Free: Contests & Raffles.
Dear Director Unsworth,One way around this lawsuit would be to delist wolves as endangered in the Eastern 1/3 of the state, in accordance with Federal delisting of the Northern Rockies area. The lawsuit alleges that your department is killing endangered wolves. Delisting them would make the lawsuit obsolete. If you wait for the wolf plan guidelines to be met first, it could easily be 20 more years or more before delisting is achieved. It’s painfully obvious that several of the guidelines for delisting are unachievable in the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, the communities of the NE corner are needlessly suffering the effects of a faulty plan.Please also forward my comments to the Wildlife Commission, as their email address isn’t currently listed on the contact page.I would appreciate the courtesy of a reply. Thank you,Pianoman
It's such a scam. I'd hate to be a cattleman. I'm arguing with a friend on the Stevens Co. Cattleman's FB page who supports the wolves and knows absolutely zero facts regarding their impact, non-lethal measures, diseases. These people are absolutely clueless and don't care one bit about cattlemen and their families and communities, and their livelihoods.
I and many others from the beginning have been predicting that the wolf lovers on the WAG and in the Commission would use the information they gained there to get a leg up on lawsuits to stop prospective cullings. This was either a huge lack of foresight on the part of Anderson and Unsworth or an outright undermining of concerned parties and other wildlife. It's revolting, everything about it.
Delisting is a solution, but it is not a given that EIS were required. A judge will have to determine whether the wolf plan in its entirety sufficiently took into account lethal removal and addressed it.It would be a major to have missed an EIS requirement, and we will quickly find out the validity of the lawsuit. If an injunction is granted, then one could presume there is validity to the lawsuit.If wolf lovers on the WAG did this intentionally and the others were too dumb to see it happening they deserve what they got. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree with you in that sportsmen got screwed with the wolf plan and delisting benchmark, but that has nothing to do with the WAG. Everyone at the table for the WAG has a responsibility to understand how policy and implementation affects their user group and constituency. If they don’t, they shouldn’t be a representative.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: JLS on September 28, 2017, 10:01:43 AMI agree with you in that sportsmen got screwed with the wolf plan and delisting benchmark, but that has nothing to do with the WAG. Everyone at the table for the WAG has a responsibility to understand how policy and implementation affects their user group and constituency. If they don’t, they shouldn’t be a representative.Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkI can't comment on that but my assertion is that it's quite possible those people were picked to give their animal rights organizations a leg up on inside information. I believe it's quite possible that cattlemen, wildlife, and sportsmen have been undermined on purpose by agendas coming out of the top office in Olympia. The governor receives big bucks for his campaigns from the people who oppose the wolf cullings.
Quote from: JLS on September 28, 2017, 09:29:52 AMDelisting is a solution, but it is not a given that EIS were required. A judge will have to determine whether the wolf plan in its entirety sufficiently took into account lethal removal and addressed it.It would be a major to have missed an EIS requirement, and we will quickly find out the validity of the lawsuit. If an injunction is granted, then one could presume there is validity to the lawsuit.If wolf lovers on the WAG did this intentionally and the others were too dumb to see it happening they deserve what they got. Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkIt could be argued this is exactly what they wanted, if they did this intentionally. I'm quite certain that the cattlemen, communities, wildlife, and hunters of WA state don't deserve what they got - screwed.
Not if they did it right. If it truly is a challenge to SEPA and the EIS, the issue will be put to bed if they prevail. Similarly, if they can show their actions weren't arbitrary and capricious (basically taken without any good reason), the issue is put to bed. The plaintiffs have a high bar to prove their case. WDFW will get deference to their expertise from the court and should win if they did their job.
It isn't the WAG's job to make sure WDFW follows state law regarding conducting an EIS, is it?
I'm just so damned angry that it seemed obvious to everyone that putting these people on the WAG wouldn't be wise. And what a coincidence, it turned out to be unwise. Now, every step the WDFW takes to control wolves is going to be challenged. They're going to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of $ on litigation now every time they want to justify killing wolves.
Litigation is all part of the deal. If they did this correctly, I wouldn't be surprised if wdfw welcomed the chance get their plan vindicated through the court process. It will take some wind out of the sails of those opposed to lethal removal. Though it may seem weird, this is somewhat of an opportunity.
I'm just so damned angry that it seemed obvious to everyone that putting these people on the WAG wouldn't be wise. .
Quote from: pianoman9701 on September 28, 2017, 10:48:39 AMI'm just so damned angry that it seemed obvious to everyone that putting these people on the WAG wouldn't be wise. .Neither of the out-of-state groups behind this lawsuit are on the WAG. Due to their bomb-throwing at the compromise-based process that is the WAG and recent Washington wolf policy-making, there's very little communication between those two hardline groups and the conservation and animals rights groups on the WAG at this point. We've repeatedly and publicly disagreed with their refusal to compromise on wolf management in our state, we did not know this was coming, and we absolutely do not support it. My official response is in this article: http://nwsportsmanmag.com/wolf-news/still-another-study-pokes-holes-wsu-professors-wolf-livestock-attack-findings/ (scroll to the bottom). Yes, it's more cagey than what I wrote above. But that doesn't mean some of us Washingtonians working on this issue in good faith alongside ranchers and other stakeholders aren't personally mad as hell about this attack on our collaborative process. AND before some of you start, conspiracy theory responses or inquisition will get no response from me. As I've said before, you may not like wolves, you may hate WDFW and the WAG, you may not like any conservation groups, and you may feel all of the above are corrupt together. You're welcome to those opinions, but that doesn't make them fact.