Okanogan Wolf Meeting

[wolfbait]

The wolf meeting last night at the Okanogan County Fairgrounds was moderated by a soft-spoken but enthusiastic woman who presented their plan along with slides. Very tedious. It was an obvious strategy, because what mean hunter-rancher dude would want to confront such a nice woman? A biologist and a WDFW agent were placed at the front of the room at her table. Five or six uniformed and weaponed WDFW law officers were interspersed among the audience.  Other WDFW agents moved around the perimeter of the audience taking flash pictures of the audience and speakers when they were finally allowed to speak. It was frustrating and awkward for those audience members speaking, as they were required to sit facing the table, their backs to the audience, with a 3-minute timer ticking in front of them. That, too, was controlled by a woman who interrupted and tirelessly reminded them that their time was up. To be allowed to speak for three minutes, you first had to fill out a yellow form that had to be presented to one of the WDFW agents for approval and acceptance of who you were and what you were going to present.

The wolf group generally looked like a bunch of liars. Their spiel probably works real well in Seattle but it didn't fly in the Okanogan. In fact, one of the meeting attendees suggested that they round up their wolves and release them all up and down the I-5 corridor, to a round of loud applause and cheers from the audience. The meeting was well attended by a large number of knowledgeable, well-prepared and very angry ranchers, outfitters and hunters. They attempted to report accurate data regarding what wolves really do to the game herds, livestock, and the livelihood of communities. It was not a comfortable place to be if you love wolves and are not concerned with such silly things as truth and accountability. They were called on their lies and had no place to run, but it was obvious that they are confident that they are going to proceed with their plan without any regard to the reality of the devastation to wildlife and the welfare of ranchers and outfitters.

Later, as the audience was allowed to question, they came across as weak in anything resembling truth, but indifferent because they are going to cram their plan through anyway. Several audience members asked why they were not focusing on and concerned about the small, struggling elk, moose, and Dall sheep herds in Washington. The biologist in the front smugly interrupted and said that he would relieve the woman moderator for a moment and answer that question. He answered, "They'll get eaten!" They couldn't say that tag money and such would not be used for wolf recovery. They had very little to say when folks told them of family members in other states who had lost livestock to wolves and defenders of wildlife had never paid them a dime. Their line of BS that wolves do not hurt the wild game herds landed like a turd next to the toilet. They tried many times to deny that they had planted wolves in the Methow Valley, and except for the very few pro-wolf idiots that were at the meeting, people knew these wolves had been released. and loudly spoke that. The minority plan is not going to be a part of wolf recovery. This was the plan that the ranchers put together, spent hours talking through, with plenty of honest hard work. POOF! It's out the window! They said that it did not work with their plan for viable packs of wolves. Okanogan County, (they were told by both the County Commissioner and a commission member) are preparing to sue them for several county and state laws that they have ignored and violated. The county commission was outraged that the WDFW totally has ignored working with Okanogan County in their wolf planning. I guess WDFW believes that they are above those laws. They were told since they couldn't seem to manage the game herds that they have now worth a damn, how did they expect to manage a predator like the wolf. They have three biologists who are just now "getting some training on wolves."

Many very good questions were asked last night. A panel member of the WDFW acknowledged that wolves may attack or kill your dogs, (with no compensation), and an audience member called out and said, "Hell, these wolves will EAT your dogs!" He said he trapped wolves in Alaska and found wolves in his traps that other wolves had eaten. Everytime the 3-SSS was mentioned, there was enthusiastic agreement throughout the room. If WDFW doesn't give Washington a wolf plan that WA can live with, they are going to be in for one hell of a fight and the people will be taking over wolf management in their own way.

[WDFW-SUX]

Thanks for you vigilence on this subject.  It appears that the line in the sand has been drawn and SSS is the only option left.

[TEX-X]

i thought there was only two packs of wolves in WA?     

[luvtohnt]

I see some discrepancies in your opinions, and would hate for your interpretation of the meeting to put a foul taste in people's mouths for the WDFW. First of all Harriet Allen is the EIS project manager for this particular process, and why would they let anyone but the project manager present this information. If you are scared to confront a woman in a professional situation then you have issues. If you payed attention the two people at the front of the room should have been the regional wildlife director and the regional enforcement captain. The extra bodies are there in case a riot ensues, simply a safety maneuver to protect all parties. You sign up so that they can keep track of who you are and they don't throw the yellow slips out if they disagree with what you want to say. They have to have a way to keep tract of all the public input. Also if you didn't limit people to three minutes, the meetings would literally go FOREVER. If anything comments like "In fact, one of the meeting attendees suggested that they round up their wolves and release them all up and down the I-5 corridor, to a round of loud applause and cheers from the audience" should be the ones that are thrown out as there is no real relevance to the discussion other than to stir emotions. If it is anything like the other meetings I have attended there was very few well prepared speakers, it was mostly people thinking they had a real argument, but it was just uneducated un-sourced mis-information that make the public look out of touch with what game management is really about. I am still waiting for evidence that the wolves were planted in WA and so far NOBODY can show the evidence. So for now I still believe that the wolves have moved in on their own. I wish I had time to go to Wenatchee today, and voice my opinion on how I think the minority opinion should be the best choice and if they can't consider this then the wolf group needs to be reorganized with equal members from all points of view on wolf recovery. I am all for getting these things delisted asap, and think we all need to band together with organizations such as MDF, RMEF, Cattleman's Assoc., and any others that want the minority opinion and make noise until we are heard!!

Brandon

[jackelope]

dall sheep herds in WA??

[bearpaw]

Unless a person has attended prior WDFW meetings, one might look at things exactly how wolfbait interpretted the meeting, I can understand his concern about the process.

I also think he has very valid arguments regarding the fact that this is going to get crammed down our throats and that the whole process is just a way to say that the public was involved. It's obvious that the outcome has already been planned by WDFW. Our only hope is that enough WDFW Commissioners will side with public sentiments since they are the ones who will approve the final plan.

It is worth everyones time to write the WDFW Commissioners and plead for the "Minority Position". Please remember these Commissioners do not necessarily agree with all the details that the WDFW has presented.

[luvtohnt]

I understand the process it sucks. However I would hate for Wolfbaits interpretation of the meeting to dissuade the public from attending future meetings. He shows a little distaste that a woman ran the meeting to advert people from confronting the group, she is in a professional position and if the WDFW didn't think she could take the heat they would have never hired her. It is not like this discussion was going to come to fist a cuffs. Besides she is the EIS project manager from WDFW and is also in the endangered species program with WDFW, which is probably why she is heading this project. Also the "yellow sheets" are part of standard parliamentary procedure, which is how all US government runs things. Most clubs and organizations run this way also. I think this evening I will start to draft a letter to the commission and post it on it's own thread. That way anyone who wants to copy, paste, and make changes as they see fit, can send a letter to the commission letting them know we support the minority position.

Brandon

[bearpaw]

Brandon, I think it's a good idea to show some good arguments coming from a little different point of view.

[wolfbait]

luvtohunt:
It is not my intention to "put a foul taste" in anyone's mouth, or to dissuade them from attending any meetings. Your observed discrepancies are your beliefs and opinions, and you are certainly entitled to them. It was also not my intention to attempt to convince anyone of anything. I only wanted to report the spirit and general consensus of the very large group attending the meeting. Your assessment and accusation that those attending, "...mostly people thinking they had a real  argument, but it was just uneducated, un-sourced, mis-information [sp] that makes the public look out of touch..." could not be more incorrect. People were highly educated, involved, well-prepared individuals with what they presented. Several members of the Wolf Working Group attended and spoke. The Okanogan County Commissioner attended and spoke, along with a member of the Commission. Mr. Asmussen and Dal Dagnun of the Cattlemen's Association both spoke. Dal spoke of the Minority Plan and questioned why, after all the long hours of work and discussion, the plan was totally disregarding the inclusion of this option. He strongly and intelligently voiced his disappointment, and it was NOT to "stir emotions."  The three-minute restriction was unrealistic, and to allow for more discussion, the earlier presentation of the plan could have been shortened as all attending were well read regarding the plan. By the way, the meeting ending significantly earlier than the allotted time.

Of course, the urgency and frustration of this very serious issue stimulated some comments. However, unlike your accusation that "they should be thrown out because there was no real relevance to the discussion..." again, is in error. All the attendees conducted themselves in a respectful manner. There are many who are expressing their deep concerns with feeling because they have already experienced serious financial losses, and their very livelihood and welfare are being impacted by this issue. These discussions are valid, intelligent, informed, prepared, and should be received with courtesy and consideration. The panel did this admirably. Your accusation that I have a lack of respect for Harriet Allen is also in error. My apology for my bit of sarcasm, but it was not directed toward Harriet. You are wrong in your accusation that I have a distaste that a "woman ran the meeting." It is obvious that she has done a lot of work and believes in what she is doing. I respect that, and you are belaboring a point that does not have any validity. She did an admirable job in a difficult setting. When I reference the WDFW Plan, that is not a personal target aiming.

The wolves are with us, the plan will move forward, and those of us who have very valid concerns have done our best to alert and inform. It is now time to write to those politically involved, to put our heads together to see how we can make this as workable as possible with the fewest tragedies, and to have a spirit of acceptance of the impact this is having and will have on the people of Washington.

The information presented to the public in this meeting was as inaccurate and one-sided as expected. The false information and inaccurate data regarding the wolves in the Methow continues to be a valid point for real concern. Your assessments and accusations are simply way off target.

[jackelope]

my guess would be that  the 3 minute limit was an attempt to prevent the meeting lasting 4 days. if everyone could speak in a meeting like that for as long as they wanted to, you'd have been there for days.

did they really talk about wolves affecting Dall sheep herds in Wa?? or was that a typo?

if Harriet Allen didn't run the meeting, then there'd be folks complaining that the EIS project manager wasn't there presenting info and running the meeting.
it's a win/lose situation either way you look at it. you won't satisfy everyone regardless of who runs the show.

[Buckmark]

I need the popcorn smiley

[wolfbait]

my guess would be that  the 3 minute limit was an attempt to prevent the meeting lasting 4 days. if everyone could speak in a meeting like that for as long as they wanted to, you'd have been there for days.

did they really talk about wolves affecting Dall sheep herds in Wa?? or was that a typo?

if Harriet Allen didn't run the meeting, then there'd be folks complaining that the EIS project manager wasn't there presenting info and running the meeting.
it's a win/lose situation either way you look at it. you won't satisfy everyone regardless of who runs the show.

Yep, I agree with you on the EIS project manager running the meeting. There was no typo on the Dall sheep.  There is a small Dall sheep herd and they acknowledged that. He did exactly reply, "They will get eaten."

[bearpaw]

Not everyone realizes this, but 3 minutes is the standard time allotment at Commission meetings. It has also seemed very aparrent during past meetings that the WDFW could care less about public comments, I too have had the feeling they are only going through the motions.

It is important to understand that the WDFW recommendations must be apoproved by the Commission which is composed of citizens. These citizens have on many occassion been influenced by public testimony. The WDFW does not always get everything exactly the way they want it.

Keep writing letters to the Commission, it is important for them to know that the public expects reasonable wolf numbers in the plan.

[luvtohnt]

luvtohunt:
It is not my intention to "put a foul taste" in anyone's mouth, or to dissuade them from attending any meetings. Your observed discrepancies are your beliefs and opinions, and you are certainly entitled to them. It was also not my intention to attempt to convince anyone of anything. I only wanted to report the spirit and general consensus of the very large group attending the meeting. Your assessment and accusation that those attending, "...mostly people thinking they had a real  argument, but it was just uneducated, un-sourced, mis-information [sp] that makes the public look out of touch..." could not be more incorrect. People were highly educated, involved, well-prepared individuals with what they presented. Several members of the Wolf Working Group attended and spoke. The Okanogan County Commissioner attended and spoke, along with a member of the Commission. Mr. Asmussen and Dal Dagnun of the Cattlemen's Association both spoke. Dal spoke of the Minority Plan and questioned why, after all the long hours of work and discussion, the plan was totally disregarding the inclusion of this option. He strongly and intelligently voiced his disappointment, and it was NOT to "stir emotions."  The three-minute restriction was unrealistic, and to allow for more discussion, the earlier presentation of the plan could have been shortened as all attending were well read regarding the plan. By the way, the meeting ending significantly earlier than the allotted time.

Of course, the urgency and frustration of this very serious issue stimulated some comments. However, unlike your accusation that "they should be thrown out because there was no real relevance to the discussion..." again, is in error. All the attendees conducted themselves in a respectful manner. There are many who are expressing their deep concerns with feeling because they have already experienced serious financial losses, and their very livelihood and welfare are being impacted by this issue. These discussions are valid, intelligent, informed, prepared, and should be received with courtesy and consideration. The panel did this admirably. Your accusation that I have a lack of respect for Harriet Allen is also in error. My apology for my bit of sarcasm, but it was not directed toward Harriet. You are wrong in your accusation that I have a distaste that a "woman ran the meeting." It is obvious that she has done a lot of work and believes in what she is doing. I respect that, and you are belaboring a point that does not have any validity. She did an admirable job in a difficult setting. When I reference the WDFW Plan, that is not a personal target aiming.

The wolves are with us, the plan will move forward, and those of us who have very valid concerns have done our best to alert and inform. It is now time to write to those politically involved, to put our heads together to see how we can make this as workable as possible with the fewest tragedies, and to have a spirit of acceptance of the impact this is having and will have on the people of Washington.

The information presented to the public in this meeting was as inaccurate and one-sided as expected. The false information and inaccurate data regarding the wolves in the Methow continues to be a valid point for real concern. Your assessments and accusations are simply way off target.

I stand corrected as I was not there. I can only imagine that there were some people there as with the Yakima meeting who spoke solely on emotion e.g. "what about my dog in the backcountry", or "these things are a nuisance we need to kill them all". If there was none of that then great you had a successful meeting.

My second quote you took out of context, I said the statements like the rounding them up and moving them to the I-5 corridor should be thrown out, not all statements. There is no constructive value to a statement like that. Now that you got me straightened out Can you please provide me with the link to the study by a USFW biologist you posted awhile ago about the problem with counting breeding pairs vs. counting all wolves. I would like to use that in my letter to the commission.

Brandon
P.S. Next time I will call you out via pm so I don't fill up your thread with useless bickering.

[jackelope]

P.S. Next time I will call you out via pm so I don't fill up your thread with useless bickering.

Wolfbait is used to useless bickering by now.