they will be in the interest of managing the wolves as well as we are allowed by state law, until those laws change allowing for more mgmt. practices, including lethal means.
I would suggest that all of you interested look up the audio of the meeting.  I believe they are also putting together notes of the whole meeting.  Before you decide your judgment, I would encourage you to hear it straight from the meeting instead of conjecture and rumors from authors of articles.  As for Director Unsworth, I spoke with him, too, and all he wanted to do was talk about hunting, especially mule deer.  He does share concern about managing wolves, as was evident by his statements at our meeting.  I look forward to sharing some time with him talking about the concerns of hunters in WA.  Feel free to bend my ear about those, as long as they are respectful, sincere ideas to share.  We will have his ear; we must take advantage of that.
I am from a "science based" mgmt. philosophy, as many hunters are.  He and others no longer have the luxury of thinking that way.  What I mean by that is the social impacts are going to be the biggest challenge of wolves in WA.  Are they "special"?  Absolutely not, wolfbait; they are the same wolves as in ID, WY, and MT.  The difference isn't our wolves, it's our population and demographics.  Do we need to manage wolves with lethal measures?  Absolutely, but not in all cases, as some want.  Fact is, the population sector that has had the most impact on mgmt. issues in the past 10-15 years hasn't been hunters, and that's the sad truth.  If we had been as organized and outspoken in positive ways than other "user groups", we may have seen things move faster.  But the fact is, we don't speak as one voice...just look at the baiting issue for deer and elk.  On the chopping block because of hunters, not any anti hunting groups.
It's time we unite and speak with a unified voice if we want to make a difference....

 I am interested to know specifically who are speaking for hunters and who appointed them to speak for us?

[pianoman9701]

"Hunting
The HSUS seeks to build a humane society that will move toward protecting and celebrating wildlife, and will develop humane solutions to wildlife conflicts through innovation. The HSUS actively works to eliminate the most inhumane and unfair sport hunting practices, such as the use of body-gripping traps and snares; bear baiting; the hound hunting of bears, bobcats, mountain lions and wolves; contest killing events; and captive-hunting on fenced properties. We oppose live pigeon shoots and other forms of staged hunting where the animals are bred or stocked simply to be shot as living targets. We also oppose the trophy hunting of rare or endangered populations and the use of lead ammunition, since less toxic alternatives are workable and available in the marketplace."

http://www.humanesociety.org/about/policy_statements/statement_wild_animals.html?credit=web_id86435304#Hunting

We're giving them a seat at the table, giving them advance information to get ready to sue our state as soon as we move toward management. This is a plain as can be.

And this from DOW website:
"Earthjustice represents Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, The Humane Society of the United States, Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, Friends of the Clearwater, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Oregon Wild, Cascadia Wildlands, Western Watersheds Project, Wildlands Network, and Hells Canyon Preservation Council."

http://www.defenders.org/press-release/conservation-groups-challenge-wolf-hunting

[grundy53]

I wonder

Having dealt with members of PETA and HSUS I can tell you from dozens of encounters with these antihunting loons that most of the overwhelming majority of members want hunting abolished and I don't care what their representative said. I have met many anti-hunting members of the Sierra Club too. I used to be a member years ago until they shifted away from hunting as a way to manage and protect our resources.

Their representative at the meetings can say whatever to placate hunting groups but both organizations PETA and HSUS are anti hunting. Cannot see why the go along to get along strategy for hunters will work. And I base this  on what is happening with wolf management in WI, MI and MN. They'll agree to a management plan then file lawsuits to stop any management and in the meantime the wolf numbers will increase to a point where they will be unmanageable  without trapping and poisoning. Those management  methods will never be allowed in WA and HSUS and PETA and Sierra know this. This isn't a checkers  game.

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 

Yes, hunter's interests are represented well in the group.  I spoke with every member there, and spent extra time talking to the members from CNW, DofW, Sierra Club, and HSUS.  3 of these members grew up in and understand our hunting heritage, and are not opposed to hunting personally or as a representative of their group.  The other member has never been exposed to hunting, but is not against hunting at all.  We are currently working on a time to hit the woods, so he can see what we do and why we do it.  I was very pleased to find that there is not one "anti hunter" in this group.  Of all groups represented, only one has ever had an anti-hunting agenda published, and it was HSUS.  But that statement was made over 20 years ago, and not all members, including their rep on the WAG, are anti hunting.  I spent time personally with all of these members, and I have no doubt this group can have one voice, and it will be for management of wolves.  Everyone there agrees that mgmt. needs to happen; it is when and how we will get there that we need to get changed now.  As for the folks who say we won't ever get anything done because of "one bad apple", I brought that up at the meeting.  I suggested that there be a way to remove a person from the WAG if their aim there is to be a barrier to any progress.  The resulting solution was for us to always seek a "majority consensus".  That means, if there is one or two people (or groups) holding up progress on a vote or issue, their input can be discarded, based on what the majority desires.  With that in mind, we as hunters have a ton of support in this group, and I feel confident that we actually will have many unanimous decisions, and they won't be "pro-wolf" ones.  Rather, they will be in the interest of managing the wolves as well as we are allowed by state law, until those laws change allowing for more mgmt. practices, including lethal means.
I would suggest that all of you interested look up the audio of the meeting.  I believe they are also putting together notes of the whole meeting.  Before you decide your judgment, I would encourage you to hear it straight from the meeting instead of conjecture and rumors from authors of articles.  As for Director Unsworth, I spoke with him, too, and all he wanted to do was talk about hunting, especially mule deer.  He does share concern about managing wolves, as was evident by his statements at our meeting.  I look forward to sharing some time with him talking about the concerns of hunters in WA.  Feel free to bend my ear about those, as long as they are respectful, sincere ideas to share.  We will have his ear; we must take advantage of that.
I am from a "science based" mgmt. philosophy, as many hunters are.  He and others no longer have the luxury of thinking that way.  What I mean by that is the social impacts are going to be the biggest challenge of wolves in WA.  Are they "special"?  Absolutely not, wolfbait; they are the same wolves as in ID, WY, and MT.  The difference isn't our wolves, it's our population and demographics.  Do we need to manage wolves with lethal measures?  Absolutely, but not in all cases, as some want.  Fact is, the population sector that has had the most impact on mgmt. issues in the past 10-15 years hasn't been hunters, and that's the sad truth.  If we had been as organized and outspoken in positive ways than other "user groups", we may have seen things move faster.  But the fact is, we don't speak as one voice...just look at the baiting issue for deer and elk.  On the chopping block because of hunters, not any anti hunting groups.
It's time we unite and speak with a unified voice if we want to make a difference....

 I am interested to know specifically who are speaking for hunters and who appointed them to speak for us?

they are playing chess....

[dreamingbig]

The thing that irks me the most is that the pro wolf crowd won't put there money where there mouth is and support overall conservation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CGDucksandDeer]

Yes, hunter's interests are represented well in the group.  I spoke with every member there, and spent extra time talking to the members from CNW, DofW, Sierra Club, and HSUS.  3 of these members grew up in and understand our hunting heritage, and are not opposed to hunting personally or as a representative of their group.  The other member has never been exposed to hunting, but is not against hunting at all.  We are currently working on a time to hit the woods, so he can see what we do and why we do it.  I was very pleased to find that there is not one "anti hunter" in this group.  Of all groups represented, only one has ever had an anti-hunting agenda published, and it was HSUS.  But that statement was made over 20 years ago, and not all members, including their rep on the WAG, are anti hunting.  I spent time personally with all of these members, and I have no doubt this group can have one voice, and it will be for management of wolves.  Everyone there agrees that mgmt. needs to happen; it is when and how we will get there that we need to get changed now.  As for the folks who say we won't ever get anything done because of "one bad apple", I brought that up at the meeting.  I suggested that there be a way to remove a person from the WAG if their aim there is to be a barrier to any progress.  The resulting solution was for us to always seek a "majority consensus".  That means, if there is one or two people (or groups) holding up progress on a vote or issue, their input can be discarded, based on what the majority desires.  With that in mind, we as hunters have a ton of support in this group, and I feel confident that we actually will have many unanimous decisions, and they won't be "pro-wolf" ones.  Rather, they will be in the interest of managing the wolves as well as we are allowed by state law, until those laws change allowing for more mgmt. practices, including lethal means.
I would suggest that all of you interested look up the audio of the meeting.  I believe they are also putting together notes of the whole meeting.  Before you decide your judgment, I would encourage you to hear it straight from the meeting instead of conjecture and rumors from authors of articles.  As for Director Unsworth, I spoke with him, too, and all he wanted to do was talk about hunting, especially mule deer.  He does share concern about managing wolves, as was evident by his statements at our meeting.  I look forward to sharing some time with him talking about the concerns of hunters in WA.  Feel free to bend my ear about those, as long as they are respectful, sincere ideas to share.  We will have his ear; we must take advantage of that.
I am from a "science based" mgmt. philosophy, as many hunters are.  He and others no longer have the luxury of thinking that way.  What I mean by that is the social impacts are going to be the biggest challenge of wolves in WA.  Are they "special"?  Absolutely not, wolfbait; they are the same wolves as in ID, WY, and MT.  The difference isn't our wolves, it's our population and demographics.  Do we need to manage wolves with lethal measures?  Absolutely, but not in all cases, as some want.  Fact is, the population sector that has had the most impact on mgmt. issues in the past 10-15 years hasn't been hunters, and that's the sad truth.  If we had been as organized and outspoken in positive ways than other "user groups", we may have seen things move faster.  But the fact is, we don't speak as one voice...just look at the baiting issue for deer and elk.  On the chopping block because of hunters, not any anti hunting groups.
It's time we unite and speak with a unified voice if we want to make a difference....
[/quote]

Well said MuleDeer. It's good to have you on the WAG.

A little more info on Conservation Northwest (CNW)'s current stance on hunting for those that are interested:

http://www.conservationnw.org/what-we-do/predators-and-prey/

Say what you like about the organizations past efforts or stances regarding wolves, cougars or other issues. But don't lump CNW in with the PETA and HSUS types when it comes to being anti-hunting. And many of those extreme pro-wolfers hate CNW as much as they do hunters because CNW signed off on the Wedge Pack removal and has supported lethal wolf management as a necessary tool for managing problem wolves or packs if other options fail.

[Curly]

HSUS is the group that fights any kind of management of the sea wolves (sealions). They are not on the endangered list and their numbers are so great that they are decimating some fish runs (of which many are endangered). But they fight for the fat furry animals no matter how many are over populating an area.

They also are responsible for helping push through the trapping, bear baiting, and hound bans in 1996. 

One of my main complaints with the group is their name. They use that name to dupe people into thinking they are related to the local humane society animal shelters.

Nothing they stand for is a benefit to sportsmen.

[pianoman9701]

I don't get why people think these organizations will change their spots just because a few of their members are seemingly more moderate towards hunting. They'll be reporting to the organizations and it'll be the organizations which sue our state, regardless of what these individuals say or even believe. I truly think that the WDFW believes that if they include them they'll be more cooperative. They've been sold a bridge. What's the expression about lipstick on a pig?