Breaking wolf news

[pianoman9701]

One rancher's already tried that and it didn't work out well for him. Of course, mailing the bloody pelts to Canada didn't help, either.

[Miles]

One rancher's already tried that and it didn't work out well for him. Of course, mailing the bloody pelts to Canada didn't help, either.

What ever happened with that case?

[pianoman9701]

Not sure but I think large fines and probation. Bearpaw?

[bobcat]

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/federal-judge-adds-home-detention-to-twisp-wolf-poachers-sentence/

[Miles]

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/federal-judge-adds-home-detention-to-twisp-wolf-poachers-sentence/

Thanks! 

[quadrafire]

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/federal-judge-adds-home-detention-to-twisp-wolf-poachers-sentence/

Dang. That's gotta sting

[villageidiot]

One rancher's already tried that and it didn't work out well for him. Of course, mailing the bloody pelts to Canada didn't help, either.

What ever happened with that case?

Hmmm!  Seems like that Lookout Pack the rancher had trouble with has not been doing well since.  The numbers seem to have been dropping instead of increasing.  The habitat does not appear compatable.

[CGDucksandDeer]

Good info Dale. Thanks for posting  that.
Question.... do range riders have authority for lethal intervention?

Yes. As Bearpaw mentioned, under regulations approved by the Commission in 2013, and still in place, ranchers and their employees or agents can shoot up to one wolf "caught-in-the-act" of depredating on or otherwise directly harassing livestock or pets. That one wolf limit is per incident. The WDFW Director can also issue "caught-in-the-act" permits to ranchers and their employees in cases of persistent depredations, such as to aid in an approved lethal wolf removal effort.

The actual emergency rule is buried somewhere on WDFW's site, but this older AP story lays out the details: http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/washington-state-approves-killing-of-wolves-attacking-livestock-pets/article_39fa9934-af33-11e2-938c-001a4bcf887a.html

A cabin owner in southeast Washington utilized this policy last year on a diseased wolf that pursued his dog. An employee of the Smackout-area ranchers also used it in June in response to persistent livestock harassment by the wolves. Both were deemed consistent with state regulations.

Citizens may also use the rule for situations involving wolves caught-in-the-act of attacking pets or personal livestock. And despite what some tinhats may claim, legally we all retain the right to use lethal force in legitimate cases of self defense or reasonable defense of others in our immediate surroundings, including situations involving endangered wildlife species. Such self defense claims related to wolves were made by hunters in the Smackout area and in the Pasayten in recent years, and no prosecution was pursued by agencies or law enforcement.

The family involved in poaching the Lookout Pack was a whole different story, one deemed entirely inconsistent with the caught-in-the-act policy.

[boneaddict]

[wolfbait]

Good info Dale. Thanks for posting  that.
Question.... do range riders have authority for lethal intervention?

Yes. As Bearpaw mentioned, under regulations approved by the Commission in 2013, and still in place, ranchers and their employees or agents can shoot up to one wolf "caught-in-the-act" of depredating on or otherwise directly harassing livestock or pets. That one wolf limit is per incident. The WDFW Director can also issue "caught-in-the-act" permits to ranchers and their employees in cases of persistent depredations, such as to aid in an approved lethal wolf removal effort.

The actual emergency rule is buried somewhere on WDFW's site, but this older AP story lays out the details: http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/washington-state-approves-killing-of-wolves-attacking-livestock-pets/article_39fa9934-af33-11e2-938c-001a4bcf887a.html

A cabin owner in southeast Washington utilized this policy last year on a diseased wolf that pursued his dog. An employee of the Smackout-area ranchers also used it in June in response to persistent livestock harassment by the wolves. Both were deemed consistent with state regulations.

Citizens may also use the rule for situations involving wolves caught-in-the-act of attacking pets or personal livestock. And despite what some tinhats may claim, legally we all retain the right to use lethal force in legitimate cases of self defense or reasonable defense of others in our immediate surroundings, including situations involving endangered wildlife species. Such self defense claims related to wolves were made by hunters in the Smackout area and in the Pasayten in recent years, and no prosecution was pursued by agencies or law enforcement.

The family involved in poaching the Lookout Pack was a whole different story, one deemed entirely inconsistent with the caught-in-the-act policy.

Actually the lookout pack killed one of their yearlings, and WDFW refuse to even acknowledge WA had wolves.

At any rate contacting WDF&Wolves over wolf predation has only proven to produce more dead livestock while WDFW fiddle fart around. First they have to confirm that it was wolf predation, which in many case they have lied claiming they didn't know what it was or it was a coyote etc.. And then after a few more cattle etc. are killed and they are finally forced to react, their first leap is to wait around while several more livestock are killed. Face it WDFW are corrupt, and they are using a fake endangered wolf to further a sick agenda.

So far it hasn't been the environmentalist that have done the most damage to WA through wolves, it has been WDFW.

[boneaddict]

The real criminals in that case was the wdfw itself.   When you are trying to do things by the book but you are getting the runaround because of their agenda.  I'd never judge anyone taking matters into their own hands when they are protecting their own. 

[pianoman9701]

The real criminals in that case was the wdfw itself.   When you are trying to do things by the book but you are getting the runaround because of their agenda.  I'd never judge anyone taking matters into their own hands when they are protecting their own.

I would only fault the family on the handling of the remains. Absolutely protect your own. Don't broadcast it afterwards, though. This was a huge error in judgement.

[ctwiggs1]

The real criminals in that case was the wdfw itself.   When you are trying to do things by the book but you are getting the runaround because of their agenda.  I'd never judge anyone taking matters into their own hands when they are protecting their own.

I would only fault the family on the handling of the remains. Absolutely protect your own. Don't broadcast it afterwards, though. This was a huge error in judgement.

Searches of the White’s computer files turned up photos of at least one other wolf  killed by Tom, but differently colored, and other evidence, including a deer and a moose poached in 2007 by William.

These guys are poachers, through and through.  Getting behind them is just playing the "enemy of my enemy" game   

[pianoman9701]

The real criminals in that case was the wdfw itself.   When you are trying to do things by the book but you are getting the runaround because of their agenda.  I'd never judge anyone taking matters into their own hands when they are protecting their own.

I would only fault the family on the handling of the remains. Absolutely protect your own. Don't broadcast it afterwards, though. This was a huge error in judgement.

Searches of the White’s computer files turned up photos of at least one other wolf  killed by Tom, but differently colored, and other evidence, including a deer and a moose poached in 2007 by William.

These guys are poachers, through and through.  Getting behind them is just playing the "enemy of my enemy" game   

I don't own a cattle ranch nor have I had my livelihood or home life negatively affected by wolves. Although I agree that, by definition, they poached wolves and I personally wouldn't do it, this is not poaching in the same way as someone killing for thrill or profit. I do try to have empathy for people in different positions/situations from mine. I don't feel I have the right to stand in judgement on that family, except for how they ultimately handled it..

[ctwiggs1]

The real criminals in that case was the wdfw itself.   When you are trying to do things by the book but you are getting the runaround because of their agenda.  I'd never judge anyone taking matters into their own hands when they are protecting their own.

I would only fault the family on the handling of the remains. Absolutely protect your own. Don't broadcast it afterwards, though. This was a huge error in judgement.

Searches of the White’s computer files turned up photos of at least one other wolf  killed by Tom, but differently colored, and other evidence, including a deer and a moose poached in 2007 by William.

These guys are poachers, through and through.  Getting behind them is just playing the "enemy of my enemy" game   

I don't own a cattle ranch nor have I had my livelihood or home life negatively affected by wolves. Although I agree that, by definition, they poached wolves and I personally wouldn't do it, this is not poaching in the same way as someone killing for thrill or profit. I do try to have empathy for people in different positions/situations from mine. I don't feel I have the right to stand in judgement on that family, except for how they ultimately handled it..

......how do you respond to the poached deer and moose?

You can't say "I only poached in the name of defending my ranch" when you have a very recent history of poaching.  You just don't have a leg to stand on.