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

[pianoman9701]

Capitol Press AG Website article.

http://www.capitalpress.com/20150521/wolf-advisory-group-seeks-common-ground

[ribka]

Muledeer-  Again I cannot believe anyone would believe the false PR.

A simple google search indicates that HSUS is currently and actively involved in shutting down all forms of wolf management. So much for the HSUS has had no " no hunting stance for over 20 years"

If you cannot mange wolves by lethal means how does one manage wolves? Relocate them to other areas where they can spread? Hunters have been put spoken for 20 years against wolves and they have always been demonized and marginalized and in some cases threatened with death  by the anti-hunting organizations. 


http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2014/12/fed-court-wolf-hunt-season-over-121914.html

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....

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.
[/quote]

[grundy53]

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?

they're playing chess and we are playing checkers. I don't trust them any further than I can throw them.

[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?

they're playing chess and we are playing checkers. I don't trust them any further than I can throw them.

They're vegans. You could probably toss one quite a few feet! I trust them less.

[ribka]

From CNW website

"For the most part, wolf recovery is proceeding very well here in the state. We’ve gone from our first pack in 2008 to having likely between 8 and 12 today. All but one of those packs has been largely trouble free."

"Conservation Northwest spoke out in August against the state wildlife agency deciding to kill wolves in northeast Washington’s Wedge Pack."


Sounds like conservation NW is no friend to hunters. If wolf numbers explode in Washington, like they have in WI, MI, MN MT ID WY - will CNW support trapping and poisoning as a method to control their population?

What is CNW's stand on wolf packs impact on deer, moose and elk populations  in NW MT, N ID?

Would CNW support closing down hunting seasons when deer and elk and moose numbers diminish after the introduction of wolves in Washington? Or would they support lethal means ( trapping, helicopter, plane shooting,  poisoning) to reduce the wolf populations  in order to maintain viable game populations for sportsmen? 

Inquiring minds want to know

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....

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.
[/quote]

[mfswallace]

Its Sad that it will come to reducing hunter opportunities as well as access before any control activities are implemented.

[huntnphool]

From CNW website

"For the most part, wolf recovery is proceeding very well here in the state. We’ve gone from our first pack in 2008 to having likely between 8 and 12 today. All but one of those packs has been largely trouble free."

"Conservation Northwest spoke out in August against the state wildlife agency deciding to kill wolves in northeast Washington’s Wedge Pack."


Sounds like conservation NW is no friend to hunters. If wolf numbers explode in Washington, like they have in WI, MI, MN MT ID WY - will CNW support trapping and poisoning as a method to control their population?

What is CNW's stand on wolf packs impact on deer, moose and elk populations  in NW MT, N ID?

Would CNW support closing down hunting seasons when deer and elk and moose numbers diminish after the introduction of wolves in Washington? Or would they support lethal means ( trapping, helicopter, plane shooting,  poisoning) to reduce the wolf populations  in order to maintain viable game populations for sportsmen? 

Inquiring minds want to know

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]


 Relax Ribka, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, move yourself along.....there is nothing to see here.

 I'm still waiting for the answers to my questions too 

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

   but am very much interested in answers for these as well! 

Would CNW support closing down hunting seasons when deer and elk and moose numbers diminish after the introduction of wolves in Washington? Or would they support lethal means ( trapping, helicopter, plane shooting,  poisoning) to reduce the wolf populations  in order to maintain viable game populations for sportsmen? 

[CAMPMEAT]

Another wolf seen south of Danville by a friend of mine on Sunday.............

[ribka]

WDFW must think that hunters in this state are naive and clueless

From CNW website

"For the most part, wolf recovery is proceeding very well here in the state. We’ve gone from our first pack in 2008 to having likely between 8 and 12 today. All but one of those packs has been largely trouble free."

"Conservation Northwest spoke out in August against the state wildlife agency deciding to kill wolves in northeast Washington’s Wedge Pack."


Sounds like conservation NW is no friend to hunters. If wolf numbers explode in Washington, like they have in WI, MI, MN MT ID WY - will CNW support trapping and poisoning as a method to control their population?

What is CNW's stand on wolf packs impact on deer, moose and elk populations  in NW MT, N ID?

Would CNW support closing down hunting seasons when deer and elk and moose numbers diminish after the introduction of wolves in Washington? Or would they support lethal means ( trapping, helicopter, plane shooting,  poisoning) to reduce the wolf populations  in order to maintain viable game populations for sportsmen? 

Inquiring minds want to know

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....

 Relax Ribka, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, move yourself along.....there is nothing to see here.

 I'm still waiting for the answers to my questions too 

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

   but am very much interested in answers for these as well! 

Would CNW support closing down hunting seasons when deer and elk and moose numbers diminish after the introduction of wolves in Washington? Or would they support lethal means ( trapping, helicopter, plane shooting,  poisoning) to reduce the wolf populations  in order to maintain viable game populations for sportsmen? 

[/quote]

[idahohuntr]

MuleDeer and CGDucksandDeer 

Based on your responses I think we have at least 2 great folks on this WAG.  We need intelligent, diplomatic hunters to represent us on these controversial matters and you guys seem to be a perfect fit.  The more you can do to present hunters in a positive light, the better.  There will always be disagreement...but there just might be more common ground than folks here realize.  Time will tell  And yes, Unsworth is a very avid hunter...those who suggest otherwise are either ignorant or lying, possibly both. 

[mfswallace]

MuleDeer and CGDucksandDeer 

Based on your responses I think we have at least 2 great folks on this WAG.  We need intelligent, diplomatic hunters to represent us on these controversial matters and you guys seem to be a perfect fit.  The more you can do to present hunters in a positive light, the better.  There will always be disagreement...but there just might be more common ground than folks here realize.  Time will tell  And yes, Unsworth is a very avid hunter...those who suggest otherwise are either ignorant or lying, possibly both.

 

[jasnt]

Sad thing is that even if we were giving unlimited hunting of wolves in Washington we will never be able to stop the spread or growth of wolves in wa. With the wolf plan we have I believe it will allow actual wolf population (not minimum count) to get too large for our ungulate population to handle.  NE wa has the lowest elk numbers and highest wolf numbers. Unregulated wolves are making it worse. Even if we started today with a coyote like season on wolves in NE corner. We as hunters(can't even include the trappers on this one cause they won't be able to do much with current laws ;( ) will not be able to steady numbers or stop growth, best we could hope for would be a slitely slower growth rate.

This is where I ment to post this so I reposted

[Special T]

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.
Unfortunately it does not matter if the people themselves dont have disdain for our hunting heritage. The groups they represent do. I am less concernted with words than actions. History has shown us the true colors of the 4 organisations you referenced. What they have said in the past does NOT match thier actions. The actions show that they are not operating in good faith.

 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.
Sportsmen disagree greatly on what the definition of "Management" is with these groups. Management= documentation and Lethal measures to sportsmen. Things like Fladdery, rangeriders, etc = Management to the Orgs you spoke of

 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.
I have to agree with you there. I look forward to there being several large packs in the Snoqualmie NorthBend Area. There is a HUGE societal disconnect between what wolves actually are, what they mean and what city dwellers think they are.The sooner the great Puget Sound Area gets a taste the better.
  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....

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.
[/quote]

Unfortunately my personal feelings (in addition to many other sportsmen) have very little bearing on the outcome on this issue. As long as DOCUMENTATION is not the first and foremost priority, the strategies of the Anti hunting crowd succeed. DELAY is a tactic. It has been used in ALL the other states with wolves to great effect. CNW, DofW, Sierra Club, and HSUS are not sportsmens friends. 

[huntnphool]

There will always be disagreement...but there just might be more common ground than folks here realize.

 You have done a pretty consistent job of saying this but have yet to give examples of possible common ground.

 Still waiting....

[idahohuntr]

There will always be disagreement...but there just might be more common ground than folks here realize.

 You have done a pretty consistent job of saying this but have yet to give examples of possible common ground.

 Still waiting....

Can we get unanimous consent that a pack of wolves which makes a habit of preying on livestock/pets and/or poses a significant human safety threat should be lethally removed?

Can we get unanimous consent from the group that wolves are here to stay and nobody wants them hunted to extinction or near extinction?

Can we get unanimous consent to classify wolves as a game animal? This is where those intelligent, diplomatic hunters should be selling the centuries of conservation work by hunters...there is no better way to conserve/restore/ensure a species existence than to make it a prized game animal...hunters will pour millions into ensuring their success.

Can we get agreement that areas where wolves are definitively causing declines in other species of native wildlife that some management/lethal control actions are taken?

The list could go on and on, bottom line - Everybody probably recognizes that no management, no control, is no more an option than trapping and poisoning every last wolf in the state.  We need to start at the most extreme edges and work inwards.  It is in our best interest for getting more reasonable management implemented to have as many of these user groups supporting the action/management plan as possible.  I will also say (again), this is as much an opportunity for WDFW to educate all of these groups as it is for them to provide perspectives on wolf management to WDFW.