WOLVES AND YOU“INSIDE THE OUTDOORS

[wolfbait]

[FOR THE DAILY RECORD--Column #559, PUBLISH 10/02/09]

Jim Huckabay
Column Title: WOLVES AND YOU“INSIDE THE OUTDOORS”



An important conversation took place during our last day in Sheridan, two weeks ago.  At times, amid our meat cutting and packing activities, I chatted with buddies Oscar and Bob about wolves in Wyoming.  They both spoke proudly of having wolves in Wyoming, but also expressed deep concerns about numbers.  It’s coming for us, too, and the return of wolves to our state may be the most significant and important wildlife management issue you will ever face.  

Wyoming wildlife has taken some serious hits—especially in the western part of the state—as wolf numbers have grown well beyond the original target numbers (non-hunted wolf populations in the Northern Rockies increase between 20 and 26 percent annually).  Wildlife killed by wolves has come from the same population which hunters use.  Moose hunting permits have dropped precipitously in the last decade, paralleling the increasing scarcity of moose in western Wyoming.  Outfitters and Game Department personnel have been posting observations of low numbers of calf elk running with elk herds by late summer.  In response to all this, Wyoming Game and Fish developed regulations to manage wolves.

Their plan involved harvesting “non-essential” wolves, which are those outside the recovery zone.  The plan was a widely-discussed attempt to satisfy the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s concerns about state management.  A dozen conservation groups stood ready to file lawsuits should USF&WS give the state management.  The bottom line is that Wyoming has lost its ability to manage its wolves—they now belong to the Feds—and wolf numbers just keep growing.

On the other hand, both Montana and Idaho had plans approved by the Feds.  Both states set hunting seasons for this fall, and both seasons have withstood proposed injunctions and lawsuits. Montana has a hunt underway, with a goal of taking 75 wolves, while Idaho’s three-part season is to remove 220 animals.  Both these hunts are to help meet the states’ population objectives under their approved management plans.

Here in Washington, the wolf is not a federally endangered animal; the push here is related to its “state endangered” status.  Our state Wolf Working Group has completed a nearly-300 page red-lined draft of a proposed management plan—but has not yet actually produced a management plan.  You will find the red-lined document on DFW’s web page.  Start at http://wdfw.wa.gov/wildlife/management/gray_wolf/ and select the Draft Wolf Conservation… on the left, then go to the archives.  You’ll be surprised at what you find.

I submit that even the most level-headed hunter among us will be startled at the suggestions contained in the document so far.  Page numbers given below are from the red-lined draft.

What happens to hunting’s future if we manage wildlife populations first for wolves, and second for hunters (who pay the bills, by the way)?  See page 127.

Consider the likelihood of wolves reaching a population of 300 while we argue over means of keeping numbers to the sustainable population of 60 animals.  Those 300 wolves will kill more elk annually than hunters now harvest statewide each year.  If wolves also prey on mule deer, then a troubled deer population will really be in deep kimchi.  Check out page 279.

Consider the implications of maintaining “genetic diversity” in the state’s wolves if we are to keep only 60 or so of them in the state.  Is it possible, the way it is defined?  See pages 42 and 43.

What does “habitat connectivity” mean in this context?  At what cost?  See page 144.

The Draft Wolf Management Plan—the one to be considered at upcoming public meetings starting 20 October—should be out on Monday.  Next week I will take a look at what made it past the redlined version.  You may want to look, too.  

Of course, I have a number of other concerns, too.  Yes, this whole wolf versus hunter business is a reflection of ancient competitions over resources.  Yes, it is predator versus predator and omnivore versus omnivore.  And the humans (most specifically the hunters) have picked up the tab for wildlife and its habitat since the beginning of modern wildlife management.  If hunters quit hunting—and many are already doing that—the wolves will have to pick up the tab.  My big question is, “Why now, in this terrible budget crunch, is DFW wanting to spend another three or four million a year?”

Make no mistake; Washington’s wolf management plan will be the most important document in the history of Washington wildlife management—and in its future.

My comments on Monday’s draft next Friday.


[Copyright James L. Huckabay, 2009]

Jim Huckabay chairs the Department of Geography at Central and is the author of "WILD WINDS and Other Tales of Growing Up in the Outdoor West."  He can be contacted at huckabay@cwu.edu or wildwinds@cleelum.com.


 
[FOR THE DAILY RECORD--Column #560, PUBLISH 10/09/09]

Jim Huckabay
Column Title: “INSIDE THE OUTDOORS”

WOLVES AND YOU, CONTINUED

Last week, we spent some time together considering my opinion that Washington’s wolf management plan will be the most important document in the history of Washington wildlife management—and in its future.

On Monday, as promised, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), titled “Wolf Conservation and Management Plan for Washington” was released.  The plan offers four alternatives (see pages 18-23) for dealing with the state’s endangered population of wolves, to be considered at a series of public meetings beginning October 20.  While the plan was, ostensibly, created hand in hand with a seventeen-member “Wolf Working Group” over the last two years, six of the members wrote a highly critical minority report (page 202).

Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 simply offer different combinations of recovery regions and breeding wolf pairs across the state.  Alternative 4 is a “No Action-Current Management” option.  The one constant for the first three alternatives is the number of successful breeding pairs in the state for various levels of recovery.  Six successful breeding pairs would trigger a move to downlist the wolf from “Endangered” to “Threatened;” twelve successful breeding pairs would allow downlisting to “Sensitive;” and fifteen successful breeding pairs (successfully breeding for three years) would lead to “Delisting,” allowing wolf numbers to be managed along with other wildlife.  These numbers are the foundation for the DEIS alternatives to be considered at the public meetings—they are NOT alternatives.

One “breeding pair” of wolves is assumed per pack, and a pack is considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to contain 10 wolves.  Thus 15 breeding pairs would put at least 150 gray wolves in the state—a level the DFW and the DEIS authors consider “minimal or barely adequate for achieving population viability and recovery.”  Ungulate populations would be managed for wolf recovery, not for hunting.  At an average of 24 percent growth per year, we would have nearly 300 wolves in Washington before delisting could happen.  Add the two years other states have typically dealt with lawsuits and injunctions, and we are looking at nearly 500 wolves before their numbers could be managed (with a high likelihood of no hunting across much of the state).

Consider the following bit of geography.  Areas of suitable wolf habitat given below are from the Federal Register (02/08/07, Vol. 72, Num. 26) and the DEIS minority report (page 202).  The 2007 human populations are from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Montana’s human population is 958,000 (6.6 per square mile) and it contains 40, 924 square miles of suitable wolf habitat.  Wyoming holds 523,000 people (5.4 per square mile) and has 29, 808 square miles of wolf ground.  Idaho, with its 1,499, 000 people (18.1 per square mile), has wolf habitat totaling 31,586 square miles.  Washington’s population of 6,468,000 gives us a density of 97.2 people per square mile.  We have 297 square miles of wolf habitat in the eastern one-third of the state, with the western two-thirds described as containing “scattered habitat in small isolated areas of the Okanogan, larger amounts of marginal habitat both north and south of Mount Rainier, and a large area of habitat in and around the Olympic National Park. By my reckoning this adds up to, perhaps, 4,500 square miles.

Thus, we here in Paradise have a human population of four to thirteen times the other “wolf” states, a population density of five to nineteen times theirs, and “suitable habitat” only eleven to fifteen percent of theirs.

Here’s the kicker:  in each of the other states, the population goal for delisting was 100 animals (ten breeding pairs).  Forget the fact that, after lawsuits and injunctions, the 300 or so wolves needed for delisting in the three states have become more than 2,000 (according to biologists with whom I’ve spoken).  With just a fraction of other states’ habitat, our DFW insists that we need one and a half times as many wolves before delisting—and it’s not negotiable.

Nearest meetings will be in Yakima (Red Lion Hotel) on the 22nd and Wenatchee (Chelan County PUD) on November 10.  

Go.  This is the most important decision in the history of Washington wildlife management—and in our outdoor future.



[Copyright James L. Huckabay, 2009]

Jim Huckabay chairs the Department of Geography at Central and is the author of "WILD WINDS and Other Tales of Growing Up in the Outdoor West."  He can be contacted at huckabay@cwu.edu or wildwinds@cleelum.com.

 
[FOR THE DAILY RECORD--Column #562, PUBLISH 10/23/09]

Jim Huckabay
Column Title: “INSIDE THE OUTDOORS”

WOLVES, STILL

The meetings began this week on DFW’s draft “Wolf Conservation and Management Plan for Washington” began.  Perhaps you were in Yakima last night.

I have said repeatedly that I believe this to be the most important decision in the history of Washington wildlife management—and in our outdoor future.  Thus far, it seems that we are not really allowed to comment on numbers of wolves for recovery, rather only on their distribution.  Indeed, the more I think about this whole process and the more I talk with pros around the country and read about Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) wolf recovery, the more convinced I am that the draft wolf plan is asking the wrong question.  Maybe we should be asking “How do we control wolves in Washington?” not “How do we get enough wolves in Washington to take them off the endangered species list?”

There has been great consternation and gnashing of teeth over the concept of removing wolves to maintain populations at acceptable levels—levels which have already led to curtailing of hunting seasons in some areas of the Northern Rockies.  A common concern is that the killing of any wolves at all will harm their ability to survive.  Two of the most experienced and widely-published wolf biologists in the world today gave declarations this summer in the US District Court (Montana) struggle over allowing Montana and Idaho to hunt wolves (Defenders of Wildlife, et.al. and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition sought an injunction).  They answered a number of questions, but I thought you might like to hear their thoughts about controlling growing wolf populations.

David Mech has been a wolf biologist for the Department of Interior since 1969, has studied wolves in Europe, Russia and North America and is deeply familiar with NRM recovery areas.  His full 21-page district court declaration is found at http://rliv.com/wolf/Mech%20Dec.pdf.  Mark Hebblewhite has studied wolves and their prey for fifteen years around the world, and is a prof at the University of Montana.  His 28-page declaration to the district court is at http://rliv.com/wolf/Hebblewhite%20Dec.pdf.  Both offered volumes of wolf insight, but I am using quotes related to allegations that delisting of wolves (allowing states to manage them with other wildlife) “irreparably harms wolf packs [and] the NRM wolf population…”

David Mech.  “I believe that the NRM wolf population has been biologically recovered for several years…will increase for several more given any foreseeable, regulated taking provisions by the states, and that irreparable harm to the population will not follow from the recent delisting…  The NRM wolf population is so robust and prolific…that even with the proposed state taking levels the population will continue to increase...  Wolf populations are highly resistant to human taking.  It has been well demonstrated that wolf populations cans sustain annual harvest rates of up to 50%...  Even when humans attempt…annual control rates of up to 70% of a population, that population rebounds…”

Mark Hebblewhite.  “After reviewing the current population estimates by Montana and Idaho, the harvest regulations and the spatial zoning of wolf harvest…I have come to the firm scientific conclusion that while the harvest will certainly kill individual wolves, it will not irreparably harm wolf populations…  The wolf harvest plans…are quite conservative…such that total mortality will be less than 30%, the threshold identified for stable wolf populations across North America.”

Montana and Idaho are, this fall, attempting to remove about 15% of their population of at least 1,500 wolves—at least three times what it was when the “delist” population was reached in 2002. How will we in Washington manage our wolf population, if DFW gets its way?  How will we manage a population of one and one-half times as many wolves to delist as Idaho, Wyoming or Montana on well under 20% as much habitat as any one of those states?

We already have wolves.  With growth rates of 20 to 40% per year, in unharvested populations, having enough wolves in Washington is not the issue.  The wolf plan is asking the wrong question.

The meetings are at http://wdfw.wa.gov/wildlife/management/gray_wolf/meeting_schedule.html.  Colville Monday, then West Side meetings and back to Wenatchee on 10 November.

This is the most important decision in the history of Washington wildlife management—and in our outdoor future.

Read.  Think.  Go.  Speak.


[Copyright James L. Huckabay, 2009]

Jim Huckabay chairs the Department of Geography at Central and is the author of "WILD WINDS and Other Tales of Growing Up in the Outdoor West."  He can be contacted at huckabay@cwu.edu or wildwinds@cleelum.com.


 
[FOR THE DAILY RECORD--Column #567, PUBLISH 11/27/09]

Jim Huckabay

[wolfbait]

Column Title: “INSIDE THE OUTDOORS” WOLF QUESTIONS, AGAIN I wish I had half as many answers as I have questions. Several of us attended the last meeting for “public input” on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Draft Wolf Conservation and Management Plan in Wenatchee a couple weeks ago.  The public meetings are finished, but the department will be taking comment until the 8th of January. I’ve been sitting with the process and the wolf plan itself—trying to wrap my mind around what we are doing and how it will come down.  There are still several troubling things rattling around in my head. I am struck by the number of people I’ve heard speak who persist in living in fairy tales about wildlife in general and wolves in particular.  I fear that is a later, and ongoing, discussion. I was grateful to have opportunities to speak to the wolf plan, and I believe that the tour of public meetings dissipated some of the concerns people have about the wolf plan.  Still, I find it hard to believe that the tour accomplished much and I fear it was largely designed to allow the wolf restoration interests in the department to show public input and then do as they wish.  At this point, I am left with the hope that the wildlife commission, when it takes up the wolf plan next year, will have a better sense of our state’s geography and wildlife biology than the silo of “experts” who wrote the plan. The most troublesome part of the process, for me, was that it allowed DEIS testimony only on questions relating to such issues as where the wolves should be, how they ought to get there, how livestock operators might be compensated, and so on.  The most basic question of all—the number of wolves needed for delisting—was not assailable, since the “experts” in the department have already decided we need 15 breeding pairs (150 gray wolves) in the state to return them to the status of a species which might be managed like deer or elk or bears or whatever. Here’s how it would work, and it is not a simple: those 15 pairs must breed successfully for three years (at demonstrated reproductive rates in the West that means 300 wolves) and with legal delisting challenges averaging two years or more, we can expect at least 500 of them by the time the gray wolf becomes the responsibility of the wildlife commission. Seven weeks ago, I laid out my geographic concerns about the numbers.  Why, for example, would our experts need 15 breeding pairs, while 10 breeding pairs was sufficient for delisting in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming (a combined 30)?  Why so many to start, given that we have less than 15% of the wolf habitat and at least four times the population of any one of those states? I’ve been pointedly told by two DFW employees that habitat numbers are immaterial; the issue is “prey base.”  “After all,” I’ve been reminded, “wolves can live anywhere as long as there is sufficient prey.” Let’s consider prey base, then.  DFW’s handout, “Frequently Asked Questions…about wolves in Washington,” tells us that we might expect 200 wolves to annually eat 2,520 elk (hunters harvest about 7,400) and 4,180 deer (harvest is about 38,000).  How many will 500 gray wolves eat?  Clearly, providing an adequate prey base for those wolves will require the end of most hunting in the state. Additionally, given that large numbers of our deer and elk are in and around communities, it means that we will, literally, be living with wolves.  (If you would like a sense of what that looks like, check out the experience of Hailey, Idaho, with the Phantom Pack working a herd of elk in a subdivision at http://saveelk.com/wolf_067.htm or read the discussion of living with wolves by Valerius Geist, one of North America’s best known wildlife biologists at http://saveelk.com/wolf_073.htm.) Considering prey base will get us to questions of the resources needed to manage wildlife in general.  There hasn’t been a lot of discussion here about it, but rest assured that wildlife agencies in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming are seriously considering the future of wildlife management, and its funding.  These are questions for upcoming consideration. At the moment, I consider the whole process of “testimony” on the DEIS as flawed at its base.  This is as if I was building my dream house on a mud foundation next to a regularly-flooding creek, then invited members of my community to offer suggestions on siding and roof color. Read the DEIS (it is online) and comment.  This is the most important decision in the history of Washington wildlife management—and in our outdoor future. [Copyright James L. Huckabay, 2009] Jim Huckabay chairs the Department of Geography at Central and is the author of "WILD WINDS and Other Tales of Growing Up in the Outdoor West."  He can be contacted at huckabay@cwu.edu or wildwinds@cleelum.com. [FOR THE DAILY RECORD--Column #569, PUBLISH 12/11/09] Jim Huckabay Column Title: “INSIDE THE OUTDOORS” WOLVES—ONE MORE ROUND It’s the Christmas season.  I’ve been trying to find the right context for another round of questions and considerations for the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (DFW) Draft Environmental Impact Statement on wolves in the state.  I may have found a way to honor the spirit of helping others and gift-giving which runs through these weeks—even while discussing wolves. A couple weeks ago, we talked about “prey base” as a determining factor in decisions about how many wolves we should have before they are delisted and become just another wild animal to be managed by our DFW.  There continues the closely-related, and frequently asked, question about the context of our Washington State wolf proposals within those of our neighboring states.  We’ll get to those in a moment. Consider, first, the Christmas spirit of helping others and giving.  During the tough times of The Great Depression, large numbers of hunters and other conservationists nationwide successfully pushed for The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937) to provide funds for wildlife and its habitat.  Under the Act, manufacturers pay an 11 percent excise tax on long guns, ammo and archery gear designed for hunting, along with a 10 percent tax on handguns sold.  These Pittman-Robertson (P-R) taxes have generated billions over the past seven decades.  Paid on a quarterly basis, tax revenues are annually distributed to states under a formula based on number of hunters and total state area.  In just the second quarter of 2009, the taxes added up to 122 million bucks. In 2006, the last year for which I found distributions, the fund distributed $233 million, of which Washington DFW received $4,468,073.   Wyoming got about $4.2 million, Idaho took in $4.5 million and Montana collected $6.3 million.  According to DFW’s web page, its biennial operating budget for 2007-2009 is $348.5 million, or a bit under $125 million per year.  Of that 125 million, around $70 million is from the P-R funds, license sales and miscellaneous fines, etc. In this state, and others where wolf numbers are growing, this question is being asked: “What happens to money for managing wildlife and its habitat, if hunters stop buying licenses and gear?”  A large number of people are starting to worry that the wolf could become the Grinch that stole wildlife’s funding. Consider context, now.  When I was a TV meteorologist forecasting weather in Denver some decades ago, I always started with “context.”  To create a forecast, I studied current charts and numbers and patterns, but I also examined the range of past temperatures or precip or winds for the date as a reality check on my forecast.  “How on earth,” I wonder, “can our wolf pros operate in such a vacuum that they come up with a wolf plan and numbers significantly out of line with states already struggling with such questions?” Start with our “scientifically justified” 15 successfully breeding pairs of grey wolves before delisting considerations, versus 30 pairs for Montana, Idaho and Wyoming (10 pairs each).  We would likely have 500 animals by the time state management was approved.  Ignore the fact that we have many times the population and a fraction of the habitat of those states and just look at prey base.  Remember that, according to DFW, 500 wolves would eat about 6,300 elk and 10,500 deer each year.  One could make the argument that annual harvest of big game represents a sustainable “surplus” available to hunters and wolves.  We harvest about 7,400 elk and 38,000 deer annually.  Idaho’s numbers are about 21,000 and 54,000, respectively, Montana’s are 23,000 and 125,000 and Wyoming’s are 20,000 and 51,000.  Prey base?  Give me a break. Through 2008, total deer and elk harvest numbers in neighboring states stayed pretty constant, but every pro I asked is fretting over the sudden changes about to occur—as wolves reach critical mass—in hunting opportunity and harvest. Want a sense of what Montana is thinking?  Montana’s Fish, Wildlife and Parks director shares his perspective at http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/director/ND09.htm, while hunters and others weigh in on an article in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle at http://bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2009/12/04/news/200elk.txt. Let DFW know about your concerns. And thank hunters for buying licenses and gear—wildlife needs the money.  I think wise stewardship falls within the spirit of the season. [Copyright James L. Huckabay, 2009] Jim Huckabay chairs the Department of Geography at Central and is the author of "WILD WINDS and Other Tales of Growing Up in the Outdoor West."  He can be contacted at huckabay@cwu.edu or wildwinds@cleelum.com.

[boneaddict]

Prey Base.....now we know why Fitkin is exaggerating the deer herd numbers and why the increase in tag numbers in crucial areas giving false indications of a bigger herd.   

[denali]

wow   Thanks wolfbait    and just think if the suit to stop aerial control is successful - no effective wolf population control measures available.   

[NWBREW]

Thanks wolfbait. I too believe they will do as they wish no matter what the public input is. It is almost as if the decision is already made. I do not understand the drive to have wolves in this state. There are thousands upon thousands in North America where they can live without this kind of impact to the hunting community. It is as if the people who think they know best are walking around with a blindfold on and earplugs in without realizing how the loss of funds from hunting will affect this state. There will be less deer and elk....and there WILL be less hunters hunting this state. Idaho can't control 10 breeding pairs right now how the hell is washington going to control 15 breeding pairs. If the methow only has 1 breeding pair  now...whats it going to be like when the WDFW says the have 3  . Man this really pisses me off.

I wasn't going to post this because some of you might think I don't know what I'm talking about....and you may be right. I just feel that this is just the first bad turn for washington state....not just for hunters but for non-hunters as well, as in  state revenue.    just my  Now I feel like kicking something but I can't because I broke my middle toe yesterday.

[Shootmoore]

I think we sometimes forget that the same people pushing for wolf recovery are the same people who fought for the spotted owl.  Local economy be damned.  These are the same people that push initiatives to ban baiting, hound hunting, trapping.  These are the same people that wish to ban all hunting.  The wolf like the spotted owl is just another tool in there toolbox to end hunting in washington.

They don't care where the money comes from, they live with rose colored glasses on.  For many of these people its not just "trying to do the right thing for the environment"  it has become a religion, where the goal justifies the means.  I have read through the wolf management plan twice now.  There is no protection or thought on hunting or for hunting in washington in these plans.  The only concern seems to be enough of a prey base for the wolf, hunters be damned.  They will regulate hunting before regulating the wolves if "prey base" drops to low to support the wolf, not the other way around.

This may be tinfoil hat thoughts, but I forsee if any of the 3 plans come into place and wolves reproduce at equal levels to the big 3, there will not be any big game hunting in washington state in 15 years.  With limited permit only hunting in selected areas within 10 years.

Shootmoore

[Special T]

Hit those politicians in the pocket book! Its the ONLY way to wake them up.... I guess next year I might buy a Nintendo with my tag money so I can hunt!  Everyone forgets that Winston Churchill was called a war monger alarmist, before he was proved right!

[Axle]

Shootmoore, you took the words right out of my mouth!

The smallest western state with the worst politicians!

Thanks Wolfbait

[villageidiot]

 
Sooner or later we are going to have to admit we are whipped.   We lost hound hunting in 96 for cougars, bobcats, bears and lost baiting on the same initiative.  We lost trapping for everything and snaring.  We can't poison anything.  We have to have a lawyers book to figure out which fish we can keep and what we can use to fish for them.  We are now going to lose all our big game deer, elk, sheep and goat hunting so the wolves will have food.  The ranchers will either have to be criminals to protect their livestock or sell out.  they are now bringing the gray squirrel to the forefront.  This whole state is controlled  by the spandex crowd in Seattle.  I'm putting in my name for drawings for other states as soon as 2010 gets here.  Some other states you don't even have to be  drawn but just buy a license and go.  We are outnumbered bythe spandex folks and they have way more money than us too.  They also have full control of the media.  This could be one of the best hunting states in the union but with the restrictions and losses of hunting it is actually the worst.  WDFW will have to be funded by the legislature and I think it will fund them in the end because the spandex crowd controls the legislature and they still want to bird watch and have potties to use when they are viewing the birds.  This is a very depressing attitude but just look at the facts.  We are whipped.     
  village idiot

[carpsniperg2]

thansk wolfbait for the read now i am  lol thanks for the info

[NWBREW]

Sooner or later we are going to have to admit we are whipped.   We lost hound hunting in 96 for cougars, bobcats, bears and lost baiting on the same initiative.  We lost trapping for everything and snaring.  We can't poison anything.  We have to have a lawyers book to figure out which fish we can keep and what we can use to fish for them.  We are now going to lose all our big game deer, elk, sheep and goat hunting so the wolves will have food.  The ranchers will either have to be criminals to protect their livestock or sell out.  they are now bringing the gray squirrel to the forefront.  This whole state is controlled  by the spandex crowd in Seattle.  I'm putting in my name for drawings for other states as soon as 2010 gets here.  Some other states you don't even have to be  drawn but just buy a license and go.  We are outnumbered bythe spandex folks and they have way more money than us too.  They also have full control of the media.  This could be one of the best hunting states in the union but with the restrictions and losses of hunting it is actually the worst.  WDFW will have to be funded by the legislature and I think it will fund them in the end because the spandex crowd controls the legislature and they still want to bird watch and have potties to use when they are viewing the birds.  This is a very depressing attitude but just look at the facts.  We are whipped.     
  village idiot

Village idiot....is that just your screen name?  You are only whipped when you give up and I will not give up, so I'm sorry to say that you might be whipped....but I'm not.

[mulehunter]

Thank you Wolfbait

Mulehunter