Post by: silverdalesauer on September 04, 2012, 11:26:40 PM
In light of this and the wdfw regs below, how would you have responded? Just curious if I'm ever put in that place.
The Regs from this link http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/rules/regulations/wac_232-36-050_killing_wildlife_for_personal_safety.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/rules/regulations/wac_232-36-050_killing_wildlife_for_personal_safety.pdf) read...
Quote
1
NEW SECTION
WAC 232-36-050 Killing wildlife for personal safety.
The fish and wildlife commission is authorized to classify wildlife as
game, as endangered or protected species, or as a predatory bird
consistent with RCW 77.08.010 and 77.12.020. The commission is also
authorized, pursuant to RCW 77.36.030, to establish the limitations
and conditions on killing or trapping wildlife that is threatening
human safety.
The conditions for killing wildlife vary, based primarily on
the classification of the wildlife species, the imminent nature of
the threat to personal safety. Additional conditions defined by the
department may also be important, depending on individual
situations. Killing wildlife for personal safety is subject to all
other state and federal laws including, but not limited to, Titles
77 RCW and 232 WAC.
(1) Killing wildlife for personal safety.
(a) It is permissible to kill wild animals engaged in the
physical act of attacking a person.
(b) It is permissible to kill game animals posing an immediate
threat of physical harm to a person.
Post by: ICEMAN on September 05, 2012, 06:13:26 AM
Be ready to articulate the threat you felt.
Be also ready to exercise your fifth amendment rights.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Post by: wraithen on September 05, 2012, 06:38:42 AM
Post by: rtspring on September 05, 2012, 06:42:21 AM
Post by: jackmaster on September 05, 2012, 06:50:38 AM
If there is any fear for my life, im gonna start killing me some wolves. I wouldnot hesitate for one second.damn skippy, people gotta understand as we hunters understand that the wolf is one of the smartest and most ferocious animals that a human will encounter, everyone remembers a mean ass dog growing up, well now its wolves and no dog no matter how mean will ever compare to a wild wolf.....if i encounter a wolf and even think there is a chance that he or his buddies will attack, then i am taking out as many as i can until i run out of bullets, and if someone in my family is with me then i definatly wont be taking any chances......START SHOOTIN..... :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on September 05, 2012, 08:52:03 AM
If wolf groups were smart and wanted to protect wolves, and if WDFW managers were wise and wanted to protect the wolves and the people, I would think they woud be advising hunters and ranchers to shoot into the ground whenever they see wolves. This action in itself will educate wolves that humans and ranching areas are not suitable for prey.
I would keep in mind that at this point in Washington a human has few rights when it comes to wolves, if you shoot a wolf and get caught you better be prepared to go through what the White's went through. I think it may even be against the law to fire warning shots to scare wolves away.
However, I firmly believe that Washington will go through the same "wolf cycle" that ID/MT went through due to the unreasonable actions of the wolf lovers and unknowing wildlife managers who are trying to force too many wolves into areas where wolves are not suited and that in a few years the wolves will be causing so much damage to livestock and game herds that people will begin killing wolves without hesitation for the common good and openly talking about it as they are now doing in ID/MT.
So far the wolf "cycle of events" is right on schedule with the other states, quick expansion of packs and territories, predation on livestock and the decline of game is occuring in localized areas, but these areas of impact will expand rapidly as wolves overpopulate. This is all very easy to predict because it has all occurred before.
All in all the situation is far worse than it would have to be if people were simply more reasonable with this wolf introduction, and yes it is an introduction because these wolves coming in from Idaho are not native wolves, they are northern canadian wolves, a larger sub-specie, that is a documented fact anyone can easily lookup on the internet.
Post by: bonkellekter on September 05, 2012, 11:57:44 AM
As most of you have, I have also read alot about what the White's went thru with their ordeal so.... I was not going to shoot unless they started to approach again. I only had one magazine worth of rounds as well and wanted every one to count if they tried something. In the future I will carry at least one extra clip.
The way they were acting I know they were doing exactly as Dale described... they were prey testing, as they came in downwind from us fully knowing we were there and their behavior was trying to provoke an action out of us. It is without a doubt the most nerve racking situation I have been in while hunting!!
Post by: Kowsrule30 on September 05, 2012, 01:58:12 PM
Post by: JLS on September 05, 2012, 02:15:05 PM
I think it may even be against the law to fire warning shots to scare wolves away.
That is a less than intelligent statement. You can shoot a wolf in self defense, just as you can a grizzly bear. There have been numerous occasions where folks have fired shots to deter a grizzly bear and I cannot remember a single time anyone got in trouble over it.
Post by: fair-chase on September 05, 2012, 02:17:27 PM
I think it may even be against the law to fire warning shots to scare wolves away.
That is a less than intelligent statement. You can shoot a wolf in self defense, just as you can a grizzly bear. There have been numerous occasions where folks have fired shots to deter a grizzly bear and I cannot remember a single time anyone got in trouble over it.
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,82015.100.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,82015.100.html)
Post by: JLS on September 05, 2012, 02:18:50 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on September 05, 2012, 05:44:10 PM
Post by: bearpaw on September 05, 2012, 06:07:22 PM
I think it may even be against the law to fire warning shots to scare wolves away.
That is a less than intelligent statement. You can shoot a wolf in self defense, just as you can a grizzly bear. There have been numerous occasions where folks have fired shots to deter a grizzly bear and I cannot remember a single time anyone got in trouble over it.
Actually your reply may be less than intelligent or perhaps you simply misread my post. :dunno:
I had just stated "I would think they would be advising hunters and ranchers to shoot into the ground whenever they see wolves." I made no referrence to self defense, I was speaking of conditioning wolves to be afraid of humans whenever humans see wolves.
Then I warned to be careful not to end up like the White's (by shooting a wolf) and that it's likely illegal to shoot to scare wolves away whenever you see them. I am reasonably sure that if you check the law you will find it's illegal to haze wolves unless they are in the act of attacking.
I suggest you check the law and then come back and tell me I am less than intelligent if in fact it's legal for anyone to scare wolves away by shooting at them anytime you see them.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on September 05, 2012, 06:36:29 PM
Post by: JLS on September 05, 2012, 09:26:41 PM
I think it may even be against the law to fire warning shots to scare wolves away.
That is a less than intelligent statement. You can shoot a wolf in self defense, just as you can a grizzly bear. There have been numerous occasions where folks have fired shots to deter a grizzly bear and I cannot remember a single time anyone got in trouble over it.
Actually your reply may be less than intelligent or perhaps you simply misread my post. :dunno:
I had just stated "I would think they would be advising hunters and ranchers to shoot into the ground whenever they see wolves." I made no referrence to self defense, I was speaking of conditioning wolves to be afraid of humans whenever humans see wolves.
Then I warned to be careful not to end up like the White's (by shooting a wolf) and that it's likely illegal to shoot to scare wolves away whenever you see them. I am reasonably sure that if you check the law you will find it's illegal to haze wolves unless they are in the act of attacking.
I suggest you check the law and then come back and tell me I am less than intelligent if in fact it's legal for anyone to scare wolves away by shooting at them anytime you see them.
Dale,
Obviously I misunderstood the context of your statement. I apologize for my remark.
It is not illegal to haze wolves unless they are in the act of attacking. You can haze them to prevent livestock conflicts. You can haze them to keep them away from your house and kids. How you haze them I'm sure would be subject to scrutiny. The wolf plan details a list of non-lethal methods of hazing that include rubber bullets, rubber buckshot, cracker shells, etc. How lethal is a load of #8s at 70 yards? Not very. It's a technique used all the time to mitigate crop damage. If a person was being followed by wolves, and being prey tested, I highly doubt they would be scrutinized for firing warning shots in the dirt.
In fact, if you recall Hirshey's incident last year it was stated that she SHOULD have fired a warning shot.
Post by: Ice Cap on September 05, 2012, 09:48:45 PM
I found the following definitions that came fro the state of Montana
Threatening to kill means the actual chasing, testing, molesting, harassing or livestock or livestock herding or guarding animals that would indicate to a reasonable person that an attack was imminent.
Attacking or killing means the actual biting, wounding, or grasping of livestock or domestic dogs.
Post by: Kowsrule30 on September 05, 2012, 09:51:50 PM
Post by: KFhunter on September 06, 2012, 09:51:11 PM
All I know is one best never show his teeth at me :dunno: ;)
When they are hunting, they do not growl, show their teeth or do any of that stuff.
That comes after the kill, alpha would have to snap at the others a little so he gets the prime cuts of long pig :chuckle:
Post by: silverdalesauer on September 07, 2012, 10:24:53 AM
Also, a training video would be a good idea. Does Hunting-Washington Forum have a place to put training videos for us? Maybe a good thing to do so that we can best be prepared.
Post by: grizzlyadams on September 08, 2012, 08:23:56 AM
Post by: FALFire on September 09, 2012, 05:52:33 AM
Maybe it would be good to have someone pressure the WDFW to hold a class on what truly defines an "attack" or a "threat of an attack" and then they list some options of how to determine the best options for people who encounter a wolf in the wild.
Also, a training video would be a good idea. Does Hunting-Washington Forum have a place to put training videos for us? Maybe a good thing to do so that we can best be prepared.
My best guess would be that if you are in that situation...... You will know exactly what the definition of attack or threat of attack really is. If you hesitate to react, you will likely not get the chance to report it to anyone.
It's like so many that carry a gun for self defense, they really don't know when to use it properly until they are actually put in that situation then it becomes all too clear and many times all too late.
If I were to be surrounded by wolves I know for sure at least one is taking on some added weight. Ever seen how fast a dog can cover ground, well when they are coming at you in a hurry you may only have 100ths of seconds to respond.....why wait. Put yourself in the shoes of any LEO, if they are confronted by an armed person, just how much warning do your think they give before opening fire. The ones that usually survive the attack respond immediately.
18 yards is WAAAAAYYY too close when you are surrounded by killing machines, I would prefer 100 yard minimum as with wolves, where there is one, usually there are 3 or 4, perhaps more, you will get tunnel vision long before you realize it and forget to check your six, you will never hear the one that gets you, the only thing that will wake you up from tunnel vision is your own screams as their teeth sink deeply into your muscle tissue.
Post by: boneaddict on September 09, 2012, 07:32:51 AM
Quote
I would shoot one or more if need be to protect myself, family, friends, pet's..... Then not speak a word of it.....
I know you were joking Bowhunter, but they will not show you their teeth. You will meet a steel glare from their eyes, and its how you handle that glare which will determine whether or not you will die.
Post by: Yeti on September 09, 2012, 07:53:41 AM
Post by: Curly on September 09, 2012, 07:58:56 AM
Quote
(b) It is permissible to kill game animals posing an immediatewould allow me to legally kill a wolf (or wolves) if they are that close to me. 18 yards or even 50 yards is too close...........
threat of physical harm to a person.
Post by: wraithen on September 09, 2012, 08:10:10 AM
Post by: boneaddict on September 09, 2012, 10:45:35 AM
Post by: Bob33 on September 09, 2012, 10:48:16 AM
I wonder if Washington voters will implement a "no bait" and "no dogs" rule for hunting wolves when they become legal? :yike:
Post by: Elkslayer on September 09, 2012, 02:29:46 PM
Maybe it would be good to have someone pressure the WDFW to hold a class on what truly defines an "attack" or a "threat of an attack" and then they list some options of how to determine the best options for people who encounter a wolf in the wild.
Also, a training video would be a good idea. Does Hunting-Washington Forum have a place to put training videos for us? Maybe a good thing to do so that we can best be prepared.
I don't think that would be a good idea, if we allowed that to happen then everyone would have to follow the rules or definition of a threat as WDFW sees it. People are different what I might perceive as a threat might not be the same for you or someone else in that same situation. :twocents:
Post by: KFhunter on September 09, 2012, 06:57:49 PM
Cool story.
I wonder if Washington voters will implement a "no bait" and "no dogs" rule for hunting wolves when they become legal? :yike:
You can bet your ass there will be PLENTY of rules, they'll be enforced and followed for the most part for a short while.....then there will be rules but no one will follow them, then they won't be enforced very well if at all....then there'll be less rules.....then it'll be coyote rules as it should be.
Post by: silverdalesauer on September 09, 2012, 07:03:25 PM
You will have just about enough time to pull out electrical tape, little liquor bottles, and securely tape them and your knife to your hands. Then you will be ready for the fight.
I was thinking that exact same thing... The Grey was so dumb... especially at the end. It's like the guy said "Timeout! Let me pray over my dead friends' wallets, let me contemplate how I want to die, and let me add some glass knuckles to my hands.... OK..."
:)
Post by: Yeti on September 09, 2012, 07:27:43 PM
A trained police office needs 21' at minimum to draw and fire 1 shot at a guy with a knife who is charing the officer before the officer is phycially struck. A wolf covers more ground than a person and faster. Any wolf within 50yds is a dead wolf.
Just like a dead intruder tells no tales so a dead wolf is better than a live one.