Wolf pack to be targeted by Washington state shooters after repeated cattle atta

[Platensek-po]

Seems like the one thing we all agree on is that wolves should be managed through hunting. I think a lot of the problems and animosity would go away if people were allowed to purchase tags and hunt them. I personally believe that wolves, along with all the other native fauna, deserve a place on the landscape. That does not mean that they need to be protected at all costs and should not be managed. I would also like to see bison retured to the landscape but big ag is against that wholeheartedly. I think that these threads are interesting because they show how much we disagree on certain specifics but it seems we have a hard time banding together to get what we all agree on. Feels like we should band together on the things we agree on, that wolves should be hunted and managed, and then worry about other specifics later.

[Platensek-po]

Well there is a big difference. One has to do with treaties
Made with sovereign nations and the other is a promise made by a government to its own people. Promises usually can be broken, especially by governments, without repercussions. Breaking treaties usually means that there will be some form
Of repercussion. I mean is anyone surprised that federal and state government lied to its constituents in order to get what it wants?

Almost every state has special hunts to keep elk out of agriculture, I support that. I do not support shooting and leaving elk lay, they are a food animal and should be utilized. With wolves they need to be shot and destroyed due to the parasites and diseases they carry. I see no benefit to introduce wolves, hunters can be utilized to control game herd numbers. I don't agree with exterminating wolves from the planet, but wolves don't fit and are not needed in heavily human populated areas.

Leaving them lay and wholesale slaughter to appease a producer are two totally different things.

please explain further

Do you not agree that the policies promised in the wolf plans should not be followed?

Does this also mean that we can ignore tribal treaties?

I will Use MJs moniker for this... Whataboutism...  This a bunny trail leading away from the very focused point of discussion. making agreements, following through on them, and measuring the proposed success of the plan. Measure this plan on its merits and do not get distracted by the shiny bobble of a discussion point that is brought up. save that for a separate thread because the 2 are not linked.

I think there is a relationship, clearly it seems there is a different standard being applied to agreements with the tribes and agreements that impact ranchers and rural citizens living in areas where wolves are over populating.

[Special T]

Almost every state has special hunts to keep elk out of agriculture, I support that. I do not support shooting and leaving elk lay, they are a food animal and should be utilized. With wolves they need to be shot and destroyed due to the parasites and diseases they carry. I see no benefit to introduce wolves, hunters can be utilized to control game herd numbers. I don't agree with exterminating wolves from the planet, but wolves don't fit and are not needed in heavily human populated areas.

Leaving them lay and wholesale slaughter to appease a producer are two totally different things.

please explain further

Do you not agree that the policies promised in the wolf plans should not be followed?

Does this also mean that we can ignore tribal treaties?

I will Use MJs moniker for this... Whataboutism...  This a bunny trail leading away from the very focused point of discussion. making agreements, following through on them, and measuring the proposed success of the plan. Measure this plan on its merits and do not get distracted by the shiny bobble of a discussion point that is brought up. save that for a separate thread because the 2 are not linked.

I think there is a relationship, clearly it seems there is a different standard being applied to agreements with the tribes and agreements that impact ranchers and rural citizens living in areas where wolves are over populating.

T bar didnt make a case, he asked a question which is the very essence of whataboutism. If he wants to make the case by all means make it and i would love to hear it. Instead the question is thrown out to make us chase our tails instead of measuring the agreements sucess or failure... not to mention the execution of the agreement.

[bearpaw]

Seems like the one thing we all agree on is that wolves should be managed through hunting. I think a lot of the problems and animosity would go away if people were allowed to purchase tags and hunt them. I personally believe that wolves, along with all the other native fauna, deserve a place on the landscape. That does not mean that they need to be protected at all costs and should not be managed. I would also like to see bison retured to the landscape but big ag is against that wholeheartedly. I think that these threads are interesting because they show how much we disagree on certain specifics but it seems we have a hard time banding together to get what we all agree on. Feels like we should band together on the things we agree on, that wolves should be hunted and managed, and then worry about other specifics later.

I agree with you that much of the drama would go away if we could get beyond the era of "wolf protectionism".

I would like to see bison too, but I understand that some diseases they carry could cause this country to lose many cattle. I don't remember the specifics, but certain diseases spread by wild bovines can destroy the cattle industry in any country. It might be tb or something like that, someone else probably remembers the specifics. For that reason we probably should not allow bison to be too widespread. I'm sure with a little research or someone providing more info this issue could be better understood.

T bar didnt make a case, he asked a question which is the very essence of whataboutism. If he wants to make the case by all means make it and i would love to hear it. Instead the question is thrown out to make us chase our tails instead of measuring the agreements sucess or failure... not to mention the execution of the agreement.

agreed

[KFhunter]

Agree with plat, the one commonality we all share is to make wolves huntable.

Beyond that its just a numbers game of how many and where.  I don't think I've ever seen anyone not want some form of management or not want them hunted here on HW forum.








Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[bearpaw]

Well there is a big difference. One has to do with treaties
Made with sovereign nations and the other is a promise made by a government to its own people. Promises usually can be broken, especially by governments, without repercussions. Breaking treaties usually means that there will be some form
Of repercussion. I mean is anyone surprised that federal and state government lied to its constituents in order to get what it wants?

Almost every state has special hunts to keep elk out of agriculture, I support that. I do not support shooting and leaving elk lay, they are a food animal and should be utilized. With wolves they need to be shot and destroyed due to the parasites and diseases they carry. I see no benefit to introduce wolves, hunters can be utilized to control game herd numbers. I don't agree with exterminating wolves from the planet, but wolves don't fit and are not needed in heavily human populated areas.

Leaving them lay and wholesale slaughter to appease a producer are two totally different things.

please explain further

Do you not agree that the policies promised in the wolf plans should not be followed?

Does this also mean that we can ignore tribal treaties?

I will Use MJs moniker for this... Whataboutism...  This a bunny trail leading away from the very focused point of discussion. making agreements, following through on them, and measuring the proposed success of the plan. Measure this plan on its merits and do not get distracted by the shiny bobble of a discussion point that is brought up. save that for a separate thread because the 2 are not linked.

I think there is a relationship, clearly it seems there is a different standard being applied to agreements with the tribes and agreements that impact ranchers and rural citizens living in areas where wolves are over populating.

Thank you for showing the double standard! 

[Tbar]

Well there is a big difference. One has to do with treaties
Made with sovereign nations and the other is a promise made by a government to its own people. Promises usually can be broken, especially by governments, without repercussions. Breaking treaties usually means that there will be some form
Of repercussion. I mean is anyone surprised that federal and state government lied to its constituents in order to get what it wants?

Almost every state has special hunts to keep elk out of agriculture, I support that. I do not support shooting and leaving elk lay, they are a food animal and should be utilized. With wolves they need to be shot and destroyed due to the parasites and diseases they carry. I see no benefit to introduce wolves, hunters can be utilized to control game herd numbers. I don't agree with exterminating wolves from the planet, but wolves don't fit and are not needed in heavily human populated areas.

Leaving them lay and wholesale slaughter to appease a producer are two totally different things.

please explain further

Do you not agree that the policies promised in the wolf plans should not be followed?

Does this also mean that we can ignore tribal treaties?

I will Use MJs moniker for this... Whataboutism...  This a bunny trail leading away from the very focused point of discussion. making agreements, following through on them, and measuring the proposed success of the plan. Measure this plan on its merits and do not get distracted by the shiny bobble of a discussion point that is brought up. save that for a separate thread because the 2 are not linked.

I think there is a relationship, clearly it seems there is a different standard being applied to agreements with the tribes and agreements that impact ranchers and rural citizens living in areas where wolves are over populating.

Thank you for showing the double standard! 

You guys realize the only ones actively hunting wolves are tribes? Way to alienate allies. Not surprising on your hatewa website.  You perpetuate the divide and then play victim on behalf of your political buddy.  They could always offer to end their grazing where the impact is too great but they also know someone will assume that grazing lease . 

[Tbar]

Do you really want to go down the road of broken promises and double standards with the federal or state government and tribes? I'll gladly derail this with literally thousands of factual citations of promises broken.  I know that won't fit your hatewa narrative or your buddy's role as a poor cattle producer barely making it.

[Tbar]

Has your buddy Kretz ever advocated for tribal support to deal with wolf issues? Honest question. 

[buglebrush]

I'm still waiting to hear what legitimate impact killing wolves has on anything in Washington. If they all disappeared tomorrow what negative effect would it have?

There's nothing positive about wolves at all.  It would be awesome if they all got killed off.  It would also be awesome if I could fly...

[bearpaw]

Do you really want to go down the road of broken promises and double standards with the federal or state government and tribes? I'll gladly derail this with literally thousands of factual citations of promises broken.  I know that won't fit your hatewa narrative or your buddy's role as a poor cattle producer barely making it.

Easy there fella, no need to get nasty, this is just a friendly conversation. It seems some people expect promises to be kept for some groups but not for ranchers or people who have to live with wolves, that's all I was pointing out.

A DOUBLE STANDARD

[bearpaw]

Has your buddy Kretz ever advocated for tribal support to deal with wolf issues? Honest question.

I don't know Kretz exact position, I don't know why he would be opposed to thinning wolves, most people I know are glad the Colville's are hunting wolves and other predators. I think the Spokane's are hunting wolves too, that's good, however, the rest of the state's citizens should be able to hunt wolves too, and a rancher should be able to protect his livestock. Let me point out that you don't see me calling the tribes "wholesale slaughterers" because they want to protect their elk and deer herds.

[bearpaw]

good news...

Court denies request for temporary restraining order to prevent OPT wolf removal
https://wdfw.wa.gov/species-habitats/at-risk/species-recovery/gray-wolf/updates/court-denies-request-temporary

[PA BEN]

Has your buddy Kretz ever advocated for tribal support to deal with wolf issues? Honest question.

Yes

[beauhunter]

Everyone that is opposed to management of wolves are not directly effected by them, there was a reason wolves were eraticated! Then our government reintroduce a different species of wolf. As far as my understanding it is against the law to bring in a non native species (invasive) in my opinion