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

[Special T]

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?
yes

Can we get unanimous consent from the group that wolves are here to stay and nobody wants them hunted to extinction or near extinction?
Depends on the Definiton of " near extinction" is. There are currently PLENTY of wolves around both in Canada, AK and the lower 48.

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.
Since hunters in other states have done this and had very little effect I think they should be classified as a Varmint

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?
Yes if Management= hunting

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.

Very Aggressive "Management" (Shooting with a rifle like Varmints) will likely have a small effect on the numbers. MOSTLY because there is no real trapping in this state and poison has been outlawed for quite some time...

[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....

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?These pro wolf groups were against lethal removal of the problem wolves in the NE corner, even after the state proved they were preying on livestock, so NO!!

Can we get unanimous consent from the group that wolves are here to stay and nobody wants them hunted to extinction or near extinction? Ridiculous question, both sides already understand that.

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.NO!! precedent has already been set in other states, pro wolf advocates will never agree to allowing wolves to be hunted, yes they have been hunted, but never agreed to by pro wolfers.

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?NO!! once again the precedent has been set in several other states, words and actions by pro wolf groups are completely different, they have never agreed to lethal control and followed any attempt at it with litigation.

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. Could go on and on? You have not come up with a single piece of "common ground" or option that the pro wolf people will be flexible with. The only way to "manage" predators is by lethal means, and groups like HSUS have never and never will agree to it. So please Idaho, enlighten us all how this is in hunters best interest!

[grundy53]

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.

Do you actually believe you'll get those animal rights groups to go along with any of that?

[jasnt]

It will be road block after road block.

[wolfbait]

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?These pro wolf groups were against lethal removal of the problem wolves in the NE corner, even after the state proved they were preying on livestock, so NO!!

Can we get unanimous consent from the group that wolves are here to stay and nobody wants them hunted to extinction or near extinction? Ridiculous question, both sides already understand that.

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.NO!! precedent has already been set in other states, pro wolf advocates will never agree to allowing wolves to be hunted, yes they have been hunted, but never agreed to by pro wolfers.

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?NO!! once again the precedent has been set in several other states, words and actions by pro wolf groups are completely different, they have never agreed to lethal control and followed any attempt at it with litigation.

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. Could go on and on? You have not come up with a single piece of "common ground" or option that the pro wolf people will be flexible with. The only way to "manage" predators is by lethal means, and groups like HSUS have never and never will agree to it. So please Idaho, enlighten us all how this is in hunters best interest!

 

Refusing to confirm wolf packs/breeding pairs has/is also lessoning chances for any kind of serious wolf management before undue damage is done to WA's game herds.

[jasnt]

[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?These pro wolf groups were against lethal removal of the problem wolves in the NE corner, even after the state proved they were preying on livestock, so NO!!

Can we get unanimous consent from the group that wolves are here to stay and nobody wants them hunted to extinction or near extinction? Ridiculous question, both sides already understand that.

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.NO!! precedent has already been set in other states, pro wolf advocates will never agree to allowing wolves to be hunted, yes they have been hunted, but never agreed to by pro wolfers.

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?NO!! once again the precedent has been set in several other states, words and actions by pro wolf groups are completely different, they have never agreed to lethal control and followed any attempt at it with litigation.

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. Could go on and on? You have not come up with a single piece of "common ground" or option that the pro wolf people will be flexible with. The only way to "manage" predators is by lethal means, and groups like HSUS have never and never will agree to it. So please Idaho, enlighten us all how this is in hunters best interest!

I've already stated...this isn't the only way to communicate wolf management desires so not having these groups involved actually gives them more power.  I don't know if we can find any common ground, but it's worth trying as we have nothing to lose.  Reports from WAG members seem positive so far.

[pianoman9701]

I'm sure the reports back to HSUS, DOW, and the SC were positive, as well. "The meeting was great. We're going to have lots of inside information about the future of wolves in WA and I'll know the minute we need to alert the Earthfirst lawyers.  Then, we can use that federal statute that allows us to use federal taxpayer money to sue those same taxpayers, like we've been doing in every other state anytime they want to kill wolves for any reason. It's like having one of their lawyers on our team without the conflict of interest! Hey Jim, do you think any of the other states can be lulled into thinking that putting us on the Wolf advisory committee is a good idea?"

[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....

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?These pro wolf groups were against lethal removal of the problem wolves in the NE corner, even after the state proved they were preying on livestock, so NO!!

Can we get unanimous consent from the group that wolves are here to stay and nobody wants them hunted to extinction or near extinction? Ridiculous question, both sides already understand that.

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.NO!! precedent has already been set in other states, pro wolf advocates will never agree to allowing wolves to be hunted, yes they have been hunted, but never agreed to by pro wolfers.

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?NO!! once again the precedent has been set in several other states, words and actions by pro wolf groups are completely different, they have never agreed to lethal control and followed any attempt at it with litigation.

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. Could go on and on? You have not come up with a single piece of "common ground" or option that the pro wolf people will be flexible with. The only way to "manage" predators is by lethal means, and groups like HSUS have never and never will agree to it. So please Idaho, enlighten us all how this is in hunters best interest!

I've already stated...this isn't the only way to communicate wolf management desires so not having these groups involved actually gives them more power. I don't know if we can find any common ground

 Thank you, then please stop repeating this "feel good" common ground propaganda, nobody here is buying it except the other pro wolfers.

 On another note, how can NOT buying into this BS "give them more power"? Wasn't it stated that this group would NOT have any decision making abilities regarding wolf management?

 I'm STILL waiting for you or muledeer to tell us who is representing the hunters in this group, and who magically appointed them, and by what authority?

[Curly]

When it comes time for wdfw to make wolf management decisions, I can hear Dave Ware saying: "There was broad public support for this decision" (whatever decision they end up making).  He will consider what is discussed in the WAG as "broad public support" just like he did with the GMAC in implementing the current special permit application system he pushed through. 

[ribka]

"Intelligent hunters" and "common ground" - passive aggressive Orwellian speak directed  at us on here insinuating that we're idiots because we don't want hunting seasons shut down. Aren't you guys embracing CGducksand Deer and ID huntr's  "fundamental transformation" of new and improved game management in the US?

These self important  self proclaimed ego driven intellectual superiors  will keep embracing this even when hunting seasons close down in WA due to wolves like it did in ID and MT.

A big loss for sportsmen in the US.

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.

[grundy53]

"Intelligent hunters" and "common ground" - passive aggressive Orwellian speak directed  at us on here insinuating that we're idiots because we don't want hunting seasons shut down. Aren't you guys embracing CGducksand Deer and ID huntr's  "fundamental transformation" of new and improved game management in the US?

These self important  self proclaimed ego driven intellectual superiors  will keep embracing this even when hunting seasons close down in WA due to wolves like it did in ID and MT.

A big loss for sportsmen in the US.

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.

Definitely feels this way...

[idahohuntr]

"Intelligent hunters" and "common ground" - passive aggressive Orwellian speak directed  at us on here insinuating that we're idiots because we don't want hunting seasons shut down. Aren't you guys embracing CGducksand Deer and ID huntr's  "fundamental transformation" of new and improved game management in the US?

These self important  self proclaimed ego driven intellectual superiors  will keep embracing this even when hunting seasons close down in WA due to wolves like it did in ID and MT.

A big loss for sportsmen in the US.

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.

  Yes, by highlighting the value in having intelligent, diplomatic hunters represent the hunting community to non-hunters I am really just trying to secretly insult you in some sort of vague, indirect way as I seek opportunities to end hunting in Wa.  Let's find the dumbest most abrasive hunter out there to represent us...that will definitely make it so the anti's don't succeed in shutting hunting seasons down won't it?   

[ribka]

Of course i expected such a condescending response from someone who thinks that thinking diplomatic intellectual deep thinking sportsmen should align  themselves with anti- hunting anti-gun groups like PETA and HSUS to limit or even shutdown our hunting seasons or use non lethal means to control expanding wolf populations in order to maintain and manage deer elk and moose seasons in Washington.

bookmark this discussion and check back in 10 years fellow sportsmen

makes perfect sense to me. Your true colors are really beginning to show
 

"Intelligent hunters" and "common ground" - passive aggressive Orwellian speak directed  at us on here insinuating that we're idiots because we don't want hunting seasons shut down. Aren't you guys embracing CGducksand Deer and ID huntr's  "fundamental transformation" of new and improved game management in the US?

These self important  self proclaimed ego driven intellectual superiors  will keep embracing this even when hunting seasons close down in WA due to wolves like it did in ID and MT.

A big loss for sportsmen in the US.

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.

  Yes, by highlighting the value in having intelligent, diplomatic hunters represent the hunting community to non-hunters I am really just trying to secretly insult you in some sort of vague, indirect way as I seek opportunities to end hunting in Wa.  Let's find the dumbest most abrasive hunter out there to represent us...that will definitely make it so the anti's don't succeed in shutting hunting seasons down won't it? 

[idahohuntr]

None of what you said even comes close to accurately portraying anything I have articulated on this subject.  You seem offended for some reason that I am pleased we have good folks representing hunters to groups of non-hunters.  I don't get it and I don't care...I love hunting way too much to want anything but our best representatives on display for a group that is getting a lot of media attention.  You apparently find that insulting...again I don't care.  Why you continue to try and spin it as me saying I'm superior and want to align with anti-hunters is ridiculous.