Wolf Wars have moved to Washington

[seth30]

please

[dscubame]

No way open for everyone.  The emotion is real the concern is valid and correct.  Behind closed doors will not help educate or stir thought.  The more controversy and publicity this can get the better.  It is not like we have war chest to fight with so all publicity is good publicity.

[dscubame]

Consider that mayor in Idaho that raffled a SSS hunt.  That drastic measure from a public official did wonders to raise awareness for the cause.  This little thread could only hope to get that kind of attention. 

[Wenatcheejay]

I might be wrong but I think this thread is doing exactly what Dale intended. 

[dscubame]

Agree...it would be a shame to cover it up now. 

I do wonder if that robertg came in and set it up a bit.

[sebek556]

open and closed pro's and cons
open yes shows everyone our emotion an passion about this issue, but when these emtoins hit the boiling point and angry keys are typed it looks bad.
 open also shows other like minded organizations out thoughts and argument on this issue, but also our enemy so they can prepare arguments against.

closed would turn into our eyes only and who is to say we do not currently have enemy's within already?(pretty sure we do) no like there is a screening to join and there shouldnt be.

[Wenatcheejay]

Bobcat, it has been published outside the forum H-W and WFW does not advocate illegal activity. What more exposure could be asked for?

Starting a thread for WFW members on top of this might be OK but why move or lock it? I feel people have been respectful and no rules have been violated. Even the mass cut and paste rule has been observed hasn't it? People like Robertg are allowed to express a point of view. I never felt he was rude or hostile. In order to bring people to WFW we need emotional issues to spur involvement. The suppression of ideas will chase people off. It is the threats, smears, trolling, and such that should be controlled. People knowing they will be banned and posts erased is enough. I owe each of you moderaters a drink some day. Thanks guys.

Using the swear filter was a good move 

[jackelope]

I believe there's a lot of good information in this thread from a lot of people including Robertg. I also believe there's a lot of junk but that's too be expected when there's such strong opinions from whichever side is involved. The solid posts in threads like these should be evident and taken to heart. There's a lot of people in this fight that know what the heck they're talking about. Some of their opinions may not be the popular ones, especially from the SSS crowd, but there is solid knowledge in them....even from the likes of Robertg.
Keep it here where it is for everyone to see it.
 
Ohh and next time someone decides to make a documentary about the damage wolves do to get the truth out and change everyone's minds and provide all the proof everyone's been waiting for forever, don't charge $16 for it and sell it on the internet. Some of you will surely know what I'm talking about.

[Lowedog]

Ohh and next time someone decides to make a documentary about the damage wolves do to get the truth out and change everyone's minds and provide all the proof everyone's been waiting for forever, don't charge $16 for it and sell it on the internet. Some of you will surely know what I'm talking about.

I was really looking forward to the "truth" too until I found out I had to pay for it. 

[denali]

Tuck said good science, not hunting opportunity, was the management plan's mandate.

"Will there be impacts on ungulates (deer and elk) that certain people hunt? Probably. As a deer and elk hunter, that would be me," Tuck said. "But ecosystems are not vending machines. I don't need to put in my quarter -- ka-chunk -- and have a trophy elk pop out. That's not what this is all about."               

could someone fact check the 8000 elk harvest number, sounds high too me ?

http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2011/06/09/some-panelists-say-population-cap-needed-for-wolves-in-state

[Machias]

That's a heck of an article denali, thanks for posting it.

[Bob33]

could someone fact check the 8000 elk harvest number, sounds high too me ?

7060 in 2010 according to this: http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2010/elk_general.html

[Dave Workman]

could someone fact check the 8000 elk harvest number, sounds high too me ?

7060 in 2010 according to this: http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2010/elk_general.html

That is just plain damned pitiful.
We ought to be taking twice that many elk...and there ought to be enough elk around to allow that kind of harvest.

[Wenatcheejay]

could someone fact check the 8000 elk harvest number, sounds high too me ?

7060 in 2010 according to this: http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2010/elk_general.html

That is just plain damned pitiful.
We ought to be taking twice that many elk...and there ought to be enough elk around to allow that kind of harvest.

I wrote the Herold and asked how they came to their stats. I explained why I ask, that a double didget discrepancy matters where this is concerned. They said they will get back to me. When they do I'll post it.

One thing I came up with on my own is Indian Harvest may be included in Human Harvest. I don't think they include Native Hunting with General Harvest at WDFW but I could be wrong.   

[mulehunter]

I wonder, how many ELK population in Washington alone today?    I am curious.  Once we get best Est of number. Then we will start from there.
if we divided three units. Maybe we need know how many Elk each units. So we can watch closer every year.

Mulehunter.