Wolf Wars have moved to Washington

[Ridgeratt]

In as much as I'm not a huge fan (wolves) of them here. Also not trying to stir the pot.
But I have made this statement to a few folks on here, So here goes.

The pro wolf advocates in most cases are well educated. So what better way to promote their agenda than to become a wildlife bio for the WDFG.

Just a wild idea.

[Special T]

I think that trying to make the plan "Reasonable" is the wrong way to sell this... Any kind of moderation or acceptance of THEIR plan weakens our position... I think we can oppose it intelligently with facts, but push for the least damaging plan because the right way is not an option... Remember Government usually Provides 3 plans for public comment. Usually the middle one is what is going to happen, but all of them move THEIR plan forward... This is the tactic so they can seem centrist while making hunters that are against any of their plans seem out of the main stream. They might be lairs and whackos but they are not stupid...

[predatorpro]

they are well educated on what they wanna know, they forget that an ecosystem is more complicated than throwing an ultimate predator into the woods and act like they will make everything better, i couldnt believe the other day we took a trip to great wolf lodge for the kids and they really push the whole wolves are our friends thing and they just wanna give you a big kiss and let them scratch their belly when you come face to face with a pack in the woods

[Gringo31]

In the meeting I went to, I was told by WDFW that it is their responsibility to bring any and all native populations to sustainable levels.  I realize that the word "native" is a key word here.

My question is an honest one.....one that I asked and got a poor answer.  Why would WDFW spend one cent on wolves when they are here now )for free) and their population is growing on it's own?

I was told they they (WDFW) want the same thing we want.  To have them delisted.  So....all we have to do is get the 15 BP's or approx 300 wolves equally distributed across the state and then we can work on controlling that population.

I asked why Washington can't just decide to sustain all native populations except the wolf.  That was pretty much laughed at.  I wasn't joking and meant it to be one of fiscal responsibility.  We have limited resources, both natural and monetary.

Bearpaw....keep the charge and the lead....I'll follow ya anyday  

[Huntnphish]

I think that trying to make the plan "Reasonable" is the wrong way to sell this... Any kind of moderation or acceptance of THEIR plan weakens our position.

 EXACTLY!!!!!!

 This is exactly why this country is turning to *censored*, far too many people sitting back and accepting all the crap the government is shoveling.

 99.9% of the people on this site know this is wrong, know what it means and the ramifications. Why are so many content on simply limiting the damage? For crying out loud, its time to speak up!

 

[bearpaw]

In as much as I'm not a huge fan (wolves) of them here. Also not trying to stir the pot.
But I have made this statement to a few folks on here, So here goes.

The pro wolf advocates in most cases are well educated. So what better way to promote their agenda than to become a wildlife bio for the WDFG.

Just a wild idea.

Again a square hit, the endangered species division of nearly every state is infiltrated with enviros. That is their passion. Idaho and Montana sports groups and concerned legislators are actively working to rid their state F&G of the same.

[stumprat]

I think that trying to make the plan "Reasonable" is the wrong way to sell this... Any kind of moderation or acceptance of THEIR plan weakens our position.

 EXACTLY!!!!!!

 This is exactly why this country is turning to *censored*, far too many people sitting back and accepting all the crap the government is shoveling.

 99.9% of the people on this site know this is wrong, know what it means and the ramifications. Why are so many content on simply limiting the damage? For crying out loud, its time to speak up!

Like it or not. Drawing a line in the sand. Is no way to deal with the commission, or WDFW. It is all about negotiation.

There is nothing wrong with taking a strong stance on an issue. But you have to provide them with a viable alternative. But once you get to the point of drawing a line in the sand. You will have severely handicapped your cause.

[sebek556]

I would like to compile an argument guide, because like Bearpaw said we have to have good arguments without sounding redneck. I personally love cheat sheets especially when you have hard data on them. We know we are out numbered, but we don't have to be out witted.

[stumprat]

I would like to compile an argument guide, because like Bearpaw said we have to have good arguments without sounding redneck. I personally love cheat sheets especially when you have hard data on them. We know we are out numbered, but we don't have to be out witted.

Very well put!!!

Fact based and unified comments to the commission. And form letters sent to the commission, and WDFW is how you counter the opposition.

[Special T]

I like the argument guide! That is a great way to organize the troops. 

My argument would go something like this...
"Because of the facts, ( large list here) We believe that all of the options are ill advised, However since a plan that even resembles reality we would choose the least damaging of the 3 crappy options."
Make the WDFW Own the choice and don't let them co-opt the support of sportsmen...  I remember the WDFW claiming that a change in the archery season was recommended/embraced by lots ofbow-hunters.  When only one group said they liked the change and the WSAA said they had to abstain from political discussions. Or something to that affect. Remember the WDFW will try and point the finger that X group wanted it and they were just trying to accommodate...

[bearpaw]

I really think we can use the fact that the DNA from MT and Canada that's in WA wolves, proves we don't need a standalone population of 15 BP's in WA, the DNA proves WA wolves are part of a greater self sustaining wolf population that spans two countries and crosses back and forth across state and provincial borders thus guaranteeing genetic diversity in the entire gray wolf poppulation that is currently 60,000 to 70,000 animals strong. Congress has essentually said the same by delisting eastern Washington. Our caribou, sheep, goat, and moose populations are in more danger from lack of genetic diversity than the wolf population.

Why on earth does WDFW think we need a stand alone wolf population?

Remember this is the enviro division of WDFW that is pushing the wolf plan. They are mostly pro wolf and that is their best argument for 15 or more BP's. If we can convince the Commission that Washington's wolves are part of a greater population that spans two countries, we invalidate the argument for 15 or more BP's needed to maintain a self sustaining wolf population.

In a 6 month period one wolf radio collared in YNP traveled through 5 states: 
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/a_1000_mile_journey_carries_montana_wolf_to_colorado/C41/L41/

1,000-Mile Journey Carries Montana Wolf to Colorado
It's the first confirmed wolf sighting in Colorado since 2004.
By David Frey, 2-25-09

Wolf 314F lies under anesthesia after being fitted with a GPS collar on July 1, 2008. The collar has tracked the wolf on an epic journey from Montana to Colorado. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks photo.

A gray wolf from a southwestern Montana pack has traveled to the Colorado high country on an incredible journey that carried her across 1,000 miles and five states into a place where native wolves had been wiped out some eighty years before.
 
A global positioning satellite collar attached to the 18-month-old female’s neck pinpointed her in Eagle County, on Colorado’s Western Slope, home to the Vail ski area. Montana wildlife officials received the information last weekend, but the data comes with a two-week time lag, meaning the wolf’s whereabouts since then are unknown.
 
“Two weeks from now, who knows where she’s going to be?” says Carolyn Sime, wolf program coordinator for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

[Special T]

That question BP is the question that should be hammered into the WDFW Several times at EVERY meeting they have. If i were to make a Stand on this issue with the 3 min they give me that would be it. Ad that one to the Cheat sheet!    And don't accept some limp noodle answer! Matter of fact BP what Limp noodle answers have you been given when you asked that question?

[bearpaw]

I like the argument guide! That is a great way to organize the troops. 

My argument would go something like this...
"Because of the facts, ( large list here) We believe that all of the options are ill advised, However since a plan that even resembles reality we would choose the least damaging of the 3 crappy options."
Make the WDFW Own the choice and don't let them co-opt the support of sportsmen...  I remember the WDFW claiming that a change in the archery season was recommended/embraced by lots ofbow-hunters.  When only one group said they liked the change and the WSAA said they had to abstain from political discussions. Or something to that affect. Remember the WDFW will try and point the finger that X group wanted it and they were just trying to accommodate...

I like this idea too. Let the WDFW wallow in their mistake 10 years down the road. 

Perhaps a petition format:

Whereas WFW disagrees with all options......
Whereas wolves have been proven to migrate between states and provinces....
Whereas our herds cannot sustain......
Whereas Idaho lolo herd.....
Whereas YNP elk herd.....
Whereas E granulosus has been detected in 62% of tested Idaho wolves by WSU....
Whereas E granulosus has been detected in 63% of tested Montana wolves at WSU....
Whereas WFW is concerned with the spread and distibution of E. Granulosus by wolves in WA.....
Whereas WFW is concerned about the public safety in populated areas.....
Whereas WFW has determnined the only suitable wolf habitat is wilderness areas of ? miles or larger....
Whereas the Wildlife Commission and WDFW are charged with maintaining healthy populations of all animals....
Whereas endangered woodland caribou may be sacrificed....
and so forth with every fact we can dig up......
...
...
...
Whereas WFW suggests the WA Wildlife Commission consider the impacts of Wolves and consider a measured approach....
Wheras WFW suggests a minimum number of Bp's for 5 years until further science dictates Wa is suitable for additional wolves...
Be it resolved that WFW supports the least number of BP's requred to meet federal guidelines!

[Huntnphish]

Make the WDFW Own the choice and don't let them co-opt the support of sportsmen...

+1

[bearpaw]

That question BP is the question that should be hammered into the WDFW Several times at EVERY meeting they have. If i were to make a Stand on this issue with the 3 min they give me that would be it. Ad that one to the Cheat sheet!    And don't accept some limp noodle answer! Matter of fact BP what Limp noodle answers have you been given when you asked that question?

This is a new argument, but it makes all the sense in the world and is supported by their own data.... 
The agencies give lots of wolfer style answers because these recomendations are coming from wolf lovers.....
Look at the list of reviewers on the peer review list.... I will post a reply to the peer review from someone on our side....