Did someone smoke a couple wolves in the Teanaway?

[boneaddict]

I tried that on the Mrs last night.   It didn't work.

[pianoman9701]

Supporting illegal behavior in the woods, or on this or any other forum will not help the image of hunters in the public eye. And, state and federal officials read this site. Besides showing hunters in a bad light, you could be nailing your own coffin. This is a bad practice. My 

Blah, blah, blah...........c'mon papa smurf. The guys are just blowing off a little steam. Have a sense of humor. Rumors are just that, rumors. No hard core evidence here. So what if big brother reads this! WE, in this country are inocent until PROVEN guilty. Everybody in this day and age are so pariniod..............

It's not about having a sense of humor. It's about continuing to have the public's support for our lifestyle and passion; spending time in the woods hunting animals. When we come off as a bunch of law-breaking, blood thirsty, wolf-hating killers, the other 93% of the public who doesn't hunt ends up listening to the 1% of the animal rights wackos who say we're blood thirsty, law-breaking, wolf-hating killers. We lost our privileges to bait and hound back in 1996 because the animal rights wackos were able to get this message across to the majority. Hunters need to learn how to market the benefits of hunting, scientific game management, and conservation to the majority of voters. The type of rhetoric thrown about in this thread and others is really terrible marketing. Meanwhile, the HSUS and the Defenders of Wildlife are doing a great job of it and are winning the hearts and minds of the majority by using our own words against us. Why give them this advantage?

[Huntbear]

I agree with you pianoman, it is bad marketing.  However, publics perception of hunters is pretty much set by the anti's not us.

That said, I am happy as hell if there are 2 dead wolves in this state!  Oh wait, what area was this in?  Does the WDFW even acknowledge wolves in this location?  They may be big coyotes or feral dogs for all we know.   

[pianoman9701]

I agree with you pianoman, it is bad marketing.  However, publics perception of hunters is pretty much set by the anti's not us.

Your comment suggests that the only people who have influence on the public are the antis. That's total BS and if it were true, we'd have already lost all of our hunting rights. It's not true. You're only correct about the public's perception when you refuse to temper your written and spoken word in public. We still have the public's support of hunting but extremist rhetoric voiced publicly will change that over time. The animal rights extremists have learned how to temper their message to gain the public's support. Why can't we learn how to do that, as well? It is our responsibility to this sport and the continuation of this sport for future generations to learn how to effectively communicate in a non-threatening and mainstream manner.

[Knocker of rocks]

Does the WDFW even acknowledge wolves in this location?  They may be big coyotes or feral dogs for all we know.   

For those who are  woefully uninformed about Washington's wolves, from the front page of the Seattle Times
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015516994_wolves06m.html

[Lowedog]

I agree with you pianoman, it is bad marketing.  However, publics perception of hunters is pretty much set by the anti's not us.

Your comment suggests that the only people who have influence on the public are the antis. That's total BS and if it were true, we'd have already lost all of our hunting rights. It's not true. You're only correct about the public's perception when you refuse to temper your written and spoken word in public. We still have the public's support of hunting but extremist rhetoric voiced publicly will change that over time. The animal rights extremists have learned how to temper their message to gain the public's support. Why can't we learn how to do that, as well? It is our responsibility to this sport and the continuation of this sport for future generations to learn how to effectively communicate in a non-threatening and mainstream manner.

 

[SWHUNTER]

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,89086.0.html

[Wenatcheejay]

I agree with you pianoman, it is bad marketing.  However, publics perception of hunters is pretty much set by the anti's not us.

Your comment suggests that the only people who have influence on the public are the antis. That's total BS and if it were true, we'd have already lost all of our hunting rights. It's not true. You're only correct about the public's perception when you refuse to temper your written and spoken word in public. We still have the public's support of hunting but extremist rhetoric voiced publicly will change that over time. The animal rights extremists have learned how to temper their message to gain the public's support. Why can't we learn how to do that, as well? It is our responsibility to this sport and the continuation of this sport for future generations to learn how to effectively communicate in a non-threatening and mainstream manner.

The response should be that wolves can and do travel long distances for no reason when they feel like it. There was the outcry that all the wolves in the NE were killed by people only to find these same wolves in the Teanaway. Now, the same "Sky is Falling" outcry without verifiable proof. I don't want them slaughtered. I want them delisted. There is a big difference. They are not endangered. They are not rare. They do not deserve ESA status. Same old same old common sense here that nobody listens to. This argument was and is not about hunting vs. anti-hunting. It is not about the perception of hunting. It is about using the power of ESA. That power should not exist in it's current form. It should be in a form that actually works. 

[pianoman9701]

I agree with you pianoman, it is bad marketing.  However, publics perception of hunters is pretty much set by the anti's not us.

Your comment suggests that the only people who have influence on the public are the antis. That's total BS and if it were true, we'd have already lost all of our hunting rights. It's not true. You're only correct about the public's perception when you refuse to temper your written and spoken word in public. We still have the public's support of hunting but extremist rhetoric voiced publicly will change that over time. The animal rights extremists have learned how to temper their message to gain the public's support. Why can't we learn how to do that, as well? It is our responsibility to this sport and the continuation of this sport for future generations to learn how to effectively communicate in a non-threatening and mainstream manner.

The response should be that wolves can and do travel long distances for no reason when they feel like it. There was the outcry that all the wolves in the NE were killed by people only to find these same wolves in the Teanaway. Now, the same "Sky is Falling" outcry without verifiable proof. I don't want them slaughtered. I want them delisted. There is a big difference. They are not endangered. They are not rare. They do not deserve ESA status. Same old same old common sense here that nobody listens to. This argument was and is not about hunting vs. anti-hunting. It is not about the perception of hunting. It is about using the power of ESA. That power should not exist in it's current form. It should be in a form that actually works. 

I don't at all disagree with you, Jay. My reference was to extreme comments regarding support for the illegal killing of wolves, of which they are a few on this thread and many others throughout HuntWA. We will get little support from the majority of the public in our campaign to delist wolves or end the absurdity of the ESA if we're cast as bigger extremists than the antis. We need to communicate more effectively, plain and simple.

[passing-thru]

This incident is mentioned in the article about the Washington wolf trapped in Idaho.

[Snapshot]

I agree with you pianoman, it is bad marketing.  However, publics perception of hunters is pretty much set by the anti's not us.

Your comment suggests that the only people who have influence on the public are the antis. That's total BS and if it were true, we'd have already lost all of our hunting rights. It's not true. You're only correct about the public's perception when you refuse to temper your written and spoken word in public. We still have the public's support of hunting but extremist rhetoric voiced publicly will change that over time. The animal rights extremists have learned how to temper their message to gain the public's support. Why can't we learn how to do that, as well? It is our responsibility to this sport and the continuation of this sport for future generations to learn how to effectively communicate in a non-threatening and mainstream manner.

 

[JJB11B]

Ill leave it to this...It's too bad that wolves don't spend as much time in the road as mule deer......

[BOWHUNTER45]

Ill leave it to this...It's too bad that wolves don't spend as much time in the road as mule deer......

 

[idahoelkhunter300wby]

Turn the tribes loose on the deer and elk, introduce herd destroying dogs to this state, and then raise the prices on tags and license by 10%.

Man I love Washington.  Go Christine!

[stuckalot]

[/quote]

Hunters need to learn how to market the benefits of hunting, scientific game management, and conservation to the majority of voters. [/quote]

Personally I'm tired of this attitude, I've read this drivel for 20+ years, "don't tell people that it is in our genes to hunt, that it is part of our culture, that we have dominion over the animals, and that we have the right to manage those animals to OUR benefit, animals don't have rights!"  That's why we're here now, once we have wolves there is no need for "scientific game management"!  We've dug our own grave!