Post by: KFhunter on September 24, 2012, 10:48:04 PM
Hit yes or no if you dare, the results will post when the poll expires in 10 days and you cannot change your vote.
Before you get carried away though read this sticky thread:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,78064.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,78064.0.html)
Post by: Fowlweather25 on September 24, 2012, 10:50:33 PM
Post by: bobcat on September 24, 2012, 10:50:46 PM
Why, how many wolves did you kill?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on September 24, 2012, 10:52:48 PM
Post by: KFhunter on September 24, 2012, 10:53:26 PM
No I wouldn't. I don't consider killing a wolf poaching. Why punish someone for saving deer and elk?
Why, how many wolves did you kill?
I myself have not killed any wolves, I cannot condone it as it is illegal in the state of WA. I would however go to Idaho and help out all I could ;)
This is a tricky topic I realize, please read the sticky thread above - HW does not condone illegal activities.
Post by: denali on September 24, 2012, 11:00:31 PM
Post by: KFhunter on September 24, 2012, 11:02:02 PM
No I wouldn't. I don't consider killing a wolf poaching. Why punish someone for saving deer and elk?
Why, how many wolves did you kill?
Is your position that these particular wolves are a non-native species and therefore not subject to poaching laws?
I ask because bear and Mt. Lion also kill deer and elk, and I know you would report any poaching of bear or mt lion by your previous remarks on other topics.
Post by: jess on September 24, 2012, 11:02:02 PM
Post by: h2ofowlr on September 24, 2012, 11:28:52 PM
Post by: Maligator on September 24, 2012, 11:35:20 PM
Post by: h2ofowlr on September 25, 2012, 12:02:26 AM
Post by: Maligator on September 25, 2012, 12:43:45 AM
No one wants to be that guy or break a rule. What happens, happens I guess if you aren't will to do anything about it. But maybe you will get 10 bonus points because you turned in someone attempting to save deer, elk, cattle, etc. Be proud of that. Not.
I could care less about "extra points". All I'm saying is that I don't believe in poaching of any sort. If you're going to be doing it then just be sure not to tell me. My grandfather was a conservation officer and was instrumental in my outdoor hunting and fishing experiences and he instilled in me the ethics I am proud to have. I agree that we need to put more pressure on the elected officials and WDFW to better manage funds and ecosystems but that doesn't give me the right to pull out the "3 S's" (shoot, shovel, shut up).
Post by: washelkhunter on September 25, 2012, 12:53:38 AM
Post by: mkcj on September 25, 2012, 01:33:14 AM
Post by: dannysdaddy on September 25, 2012, 02:24:57 AM
Post by: boneaddict on September 25, 2012, 04:52:02 AM
Post by: dontgetcrabs on September 25, 2012, 05:12:21 AM
Post by: rtspring on September 25, 2012, 05:45:39 AM
Post by: Huntboy on September 25, 2012, 05:49:30 AM
Shooting a wolf is not poaching! Its Conservation.:yeah:
Post by: dreamunelk on September 25, 2012, 06:29:51 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on September 25, 2012, 06:37:36 AM
Post by: stickbuck on September 25, 2012, 06:49:04 AM
Post by: Sawbuck on September 25, 2012, 06:53:47 AM
If its an unconfirmed pack then they are just wild dogs and I don't know about any laws against shooting a feral dog
Post by: jackmaster on September 25, 2012, 06:54:06 AM
Post by: Dhoey07 on September 25, 2012, 06:59:41 AM
Post by: dscubame on September 25, 2012, 07:03:25 AM
Post by: GrousePointer on September 25, 2012, 07:10:04 AM
Good job guys, keep it up.
Online conversations like this do not help our tradition. Just like honey holes, some things are best kept to yourselves and not posted online.
Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express
Post by: Atroxus on September 25, 2012, 07:12:49 AM
Post by: Wyoming08 on September 25, 2012, 07:38:54 AM
Post by: JLS on September 25, 2012, 08:01:09 AM
This thread is pure gold to people in the anti hunting lobby. Nothing better than seeing hunters who stress ethical, law abiding, hunting and then talk out the side of their mouths about turning a blind eye to poaching.
Good job guys, keep it up.
Online conversations like this do not help our tradition. Just like honey holes, some things are best kept to yourselves and not posted online.
Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express
Simply amazing, isn't it? Way to represent us all.
Post by: sirmissalot on September 25, 2012, 08:01:24 AM
I would not turn in a wolf shooter.
Post by: notellumcreek on September 25, 2012, 08:06:21 AM
Post by: elkboy on September 25, 2012, 08:19:22 AM
So, right, the question- yes, I'd turn that person right in. By the way, the law does not distinguish between subspecies: Canis lupus is Canis lupus, the gray wolf. Mackenzie River vs. Northern Rockies subspecies? The court will not buy that defense.
Post by: Atroxus on September 25, 2012, 08:25:11 AM
Blatant disregard for the law (both state and federal) is no way to advance our cause in terms of responsible wildlife management. How much faith are you going to have in a guy who will poach one species (predator or not) that he will not do the same for animals you care about (deer, elk, etc.)? How much faith will the public have, more importantly? The law is the law, and real change will not come via illegal shots in the woods, but via hard work in the courts and in the eyes of the public.
So, right, the question- yes, I'd turn that person right in. By the way, the law does not distinguish between subspecies: Canis lupus is Canis lupus, the gray wolf. Mackenzie River vs. Northern Rockies subspecies? The court will not buy that defense.
That doesn't mean the law is right or that it should not be changed. The law does not distinguish between sub-species, but do scientists? Personally I won't break the law because I can't afford to mount a legal defense to take action based on principle. But I do think that the wolves that were introduced to this state need to be removed. :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on September 25, 2012, 08:34:07 AM
Quote
But I do think that the wolves that were introduced to this state need to be removed.
Wolves were never "introduced" to this state.
They came here on their own. And, some have been here all along, in my opinion.
Post by: saylean on September 25, 2012, 08:38:32 AM
Post by: Miles on September 25, 2012, 08:38:58 AM
The WDFW will probably up the points to 20 for turning in wolf poachers after the results of this are poll are made public. :chuckle: They can't buy some of us...
Post by: KopperBuck on September 25, 2012, 08:52:52 AM
Post by: GrousePointer on September 25, 2012, 09:03:02 AM
How many of you have ever picked up the phone to call your area representatives and let them know your feelings on this? How many of you attend WDFW meetings to voice your feelings on the matter or for that matter call them or e-mail (with some civility guys)?
Your legislators work for you and so does the WDFW. If you don't take part nothing will change and if you don't let them know they won't either.
Don't believe it can work? The anti hunting lobby tried to shut down hunting in the Huron National Forest last year in Michigan. But hunters organized and made their feelings known and kept the pressure on and prevented that from happening. Similar organization has blocked anti dog breeding legislation that would adversely affect responsible breeders of gun dogs and hounds and yes, it also helped push the DNR out there into hunting wolves and not just because of livestock kills.
Learn to work the system or the sierra club and every tree hugging hiker will ensure you can't hunt in the future.
Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express
Post by: Miles on September 25, 2012, 09:05:37 AM
Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express
Your cool factor just went way up... :chuckle:
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on September 25, 2012, 09:05:54 AM
Post by: Atroxus on September 25, 2012, 09:06:46 AM
QuoteBut I do think that the wolves that were introduced to this state need to be removed.
Wolves were never "introduced" to this state.
They came here on their own. And, some have been here all along, in my opinion.
So they were not introduced, but they are non-native? If this is the case I still think they should be treated by WDFW as a non-native invasive species.
Post by: bobcat on September 25, 2012, 09:11:57 AM
Quote
I still think they should be treated by WDFW as a non-native invasive species.
I agree.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on September 25, 2012, 09:13:43 AM
Post by: Miles on September 25, 2012, 09:16:01 AM
Yes I would. Ever since I took my wife to see the game warden for killing a mule deer during a late whitetail season, 4 months into our marriage, she pretty much demands that I turn in every poacher I see.
Did you collect your points? :chuckle:
Post by: Gringo31 on September 25, 2012, 09:21:44 AM
I've been to the meetings etc, etc, etc.
Fact is many of us feel very strongly about our wildlife and also get the VERY CLEAR message that WDFW really doesn't want to listen to us. It's about federal $, preservation and not conservation.
Post by: elkboy on September 25, 2012, 09:21:44 AM
Reminds me of a Patrick McManus story involving a game warden...
Post by: h2ofowlr on September 25, 2012, 09:22:43 AM
If they make it illegal to drive your vehicle next month because they cause global warming, I suppose most of you would walk because it would be illegal otherwise. Just saying.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on September 25, 2012, 09:31:23 AM
Unfortunately, that was in Wyoming, so no points option. I was working for the WY G&F at the time, so not just a fine, my job was on the line. She understood. Funny thing though, she was p.o.'ed I couldn't get a cash reward since I was a Dep't. employee.Yes I would. Ever since I took my wife to see the game warden for killing a mule deer during a late whitetail season, 4 months into our marriage, she pretty much demands that I turn in every poacher I see.
Did you collect your points? :chuckle:
Post by: Special T on September 25, 2012, 09:32:32 AM
Since the Government is supposed to work FOR the people are unjust laws moral?
It is unfortunate that our WDFW and State legislature cannot seem to view recent history of ID MT and the relative success of WY on this issue. If you were to find your livelihood stuck between a rock and a hard spot what would you do?
BTW there are many people who have suffered similar financial pain that were not wolf related. Many were private property related and given no real consideration..
I don't think many of these statements prove anything about wolves or hunting. What it does prove is how little consideration has been given to those affected by this issue, yet PLENTY of consideration has been given to people that are so remotely affected it boggles the mind. :twocents:
Post by: huntnphool on September 25, 2012, 09:37:35 AM
if you turn a blind eye to illegal activities you are just as guilty and no better than that person.what do you do in the case of Montana? Gov. Barry said that since the feds wouldn't do anything about the wolf issue then he was instructing his F&G and police to not enforce the law when one was killed, are they guilty too?
How about Obama instructing ICE not to enforce imigration laws? Does that make him guilty too?
Post by: GrousePointer on September 25, 2012, 09:45:13 AM
Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express
Your cool factor just went way up... :chuckle:
No, I would need an iPhone for that, or so the masses tell me.
Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express
Post by: Kc_Kracker on September 25, 2012, 09:47:16 AM
Post by: KFhunter on September 25, 2012, 09:56:24 AM
This is a discussion among hunters, to see if the line has been drawn in the sand.
Post by: rtspring on September 25, 2012, 09:58:55 AM
So according to you law abiding , BY the BOOK guys,
YOU dont speed? come to a complete stop at every stop sign, never throw a gum wrapper out the window, throw a cigarette butt out the window, slow to 35 on the curve, YA right.
So who is choosing what laws to break ? HMMMM might have something to do with getting 10 points so you can eat that BIG BULLS HORNS someday....
What it really comes down to is , Who owns the wildlife in this state? WE the people do. Sure we try and obey the game regs, if you can interpret what they mean. But Im sorry ETHICS and these wolves should not be used in the same sentence, what is ethical about our politicians allowing the wolves to be brought in, and WE the hunters are paying for them to do so.
To hell with them wolves and anyone who supports them. Bitch about hunting but yet support wolves!! you got issues.. :stirthepot: :stirthepot: :stirthepot:
RTSPRING
Post by: rtspring on September 25, 2012, 10:00:18 AM
Dont pick up that 5 dollar bill laying in the parking lot that someone lost! IT ISNT YOURS THIEF
RTSPRING
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on September 25, 2012, 10:04:52 AM
Post by: luvmystang67 on September 25, 2012, 10:08:19 AM
Post by: Kc_Kracker on September 25, 2012, 10:13:29 AM
PS,
Dont pick up that 5 dollar bill laying in the parking lot that someone lost! IT ISNT YOURS THIEF
RTSPRING
thats finding not stealing, so yes its now miner because its been abandoned, its lonely, its scared, I will comfort it by dropping it off at the nearest burger king to be safe and warm :chuckle:
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on September 25, 2012, 10:15:11 AM
Not going to state my position on a public forum, however I will mention that influential people have accomplished some pretty great things with CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE.
You mean like Prohibition? Way to make people who would never drink alcohol want it! :chuckle: Another case of the government kow-towing to a few zealots!
Post by: trophyhunt on September 25, 2012, 10:16:38 AM
You guys that are trying to say poaching is poaching NO MATTER what kill me!Very well put. :tup:
So according to you law abiding , BY the BOOK guys,
YOU dont speed? come to a complete stop at every stop sign, never throw a gum wrapper out the window, throw a cigarette butt out the window, slow to 35 on the curve, YA right.
So who is choosing what laws to break ? HMMMM might have something to do with getting 10 points so you can eat that BIG BULLS HORNS someday....
What it really comes down to is , Who owns the wildlife in this state? WE the people do. Sure we try and obey the game regs, if you can interpret what they mean. But Im sorry ETHICS and these wolves should not be used in the same sentence, what is ethical about our politicians allowing the wolves to be brought in, and WE the hunters are paying for them to do so.
To hell with them wolves and anyone who supports them. Bitch about hunting but yet support wolves!! you got issues.. :stirthepot: :stirthepot: :stirthepot:
RTSPRING
Post by: h2ofowlr on September 25, 2012, 10:20:57 AM
yes, a poach is a poach, a white lie is no less a lie and a $5 bill is no different that $100 bill stolen, all of the above are as equally destructive. it all comes down to ethic, morality, and honesty. If they will poach a wolf they will poach a elk, its all about the "i can get away with it" mentality. That being said, I personally would not go out looking to poach a wolf, BUT if i see a wolf while I'm hunting, bang, dead wolf, because I wish to live and they are more deadly then a tom as far as I'm concerned, because I know his buddies are lurking around me very close. Crap, Id have to turn myself in :chuckle:
I wouldn't poach a deer or elk, but I would shoot a stray dog running game just like a wolf if given the opportunity. A stray dog running big game that I cherish is no different than a wolf. That is where I draw my line. I know most people that see a yote take a poke at it year around. If you see a deer or elk do you take a poke at it. Absolutely not. Don't bring them back to this state and there won't be an ethics issues involved. No line will have to be drawn in the sand and I think a lot of people wouldn't be talking about something they wouldn't normally do. They are forcing the smart ones to cross the lines. Just like when some of you vote for Obama again and he makes you register your guns, UN Gun Treaty and all the other s**t storm that's coming. I will be drawing another line. I will keep my one gun and I will let some of you take up hunting with lawn darts and blow guns.
Post by: Huntbear on September 25, 2012, 10:24:08 AM
:sas: :sas: :sas: :sas:
<all said with tongue in cheek> :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: copasj on September 25, 2012, 10:30:21 AM
You guys that are trying to say poaching is poaching NO MATTER what kill me!
So according to you law abiding , BY the BOOK guys,
YOU dont speed? come to a complete stop at every stop sign, never throw a gum wrapper out the window, throw a cigarette butt out the window, slow to 35 on the curve, YA right.
So who is choosing what laws to break ? HMMMM might have something to do with getting 10 points so you can eat that BIG BULLS HORNS someday....
What it really comes down to is , Who owns the wildlife in this state? WE the people do. Sure we try and obey the game regs, if you can interpret what they mean. But Im sorry ETHICS and these wolves should not be used in the same sentence, what is ethical about our politicians allowing the wolves to be brought in, and WE the hunters are paying for them to do so.
To hell with them wolves and anyone who supports them. Bitch about hunting but yet support wolves!! you got issues.. :stirthepot: :stirthepot: :stirthepot:
RTSPRING
I admit that I speed occasionally, but I don't contest the ticket. I send in the check. The difference is that I don't speed on purpose, but it's hard to accidentally poach. You can't really compare traffic violations like speeding with poaching anyway. Traffic violations are not criminal offenses.
My two cents on the issue.
In the end poaching wolves will keep them protected longer. Lower populations will prevent the state from being able to manage them. And any kind of poaching helps anti-hunters push to restrict hunting rights. It's a short term "solution" that delays fixing the issue.
Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2
Post by: GrousePointer on September 25, 2012, 10:30:29 AM
Oh that's right, hunters in this state didn't organize well enough and the initiative process ended that for us. WDFW or the state gov didn't have to do a thing.
Go poach some wolves and see what the voting public might do to our past time as a result. Or worse, wait for the anti wolf hunting initiative.
Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express
Post by: rtspring on September 25, 2012, 10:40:11 AM
I do drive over the speed limit sometimes and if it's too far, I get a ticket and i don't whine about it. If I see someone drop money in the parking lot, I ALWAYS give it to them. If I find a large amount of money in a parking lot, I'll bring it to the store manager and get a receipt. I always used my ashtray and never throw a gum wrapper out a window, ever.
RT, you often lately seem ready to jump down on another hunter because you have a difference of opinion. This is a poll to see what hunters think. Like with any other, there's no reason to attack people. We know everyone has different standards. You certainly have yours and I have mine. That doesn't mean we have to treat each other with disrespect when disagreeing on a topic. I suggest that won't do anything positive to keep us working together as a group on the things about which we do agree.
My whole post was about those hunters among us who break laws, however so slight but yet when it comes to hunting, they will try and get any reward offered. I live my life this way, Plain and simple, cut and dry.
You either folow the rules, or you dont. This is my opinion, you are entitled to yours too...
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on September 25, 2012, 10:54:56 AM
I would not because my understanding is that the native wolves were wiped out from our state, and the wolves we have now are larger, more aggressive Canadian grey wolves introduced to the state artificially. So, I consider them a non-native invasive species. I would not shoot one myself or condone it because our current(retarded) laws have them listed as protected. I would kind of like there to still be a deer/elk herd when my son is old enough to start hunting with me though. :twocents:
So you wouldn't turn in a poacher of pheasant, turkey, chuckar, partridge, or quail? All are introduced non native species. By your logic, game laws don't need to be followed with these species. With aquatic species Washington has non native largemouth and smallmouth bass, walleye and northern pike, rainbow trout, kokanee, Manila clams, oysters, and many more. So I guess we don't need to follow any laws or regs concerning those species.
Cattle, sheep, horses, and pigs are also introduced species so I guess you won't be turning in anyone for shooting them out of a farmer's field either.
Post by: Miles on September 25, 2012, 11:06:47 AM
:chuckle: That ought to bring this to 20 pages.
Post by: rtspring on September 25, 2012, 11:08:01 AM
So some can break laws but yet choose to turn in others for breaking the law? Wait for it,,,, thats called being a hipocrite is it not?
RTSPRING
Post by: Huntbear on September 25, 2012, 11:13:54 AM
I would not because my understanding is that the native wolves were wiped out from our state, and the wolves we have now are larger, more aggressive Canadian grey wolves introduced to the state artificially. So, I consider them a non-native invasive species. I would not shoot one myself or condone it because our current(retarded) laws have them listed as protected. I would kind of like there to still be a deer/elk herd when my son is old enough to start hunting with me though. :twocents:
So you wouldn't turn in a poacher of pheasant, turkey, chuckar, partridge, or quail? All are introduced non native species. By your logic, game laws don't need to be followed with these species. With aquatic species Washington has non native largemouth and smallmouth bass, walleye and northern pike, rainbow trout, kokanee, Manila clams, oysters, and many more. So I guess we don't need to follow any laws or regs concerning those species.
Cattle, sheep, horses, and pigs are also introduced species so I guess you won't be turning in anyone for shooting them out of a farmer's field either.
And the Elk in Central Washington were hunted to Extinction at one point, so the elk that are here are not really native either, most likely implants from Montana, or Canada or Wyoming...
Not saying I think wolves should be here. I guess my problem is how the majority of them got here.. because there WERE WOLVES HERE 10 YEARS AGO... just not as many. Due to the transplanting of the Canadian Grey Wolf into Yellowstone, and Idaho, and Wyoming, they are just flat taking over, and decimating elk herds left and right.... Idaho and Montana have it right, if you can not control the population one way, control it with erradication, or as close to it as possible. The problem is, we live in a SANCTUARY STATE, for illegal aliens of all kinds, including 4 legged ones..
Post by: Gringo31 on September 25, 2012, 11:15:01 AM
or
To kill/finish off a deer you hit with your truck.
SOME guys might think its the right thing to finish off the suffereing animal and then salvage what they can vs total waste. They may feel it is RIGHT to do so, even if against the law.......and there lies the gray area.....
Post by: Fl0und3rz on September 25, 2012, 11:17:07 AM
There are laws that make sense, and there are laws that it makes no sense not to exercise a little civil disobedience. But I would not give any ammo to those who would force irrational methods of wildlife management on us.
Post by: huntnphool on September 25, 2012, 11:17:15 AM
I also oppose appointments to the wildlife commission which would top-load it with animal rights activists like Jay Kehne.Yeah, how'd that go for you? ;)
Post by: huntnphool on September 25, 2012, 11:21:12 AM
I was all but two of the meetings, don't bark up that tree. ;)I'll continue to stay in their faces. Are you doing the same? We need all the hunters we can get to be vocal and in the face of our DFW and legislatorsI also oppose appointments to the wildlife commission which would top-load it with animal rights activists like Jay Kehne.Yeah, how'd that go for you? ;)
Post by: Kowsrule30 on September 25, 2012, 11:31:03 AM
Post by: predatorpro on September 25, 2012, 11:40:18 AM
Post by: Killmore on September 25, 2012, 11:46:46 AM
Post by: magnanimous_j on September 25, 2012, 11:47:03 AM
Post by: bearpaw on September 25, 2012, 11:50:14 AM
With that said I have expressed my concerns about what I see happening with the wolf issue to numerous people in law enforcement. Washington is more or less following in the footsteps of Idaho and Montana with this wolf issue and I can tell you that the wolf issue has not been healthy for a land that has prospered by enforcing laws. Unfortunately, this isn't an issue we can ignore and hope it will go away, it is really only beginning in Washington and we will see this issue get much bigger and much more polarizing as wildlife herds are impacted and more citizens are impacted with livestock and inevitable pet losses.
I would encourage everyone to be proactive about this issue with legislators when the time comes. If we hope to maintain order in our society we must work to change laws that are outdated or don't work. I think this poll indicates to me that this wolf issue is already a bigger problem than I thought it was. I think that lawmakers need to look very closely at this issue and consider the consequences very carefully.
Quote
Hunting-Washington does not condone the illegal killing of wolves or any other wildlife. An organized and civilized society must have laws and those laws must be enforced for a society to remain organized.
It has been the policy of Hunting-Washington to allow most civil discussions. Moderators will sometimes remove comments they find and judge to violate forum rules especially if comments are unsuitable for family viewing or discussion on this forum. When comments are found that suggest illegal activity they are usually left on the forum so that law enforcement can monitor such activity.
Everyone has agreed to the Forum Rules when signing up to use this forum. Please note the following excerpt from the Forum Rules:
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, slanderous, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any State, International, or United States Federal law.
Post by: Curly on September 25, 2012, 12:01:48 PM
Post by: jackmaster on September 25, 2012, 12:17:50 PM
Post by: Special T on September 25, 2012, 12:22:06 PM
Lets take a little lesson from parts of ID. IDFG worked within the system to try and appease the DoW and others of their ilk. What did it get them? NOTHING! There are/were places in ID where the general consensus was that "poaching" wolves was acceptable. They tended to not feel the effects as bad as other areas... They also had less bunny huggers living in the area. Fast forward to today. Areas that have open season have NOT eliminated wolves, it has only reduced their presence. Guides that have been given cart Blanche to knock down wolves have elk and deer in their valleys, only because they have a safe haven during the "non" hunting season...
So what does this mean for us? In secluded area that do not catch the attention of the WDFW or the USFS people who take action into their own hands MAY have a local effect on wolves. They will never wipe them out and will only provide a safe haven if they live around others like them and done quietly.
The ROOT of the problems is how we are being represented by our WDFW and State reps/sen. IF they reacted more like WY we would not be in this pickle. Our leaders have resorted to appeasement and it never works.
DELAY is the tactic that worked for the DoW and it is succeeding here. Best option would be for our leaders to grow a pair of balls and handle this issue, but that is not going to happen. A few people will take the risks and handle the problem them selves, however this will be ineffective. If the legal liberal hunting and trapping of wolves in states like MT and ID, then I doubt Illegal method by a few will be effective. What choice does the state give its citizens? What other recourse does the state provide than to become outlaws? IT DOES NOT! WY is the ONLY state that has seen this problem for what it is. They are apparently the only state represented by real men. :twocents:
Post by: Miles on September 25, 2012, 12:22:51 PM
How come I can't see the poll results? :dunno:
Because the person that started the poll elected to have them hidden until the voting closes.
Post by: hrd2fnd on September 25, 2012, 12:24:55 PM
How come I can't see the poll results? :dunno:
Results available after Voting closes on October 04, 2012, 10:49:29 PM
Post by: h2ofowlr on September 25, 2012, 12:43:09 PM
My two cents on the issue.
In the end poaching wolves will keep them protected longer. Lower populations will prevent the state from being able to manage them. And any kind of poaching helps anti-hunters push to restrict hunting rights. It's a short term "solution" that delays fixing the issue.
Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2
I couldn't disagree with you more. When Idaho exceeded there goal, the groups that sided with allowing a season lied and then went to the courts to block a hunting season. They say one thing then do another when push comes to shove. Their is another court battle brewing in regards to this seasons hunt. If you allow them to hit the lofty numbers they want again the antis will hit the courts even harder and tie it up. You live in Washington if you forgot. Then things will get way out of control. We are probably looked at as uneducated rednecks by the tree huggers. Obviously a few of you have been spent way to much time in some Seattle surrounding liberalized institutions.
I don't need to put my private schooling, batchelor's degree or masters degree to use here, to tell you guys you are being screwed and it's going to get worse. Band together and push back or your all going to loose out. You can fix a problem for just $.22 cents to $5.00 a day. Straight shooters required. Flimsy wrists folks need not apply.
Post by: KFhunter on September 25, 2012, 01:28:58 PM
This is a fascinating topic, and yes a little risky for H-W. Frankly I'm surprised this is going so well and I encourage folks to temper their anger and have a civil discussion.
Post by: GrousePointer on September 25, 2012, 01:33:59 PM
No hunting of any sort in areas the wolf occurs because some initiative will come along encouraging people to stop "irresponsible hunters" who poach.
It could very well happen if you're not careful.
Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express
Post by: turbo on September 25, 2012, 01:35:55 PM
If you don't think conservation groups planted the wolfs to control our hunting rights then I will meet you at the I-90 bridge, bring your wallet, it's for sale...
Post by: GrousePointer on September 25, 2012, 01:37:30 PM
Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express
Post by: KFhunter on September 25, 2012, 01:40:37 PM
I doubt I would turn one in, but I strongly disagree that poaching wolves is the right way to handle this. Unless you can feasibly poach them out of the state (which you can’t), then poaching them just keeps them on the protected list longer. Ideally, we could convince the state government that they shouldn’t be here and act accordingly. Barring that, the only way to keep them in check is to open up a hunting season on them, which will never happen if people are out there poaching em all day. On the other hand, god forbid, a couple of them are coming right for you…. Well that’s self defense.
The question isn't if you yourself would poach a wolf, we cannot broach that subject within the confines of H-W user rules.
The question is if you would turn one in if you witnessed it happening - doesn't matter why, and THAT is one of the problems with our wolf plan....you are not allowed to protect your property (livestock) only your life if in immediate danger.
Last time I checked, it is not illegal to NOT turn someone in, there is no burden upon a witness to come forward. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Therefore we can discuss the ethics of it.
Post by: boneaddict on September 25, 2012, 01:42:40 PM
read the article and take the poll. REALLY.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/25/14093139-gray-wolf-pack-in-washington-state-will-be-shot-dead-after-preying-on-cattle?lite (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/25/14093139-gray-wolf-pack-in-washington-state-will-be-shot-dead-after-preying-on-cattle?lite)
Post by: Special T on September 25, 2012, 01:49:45 PM
We are NOT negotiating with a HONEST partner on this issue... So if they are not honest who is the SUCKER?
Post by: KFhunter on September 25, 2012, 01:52:12 PM
I would like to see our current Coyote rules put in place for wolves, but I have my doubts that alone would manage them but it would help.
Post by: Special T on September 25, 2012, 01:57:18 PM
Just another reason why we lack trust with the WDFW. :twocents:
Post by: Gringo31 on September 25, 2012, 02:11:27 PM
Post by: Labs07 on September 25, 2012, 02:14:42 PM
Post by: jackmaster on September 25, 2012, 02:15:38 PM
Post by: Labs07 on September 25, 2012, 02:20:57 PM
Post by: grundy53 on September 25, 2012, 02:23:38 PM
the "FEDS" have delisted wolves, we are fighting our own state here.:yeah:
I would like to see our current Coyote rules put in place for wolves, but I have my doubts that alone would manage them but it would help.
Post by: KFhunter on September 25, 2012, 02:25:10 PM
WDFG is going to eliminate the Wedge Pack in NE Washington.
Some of those wolves have already dispersed with the taste of beef on their tongues, they will educate the other wolves.
Read some of the wolf articles being posted, other packs are doing the same as the wedge pack. Wolves are wolves, they'll prove that over and over.
There is no legal resolution for free ranging cattle that isn't cost prohibitive.
Post by: mtman on September 25, 2012, 02:57:55 PM
Post by: Curly on September 25, 2012, 03:00:54 PM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=36953.0 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=36953.0)
Post by: dscubame on September 25, 2012, 03:10:02 PM
Post by: hambone on September 25, 2012, 03:20:09 PM
Post by: h2ofowlr on September 25, 2012, 03:34:52 PM
Post by: copasj on September 25, 2012, 03:57:24 PM
My two cents on the issue.
In the end poaching wolves will keep them protected longer. Lower populations will prevent the state from being able to manage them. And any kind of poaching helps anti-hunters push to restrict hunting rights. It's a short term "solution" that delays fixing the issue.
Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2
I couldn't disagree with you more. When Idaho exceeded there goal, the groups that sided with allowing a season lied and then went to the courts to block a hunting season. They say one thing then do another when push comes to shove. Their is another court battle brewing in regards to this seasons hunt. If you allow them to hit the lofty numbers they want again the antis will hit the courts even harder and tie it up.
I agree that they will lie and fight. But if people poach, people will be caught. That's just bad juju for them. And the more wolves poached, the longer it takes to even get your chance in court. That won't happen until those quotas are reached, like it or not. And once it does make it to court, the poaching will hurt the case.
Do you think there is a chance for a change in laws prior to reaching population goals? Or that poaching will sufficiently control the numbers?
I don't think either has even a slim chance personally. It's not a question of preventing damage in my mind, thats going to happen. It's a question of long term damage control.
Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2
Post by: h2ofowlr on September 25, 2012, 04:17:39 PM
Post by: NumaJohn on September 25, 2012, 04:39:39 PM
The Washington wolf population should be carefully managed. SSS does not lead to careful management because the "shut up" part of it disassociates those kills from any sort of systemic approach to game management. As I understand it, the mission statements of organizations like Washington for Wildlife champion careful management because such organizations are aware that free-for-all behavior by hunters is antithetical to the future of hunting. Logic would then dictate that anyone belonging to such an organization would oppose SSS because a) that approach is not following the best available science, b) poaching is not an ethically defensible approach unless it's for sustenance in dire situations, and c) SSS is against the current laws.
No science I have seen advocates SSS as a viable response to the growing problem we are facing with the wolves in and around WA. Very few people can argue convincingly that wolves have (yet) caused them and their families to go hungry, as most hunters have a Plan B for the winter if all they end up with is tag soup. And no one has made a compelling argument that SSS is somehow a legitimate example of being a conscientious objector or a compelling act of civil disobedience. Just saying it is so doesn't make it so. Though individuals have many rights, one of them is not to simply decide, on a case-by-case basis, which laws are worthy of following and which are not. I speed sometimes when driving in a 40 mph zone I think should be 55 mph, but I don't for a minute try to make the (indefensible) argument that "I was speeding because the speed limit is too slow here anyway and it's a stupid law that never should have been passed." I may think that, I may even exercise my rights as a citizen and lobby to have the speed limit changed in that area, but my speeding (read: law breaking) is not the solution to the problem of a stupid law. SSS is like speeding through the process of careful game management. It breeds bad will with people who actually could be allies of hunters seeking stricter wolf control. Don't we need allies in this complex issue? Or do we just buy into a "take matters into our own hands" approach and serve as self-appointed judges, juries, and executioners? Is that what our liberty and the Constitution have provided?
Just like everyone else on this site, I do NOT want wolves taking away all of the animals in the places where I hunt deer and elk. I really don't. But the minute we all start self-deputizing ourselves as individual wolf authorities, it does indeed become a slippery slope for our tradition of hunting in the U.S.
WA wolves definitely need to be carefully managed. I fully support killing some, when wolf experts and professionally-qualified game managers say such killing is warranted. And when it's time for the killing, that should be done legally, by people who have bought tags that will help support wildlife and sound wildlife management practices. I repeat: wolves should definitely be controlled and, when necessary, killed.
To me, it boils down to my wanting to be able to go afield with my wife and kids and not have to make an argument that poaching is okay "when it feels right by one's own standards." Look, if we are not in some ways beholden to the laws around us, then guess what we have left? Everybody doing what he or she wants. If we feel--if we are--powerless, then I guess revolution is an option. I just don't agree that such a revolution by hunters would be best served by a bunch of independent operators. There needs to be collective, "loud" action, not individual, "shut up" law breaking. My two cents.
By the way, if I knew a guy whose family was hungry, and he couldn't afford a deer tag, or one deer didn't suffice, I would have NO trouble turning the other way so he could harvest an extra deer or two to feed his family. But this wolf issue is NOT the same as that sort of scenario. We are not there yet, and it smacks as is disingenuous to claim that we are. Not yet. Sure, if wolves are not carefully managed, there's no question then there will no longer be any deer or elk or moose in the woods for hunters to hunt and for other people to watch, photograph, etc. That would be terrible. I am just suggesting without any malice that careful management--not a wild west (and illegal) rebellion waged by silent individuals--is our best hope for preserving the hunting tradition that we all share and value so much.
With respect,
John
Post by: rtspring on September 25, 2012, 04:46:13 PM
Dear All,
The Washington wolf population should be carefully managed. SSS does not lead to careful management because the "shut up" part of it disassociates those kills from any sort of systemic approach to game management. As I understand it, the mission statements of organizations like Washington for Wildlife champion careful management because such organizations are aware that free-for-all behavior by hunters is antithetical to the future of hunting. Logic would then dictate that anyone belonging to such an organization would oppose SSS because a) that approach is not following the best available science, b) poaching is not an ethically defensible approach unless it's for sustenance in dire situations, and c) SSS is against the current laws.
No science I have seen advocates SSS as a viable response to the growing problem we are facing with the wolves in and around WA. Very few people can argue convincingly that wolves have (yet) caused them and their families to go hungry, as most hunters have a Plan B for the winter if all they end up with is tag soup. And no one has made a compelling argument that SSS is somehow a legitimate example of being a conscientious objector or a compelling act of civil disobedience. Just saying it is so doesn't make it so. Though individuals have many rights, one of them is not to simply decide, on a case-by-case basis, which laws are worthy of following and which are not. I speed sometimes when driving in a 40 mph zone I think should be 55 mph, but I don't for a minute try to make the (indefensible) argument that "I was speeding because the speed limit is too slow here anyway and it's a stupid law that never should have been passed." I may think that, I may even exercise my rights as a citizen and lobby to have the speed limit changed in that area, but my speeding (read: law breaking) is not the solution to the problem of a stupid law. SSS is like speeding through the process of careful game management. It breeds bad will with people who actually could be allies of hunters seeking stricter wolf control. Don't we need allies in this complex issue? Or do we just buy into a "take matters into our own hands" approach and serve as self-appointed judges, juries, and executioners? Is that what our liberty and the Constitution have provided?
Just like everyone else on this site, I do NOT want wolves taking away all of the animals in the places where I hunt deer and elk. I really don't. But the minute we all start self-deputizing ourselves as individual wolf authorities, it does indeed become a slippery slope for our tradition of hunting in the U.S.
WA wolves definitely need to be carefully managed. I fully support killing some, when wolf experts and professionally-qualified game managers say such killing is warranted. And when it's time for the killing, that should be done legally, by people who have bought tags that will help support wildlife and sound wildlife management practices. I repeat: wolves should definitely be controlled and, when necessary, killed.
To me, it boils down to my wanting to be able to go afield with my wife and kids and not have to make an argument that poaching is okay "when it feels right by one's own standards." Look, if we are not in some ways beholden to the laws around us, then guess what we have left? Everybody doing what he or she wants. If we feel--if we are--powerless, then I guess revolution is an option. I just don't agree that such a revolution by hunters would be best served by a bunch of independent operators. There needs to be collective, "loud" action, not individual, "shut up" law breaking. My two cents.
By the way, if I knew a guy whose family was hungry, and he couldn't afford a deer tag, or one deer didn't suffice, I would have NO trouble turning the other way so he could harvest an extra deer or two to feed his family. But this wolf issue is NOT the same as that sort of scenario. We are not there yet, and it smacks as is disingenuous to claim that we are. Not yet. Sure, if wolves are not carefully managed, there's no question then there will no longer be any deer or elk or moose in the woods for hunters to hunt and for other people to watch, photograph, etc. That would be terrible. I am just suggesting without any malice that careful management--not a wild west (and illegal) rebellion waged by silent individuals--is our best hope for preserving the hunting tradition that we all share and value so much.
With respect,
John
If we dont do something about it and soon, Your wife and kids will not see many deer or elk, Because of the wolves that no one managed. I liked your post but, for the most part if we sit back and wait, we might as well change the neame of our state to Idaho or Montana. Talk to the people in these two states and see how they really feel, some good ol boys there are for sure doing things their way, and i for one support them 100 percent....
RTSPRING
Post by: GrousePointer on September 25, 2012, 04:55:56 PM
Dear All,
The Washington wolf population should be carefully managed. SSS does not lead to careful management because the "shut up" part of it disassociates those kills from any sort of systemic approach to game management. As I understand it, the mission statements of organizations like Washington for Wildlife champion careful management because such organizations are aware that free-for-all behavior by hunters is antithetical to the future of hunting. Logic would then dictate that anyone belonging to such an organization would oppose SSS because a) that approach is not following the best available science, b) poaching is not an ethically defensible approach unless it's for sustenance in dire situations, and c) SSS is against the current laws.
No science I have seen advocates SSS as a viable response to the growing problem we are facing with the wolves in and around WA. Very few people can argue convincingly that wolves have (yet) caused them and their families to go hungry, as most hunters have a Plan B for the winter if all they end up with is tag soup. And no one has made a compelling argument that SSS is somehow a legitimate example of being a conscientious objector or a compelling act of civil disobedience. Just saying it is so doesn't make it so. Though individuals have many rights, one of them is not to simply decide, on a case-by-case basis, which laws are worthy of following and which are not. I speed sometimes when driving in a 40 mph zone I think should be 55 mph, but I don't for a minute try to make the (indefensible) argument that "I was speeding because the speed limit is too slow here anyway and it's a stupid law that never should have been passed." I may think that, I may even exercise my rights as a citizen and lobby to have the speed limit changed in that area, but my speeding (read: law breaking) is not the solution to the problem of a stupid law. SSS is like speeding through the process of careful game management. It breeds bad will with people who actually could be allies of hunters seeking stricter wolf control. Don't we need allies in this complex issue? Or do we just buy into a "take matters into our own hands" approach and serve as self-appointed judges, juries, and executioners? Is that what our liberty and the Constitution have provided?
Just like everyone else on this site, I do NOT want wolves taking away all of the animals in the places where I hunt deer and elk. I really don't. But the minute we all start self-deputizing ourselves as individual wolf authorities, it does indeed become a slippery slope for our tradition of hunting in the U.S.
WA wolves definitely need to be carefully managed. I fully support killing some, when wolf experts and professionally-qualified game managers say such killing is warranted. And when it's time for the killing, that should be done legally, by people who have bought tags that will help support wildlife and sound wildlife management practices. I repeat: wolves should definitely be controlled and, when necessary, killed.
To me, it boils down to my wanting to be able to go afield with my wife and kids and not have to make an argument that poaching is okay "when it feels right by one's own standards." Look, if we are not in some ways beholden to the laws around us, then guess what we have left? Everybody doing what he or she wants. If we feel--if we are--powerless, then I guess revolution is an option. I just don't agree that such a revolution by hunters would be best served by a bunch of independent operators. There needs to be collective, "loud" action, not individual, "shut up" law breaking. My two cents.
By the way, if I knew a guy whose family was hungry, and he couldn't afford a deer tag, or one deer didn't suffice, I would have NO trouble turning the other way so he could harvest an extra deer or two to feed his family. But this wolf issue is NOT the same as that sort of scenario. We are not there yet, and it smacks as is disingenuous to claim that we are. Not yet. Sure, if wolves are not carefully managed, there's no question then there will no longer be any deer or elk or moose in the woods for hunters to hunt and for other people to watch, photograph, etc. That would be terrible. I am just suggesting without any malice that careful management--not a wild west (and illegal) rebellion waged by silent individuals--is our best hope for preserving the hunting tradition that we all share and value so much.
With respect,
John
Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express
Post by: Jack Diamond on September 25, 2012, 04:58:51 PM
Post by: Huntbear on September 25, 2012, 04:59:45 PM
I wonder how long it will take to wipe out or erase 60 plus years of wildlife conservation management in this state. Time to start a new poll. 6 / 8 or 10 years?
It only took 5 years to decimate the N. Yellowstone herd, and it was 24,000 head strong... That is a lot of wolf *censored*....
Post by: GrousePointer on September 25, 2012, 05:07:00 PM
Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express
Post by: Gringo31 on September 25, 2012, 05:18:36 PM
We are told the wolves are SO important to our ecoysytem, that they are native and that they only kill the weak. We are told that WE need to move our livestock out of THEIR areas. We are told in short that the "extra" deer and elk will be for the wolves to harvest and in the end, that will balance out. No harvest for us, only harvest for the wolves and in the mean time WDFW can keep jacking our prices for the opportunity to actually hunt deer and elk for us to eat.
WE pay for the wolves up front and in the end. Period!
Why are they different than a coyote. SSS isn't necessary because its not a big deal. This state and country used to believe in predator control. They used to believe we had rights to private property and livestock. They used to think we then had the right to defend our property as well.
So....back to today. We are being lead by a group who is anti-hunting. They want us out of the hills and to jack up prices high enough that we no longer can afford it and sell our guns. All of these things make it difficult to respect such poor sighted authority......yet, that is what we need to do. But, I will say, many, many, many of us have about had it with all of em.
Post by: Huntbear on September 25, 2012, 05:18:57 PM
Post by: turkeyfeather on September 25, 2012, 05:35:14 PM
Post by: GrousePointer on September 25, 2012, 05:45:43 PM
Not sure what else would have affected the herd like that... they introduce wolves, the herd count drops by something like 50% in 5 years. Hell, Hoof Rot in this state will not kill em off that quick....
No, but hoof rot would weaken them enough to be taken by wolves. So would cold weather and disease.
I don't have the answer. Just thought it was interesting.
Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express
Post by: bearpaw on September 25, 2012, 05:48:24 PM
The eastern 1/3 of WA was delisted by the feds, wolves are officially recovered in Stevens County according to the US government. The only reason we cannot shoot wolves on sight in human inhabited areas just like they will be doing in WY is because of wolf lovers having too much influence over the WDFW decision making process.
That is a fact that cannot be disputed.
Now, I am not sure what the counties can do for sure, but I would surely vote in favor of year round wolf management in Stevens County in all human inhabited areas. I do not know if local laws passed by the people of the county can supercede state law, but the feds have already told us the wolf population is recovered.
Affected Washington counties just need to man up, I would imagine there is a way to get this done legally. :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on September 25, 2012, 05:52:52 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on September 25, 2012, 06:17:11 PM
Post by: grundy53 on September 25, 2012, 06:33:43 PM
Dear All,
The Washington wolf population should be carefully managed. SSS does not lead to careful management because the "shut up" part of it disassociates those kills from any sort of systemic approach to game management. As I understand it, the mission statements of organizations like Washington for Wildlife champion careful management because such organizations are aware that free-for-all behavior by hunters is antithetical to the future of hunting. Logic would then dictate that anyone belonging to such an organization would oppose SSS because a) that approach is not following the best available science, b) poaching is not an ethically defensible approach unless it's for sustenance in dire situations, and c) SSS is against the current laws.
No science I have seen advocates SSS as a viable response to the growing problem we are facing with the wolves in and around WA. Very few people can argue convincingly that wolves have (yet) caused them and their families to go hungry, as most hunters have a Plan B for the winter if all they end up with is tag soup. And no one has made a compelling argument that SSS is somehow a legitimate example of being a conscientious objector or a compelling act of civil disobedience. Just saying it is so doesn't make it so. Though individuals have many rights, one of them is not to simply decide, on a case-by-case basis, which laws are worthy of following and which are not. I speed sometimes when driving in a 40 mph zone I think should be 55 mph, but I don't for a minute try to make the (indefensible) argument that "I was speeding because the speed limit is too slow here anyway and it's a stupid law that never should have been passed." I may think that, I may even exercise my rights as a citizen and lobby to have the speed limit changed in that area, but my speeding (read: law breaking) is not the solution to the problem of a stupid law. SSS is like speeding through the process of careful game management. It breeds bad will with people who actually could be allies of hunters seeking stricter wolf control. Don't we need allies in this complex issue? Or do we just buy into a "take matters into our own hands" approach and serve as self-appointed judges, juries, and executioners? Is that what our liberty and the Constitution have provided?
Just like everyone else on this site, I do NOT want wolves taking away all of the animals in the places where I hunt deer and elk. I really don't. But the minute we all start self-deputizing ourselves as individual wolf authorities, it does indeed become a slippery slope for our tradition of hunting in the U.S.
WA wolves definitely need to be carefully managed. I fully support killing some, when wolf experts and professionally-qualified game managers say such killing is warranted. And when it's time for the killing, that should be done legally, by people who have bought tags that will help support wildlife and sound wildlife management practices. I repeat: wolves should definitely be controlled and, when necessary, killed.
To me, it boils down to my wanting to be able to go afield with my wife and kids and not have to make an argument that poaching is okay "when it feels right by one's own standards." Look, if we are not in some ways beholden to the laws around us, then guess what we have left? Everybody doing what he or she wants. If we feel--if we are--powerless, then I guess revolution is an option. I just don't agree that such a revolution by hunters would be best served by a bunch of independent operators. There needs to be collective, "loud" action, not individual, "shut up" law breaking. My two cents.
By the way, if I knew a guy whose family was hungry, and he couldn't afford a deer tag, or one deer didn't suffice, I would have NO trouble turning the other way so he could harvest an extra deer or two to feed his family. But this wolf issue is NOT the same as that sort of scenario. We are not there yet, and it smacks as is disingenuous to claim that we are. Not yet. Sure, if wolves are not carefully managed, there's no question then there will no longer be any deer or elk or moose in the woods for hunters to hunt and for other people to watch, photograph, etc. That would be terrible. I am just suggesting without any malice that careful management--not a wild west (and illegal) rebellion waged by silent individuals--is our best hope for preserving the hunting tradition that we all share and value so much.
With respect,
John
The current laws are NOT based on sound science....
Post by: grundy53 on September 25, 2012, 06:36:39 PM
Where people like me get real pissed off is that there IS NO SOUND SCIENCE ANYMORE!!!! :bash: :bash::yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah::tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup:
We are told the wolves are SO important to our ecoysytem, that they are native and that they only kill the weak. We are told that WE need to move our livestock out of THEIR areas. We are told in short that the "extra" deer and elk will be for the wolves to harvest and in the end, that will balance out. No harvest for us, only harvest for the wolves and in the mean time WDFW can keep jacking our prices for the opportunity to actually hunt deer and elk for us to eat.
WE pay for the wolves up front and in the end. Period!
Why are they different than a coyote. SSS isn't necessary because its not a big deal. This state and country used to believe in predator control. They used to believe we had rights to private property and livestock. They used to think we then had the right to defend our property as well.
So....back to today. We are being lead by a group who is anti-hunting. They want us out of the hills and to jack up prices high enough that we no longer can afford it and sell our guns. All of these things make it difficult to respect such poor sighted authority......yet, that is what we need to do. But, I will say, many, many, many of us have about had it with all of em.
Post by: KFhunter on September 25, 2012, 06:42:07 PM
Dear All,
The Washington wolf population should be carefully managed. SSS does not lead to careful management because the "shut up" part of it disassociates those kills from any sort of systemic approach to game management. As I understand it, the mission statements of organizations like Washington for Wildlife champion careful management because such organizations are aware that free-for-all behavior by hunters is antithetical to the future of hunting. Logic would then dictate that anyone belonging to such an organization would oppose SSS because a) that approach is not following the best available science, b) poaching is not an ethically defensible approach unless it's for sustenance in dire situations, and c) SSS is against the current laws.
No science I have seen advocates SSS as a viable response to the growing problem we are facing with the wolves in and around WA. Very few people can argue convincingly that wolves have (yet) caused them and their families to go hungry, as most hunters have a Plan B for the winter if all they end up with is tag soup. And no one has made a compelling argument that SSS is somehow a legitimate example of being a conscientious objector or a compelling act of civil disobedience. Just saying it is so doesn't make it so. Though individuals have many rights, one of them is not to simply decide, on a case-by-case basis, which laws are worthy of following and which are not. I speed sometimes when driving in a 40 mph zone I think should be 55 mph, but I don't for a minute try to make the (indefensible) argument that "I was speeding because the speed limit is too slow here anyway and it's a stupid law that never should have been passed." I may think that, I may even exercise my rights as a citizen and lobby to have the speed limit changed in that area, but my speeding (read: law breaking) is not the solution to the problem of a stupid law. SSS is like speeding through the process of careful game management. It breeds bad will with people who actually could be allies of hunters seeking stricter wolf control. Don't we need allies in this complex issue? Or do we just buy into a "take matters into our own hands" approach and serve as self-appointed judges, juries, and executioners? Is that what our liberty and the Constitution have provided?
Just like everyone else on this site, I do NOT want wolves taking away all of the animals in the places where I hunt deer and elk. I really don't. But the minute we all start self-deputizing ourselves as individual wolf authorities, it does indeed become a slippery slope for our tradition of hunting in the U.S.
WA wolves definitely need to be carefully managed. I fully support killing some, when wolf experts and professionally-qualified game managers say such killing is warranted. And when it's time for the killing, that should be done legally, by people who have bought tags that will help support wildlife and sound wildlife management practices. I repeat: wolves should definitely be controlled and, when necessary, killed.
To me, it boils down to my wanting to be able to go afield with my wife and kids and not have to make an argument that poaching is okay "when it feels right by one's own standards." Look, if we are not in some ways beholden to the laws around us, then guess what we have left? Everybody doing what he or she wants. If we feel--if we are--powerless, then I guess revolution is an option. I just don't agree that such a revolution by hunters would be best served by a bunch of independent operators. There needs to be collective, "loud" action, not individual, "shut up" law breaking. My two cents.
By the way, if I knew a guy whose family was hungry, and he couldn't afford a deer tag, or one deer didn't suffice, I would have NO trouble turning the other way so he could harvest an extra deer or two to feed his family. But this wolf issue is NOT the same as that sort of scenario. We are not there yet, and it smacks as is disingenuous to claim that we are. Not yet. Sure, if wolves are not carefully managed, there's no question then there will no longer be any deer or elk or moose in the woods for hunters to hunt and for other people to watch, photograph, etc. That would be terrible. I am just suggesting without any malice that careful management--not a wild west (and illegal) rebellion waged by silent individuals--is our best hope for preserving the hunting tradition that we all share and value so much.
With respect,
John
A very heart felt and well thought out argument, but flawed.
These wolves are eliminating a way of life, the sole sustennence for many people and not just the ranch owners but all their hired help as well.
Yes we are early in the game and aren't there quite yet but will be in a few years.
No one in WA will be able to run cattle in open range in just a handful of years if this continues.
You argue that we must follow the laws and not break them as we see fit, then you go on to say you have no problem with the breaking of laws if someone is hungry. Your arguement holds no merit, as you yourself are acting as judge, jury and all that.
Post by: 3nails on September 25, 2012, 07:30:04 PM
You don't really believe that elk need to be weakened by disease to be taken by wolves do you?Not sure what else would have affected the herd like that... they introduce wolves, the herd count drops by something like 50% in 5 years. Hell, Hoof Rot in this state will not kill em off that quick....
No, but hoof rot would weaken them enough to be taken by wolves. So would cold weather and disease.
I don't have the answer. Just thought it was interesting.
Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express
Post by: bearpaw on September 25, 2012, 07:43:45 PM
Post by: Mudman on September 25, 2012, 07:45:52 PM
Post by: Ridgeratt on September 25, 2012, 07:49:28 PM
I doubt I would turn one in, but I strongly disagree that poaching wolves is the right way to handle this. Unless you can feasibly poach them out of the state (which you can’t), then poaching them just keeps them on the protected list longer. Ideally, we could convince the state government that they shouldn’t be here and act accordingly. Barring that, the only way to keep them in check is to open up a hunting season on them, which will never happen if people are out there poaching em all day. On the other hand, god forbid, a couple of them are coming right for you…. Well that’s self defense.
The question isn't if you yourself would poach a wolf, we cannot broach that subject within the confines of H-W user rules.
The question is if you would turn one in if you witnessed it happening - doesn't matter why, and THAT is one of the problems with our wolf plan....you are not allowed to protect your property (livestock) only your life if in immediate danger.
Last time I checked, it is not illegal to NOT turn someone in, there is no burden upon a witness to come forward. Please correct me if I am wrong. Therefore we can discuss the ethics of it.
is this Soul Searching or do you think you have a suspect?
Post by: KFhunter on September 25, 2012, 07:50:44 PM
I know this decision did not come lightly, the stigma of gunning them down from a helicopter is something any .gov agency would go to great lengths to avoid.
These guys don't want to be on FOX news doing an interview :yike:
Post by: KFhunter on September 25, 2012, 07:52:45 PM
I doubt I would turn one in, but I strongly disagree that poaching wolves is the right way to handle this. Unless you can feasibly poach them out of the state (which you can’t), then poaching them just keeps them on the protected list longer. Ideally, we could convince the state government that they shouldn’t be here and act accordingly. Barring that, the only way to keep them in check is to open up a hunting season on them, which will never happen if people are out there poaching em all day. On the other hand, god forbid, a couple of them are coming right for you…. Well that’s self defense.
The question isn't if you yourself would poach a wolf, we cannot broach that subject within the confines of H-W user rules.
The question is if you would turn one in if you witnessed it happening - doesn't matter why, and THAT is one of the problems with our wolf plan....you are not allowed to protect your property (livestock) only your life if in immediate danger.
Last time I checked, it is not illegal to NOT turn someone in, there is no burden upon a witness to come forward. Please correct me if I am wrong. Therefore we can discuss the ethics of it.
is this Soul Searching or do you think you have a suspect?
I was responding to the folks who think this kind of topic is bad for H-W and gives hunters a black eye, or somehow helps the pro-wolf people in their adgenda.
No soul searching required ;)
Post by: bugs n bones on September 25, 2012, 07:53:29 PM
The key is to change the law, then nobody is breaking the law. :tup: :tup: :tup:I agree ten fold!! :tup:
Post by: Axle on September 25, 2012, 07:58:06 PM
Post by: shoot-em-dead on September 25, 2012, 08:33:54 PM
In response to some other thoughts,
I live in a country that was founded upon a rebellion against its prior government. Laws were bent and broken. If you are calling anyone who breaks a law unethical- I would suggest a one way ticket to England. Seems to me that you must be suffering much grief here among all of us Americans who are all so proud of the so called unethical actions of this country's founders.
Post by: NumaJohn on September 26, 2012, 08:13:18 AM
I guess I need you to do a much better job of explaining yourself before your following quotation makes any sense: "If you are calling anyone who breaks a law unethical- I would suggest a one way ticket to England. Seems to me that you must be suffering much grief here among all of us Americans who are all so proud of the so called unethical actions of this country's founders."
In my earlier post, I was talking specifically about SSS. Sorry, but your effort to derail that point by creating a specious argument won't work. Our country was not predicated on SSS approaches. Read your history to avoid making such ill-informed stretches toward argument. Thank you.
John
Post by: CoryTDF on September 26, 2012, 08:21:52 AM
Big fat nope! Wouldn't condone it it, yet I wouldn't throw a guy under the bus for it!
:yeah:
Post by: JLS on September 26, 2012, 08:22:23 AM
No one in WA will be able to run cattle in open range in just a handful of years if this continues.
That might be a bit of a chicken little statement. I have a very good friend that runs a lot of cattle in areas that have been populated by wolves for years. They do suffer economic losses, but a well run cattle operation should not go bankrupt simply because of wolves.
Post by: turbo on September 26, 2012, 08:34:07 AM
Dear All,
The Washington wolf population should be carefully managed. SSS does not lead to careful management because the "shut up" part of it disassociates those kills from any sort of systemic approach to game management. As I understand it, the mission statements of organizations like Washington for Wildlife champion careful management because such organizations are aware that free-for-all behavior by hunters is antithetical to the future of hunting. Logic would then dictate that anyone belonging to such an organization would oppose SSS because a) that approach is not following the best available science, b) poaching is not an ethically defensible approach unless it's for sustenance in dire situations, and c) SSS is against the current laws.
No science I have seen advocates SSS as a viable response to the growing problem we are facing with the wolves in and around WA. Very few people can argue convincingly that wolves have (yet) caused them and their families to go hungry, as most hunters have a Plan B for the winter if all they end up with is tag soup. And no one has made a compelling argument that SSS is somehow a legitimate example of being a conscientious objector or a compelling act of civil disobedience. Just saying it is so doesn't make it so. Though individuals have many rights, one of them is not to simply decide, on a case-by-case basis, which laws are worthy of following and which are not. I speed sometimes when driving in a 40 mph zone I think should be 55 mph, but I don't for a minute try to make the (indefensible) argument that "I was speeding because the speed limit is too slow here anyway and it's a stupid law that never should have been passed." I may think that, I may even exercise my rights as a citizen and lobby to have the speed limit changed in that area, but my speeding (read: law breaking) is not the solution to the problem of a stupid law. SSS is like speeding through the process of careful game management. It breeds bad will with people who actually could be allies of hunters seeking stricter wolf control. Don't we need allies in this complex issue? Or do we just buy into a "take matters into our own hands" approach and serve as self-appointed judges, juries, and executioners? Is that what our liberty and the Constitution have provided?
Just like everyone else on this site, I do NOT want wolves taking away all of the animals in the places where I hunt deer and elk. I really don't. But the minute we all start self-deputizing ourselves as individual wolf authorities, it does indeed become a slippery slope for our tradition of hunting in the U.S.
WA wolves definitely need to be carefully managed. I fully support killing some, when wolf experts and professionally-qualified game managers say such killing is warranted. And when it's time for the killing, that should be done legally, by people who have bought tags that will help support wildlife and sound wildlife management practices. I repeat: wolves should definitely be controlled and, when necessary, killed.
To me, it boils down to my wanting to be able to go afield with my wife and kids and not have to make an argument that poaching is okay "when it feels right by one's own standards." Look, if we are not in some ways beholden to the laws around us, then guess what we have left? Everybody doing what he or she wants. If we feel--if we are--powerless, then I guess revolution is an option. I just don't agree that such a revolution by hunters would be best served by a bunch of independent operators. There needs to be collective, "loud" action, not individual, "shut up" law breaking. My two cents.
By the way, if I knew a guy whose family was hungry, and he couldn't afford a deer tag, or one deer didn't suffice, I would have NO trouble turning the other way so he could harvest an extra deer or two to feed his family. But this wolf issue is NOT the same as that sort of scenario. We are not there yet, and it smacks as is disingenuous to claim that we are. Not yet. Sure, if wolves are not carefully managed, there's no question then there will no longer be any deer or elk or moose in the woods for hunters to hunt and for other people to watch, photograph, etc. That would be terrible. I am just suggesting without any malice that careful management--not a wild west (and illegal) rebellion waged by silent individuals--is our best hope for preserving the hunting tradition that we all share and value so much.
With respect,
John
Sorry - It's war and YOU are GIVING up YOUR rights. The wolfs were planted to control our hunting rights!! I 100% disagree with you.
The Methow Valley is in crisis mode and most are done playing games because we do not have a level playing field. We are being lied to repeatedly. Scott Fitkin is a dirty liar POS. It's game over and WE will win. The decision has been made by many of the locals that the wolfs have to go this winter. I would never risk my hunting rights but I fully support the locals, they know whats best and a lot of their local economy depends on the mule deer, not wolfs.
It's not poaching!! It's conservation of one of the best mule deer units in WA that has been decimated. All you have to do is look at the deer kill rate for car VS deer. It used to be almost 400 deer killed by cars every year and now, since the wolfs have been PLANTED it's almost down to 200 per year. More cars, more people, less deer getting hit, fewer deer getting tagged, there's your science.
I would highly recommend that anyone who has dogs and enjoys the out doors in the Methow Valley to keep them on a leash or stick to the valley floor. Nobody wants collateral damage but it's war. Snowmobiles vs wolfs = no contest..
Post by: dscubame on September 26, 2012, 08:38:39 AM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on September 26, 2012, 08:44:47 AM
Although there is not a H-W Bill of Rights I will still invoke my 5th Amendment Rights on this subject. :ass:
Post by: KFhunter on September 26, 2012, 09:02:24 AM
No one in WA will be able to run cattle in open range in just a handful of years if this continues.
That might be a bit of a chicken little statement. I have a very good friend that runs a lot of cattle in areas that have been populated by wolves for years. They do suffer economic losses, but a well run cattle operation should not go bankrupt simply because of wolves.
So tell me does your friend lease open range and run cattle on public lands in Washington? My statement was regarding open range, not private lands, and in the state of Washington.
I stick by my statement.
Post by: Bean Counter on September 26, 2012, 09:11:39 AM
Some of you Barney Fife's have a lot of self-reporting to do...
- Have you ever gone out in public with the cold? Guess what? You're a criminal! ~RCW 70.54.050.
- If you own a house in Eagle, Idaho, you'd better not sweep dirt from your house into the street, lest you be arrested. ~5-2-2: (Ord. 1, 5-24-1971).
Post by: GrousePointer on September 26, 2012, 09:17:53 AM
Thanks for nothing ahead of time.
Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express
Post by: turbo on September 26, 2012, 09:32:46 AM
When they shut down your favorite hunting areas due to poaching, don't come crying.
Thanks for nothing ahead of time.
Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express
Please tell us when and where this has ever happened? Ever??
Post by: GrousePointer on September 26, 2012, 09:43:35 AM
When they shut down your favorite hunting areas due to poaching, don't come crying.
Thanks for nothing ahead of time.
Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express
Please tell us when and where this has ever happened? Ever??
You live in Washington. What do you think will happen when wolf poaching gets in the news on the west side? What will you do when an initiative gets put forward?
Remember, citizens can literally play wildlife biologist and vote in a law against your right to hunt an animal and potentially an entire area just as they did with hound hunting.
This is something that can blow up in your face and make a bad situation much worse. Think it through before pulling that trigger illegally.
Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express
Post by: KFhunter on September 26, 2012, 09:48:36 AM
http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2012/04/19/two-more-people-plead-guilty-in-killing-of-wolves-from-washingtons-first-wolf-pack-in-decades/ (http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2012/04/19/two-more-people-plead-guilty-in-killing-of-wolves-from-washingtons-first-wolf-pack-in-decades/)
http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2012/jul/12/wolf-poachers-get-tougher-sentence-than-plea-deal/ (http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2012/jul/12/wolf-poachers-get-tougher-sentence-than-plea-deal/)
Post by: csaaphill on September 26, 2012, 09:54:18 AM
I'd shoot a wolf if it was to be killed anyhows and probably wouldn't think twice on it. But no I would not turn someone in for poaching a wolf.
Post by: NumaJohn on September 26, 2012, 09:56:03 AM
I agree the laws need to be changed, I agree that there's a big problem with wolves, and I know this is a frustrating and often infuriating issue for hunters. Deer and elk hunting are passions of mine, second only to the non-hunting time with my family. My main point, I guess, boils down to the reality that we hunters (and other people who recreate and/or live off of the land) are in the extreme minority in this country. If you really think SSS is the way to counter the majority, that's your prerogative. But the logic of SSS could be applied to livestock being allowed on public land. I do not by any means advocate SSS for that, but some people might. Anyone objecting to SSS in THAT context would be right to point out that killing cattle or sheep is violating the law, that if they don't want private businesses (i.e., ranches) to be able to graze on public lands, they should lobby to put an end to that practice, not take matters into their own hands.
One could try to say that I am comparing apples to oranges, that cattle and sheep are someone's private property, that there's a longstanding tradition of public grazing, that ranchers helped settle the West. All of those elements are true, but the comparison still holds that SSS advocates--whatever they want to shoot, shovel, and shut up about--are not noble practitioners of civil disobedience or highly principled Constitutionalists fighting for our very way of life. They are people who are putting their individual interests and livelihoods ahead of all other Americans. They are in fact bending the laws to their own (and their families' and friends' and neighbors') will rather than operating in a way that feeds into the common good. I know a lot of people who have served in the military, and I have yet to meet one who would say they served so that hunters and ranchers could feel "covered" when they decided to take the laws into their own hands. SSS is the wrong approach to this problem. I am hoping Dale and others involved with Washington for Wildlife will come out with a strong, public condemnation against SSS and in support of the principles articulated in the organization's mission statement. That sort of unified, organized voice is exactly what is needed. As Dale noted in a previous post, bad laws need to be changed. That change will only occur through collective action. SSS will work against the kind of change that will be more than a temporary solution. We need change that is lasting, and that will come through policy, not SSS.
My two cents,
John
Post by: bonkellekter on September 26, 2012, 01:11:11 PM
When they shut down your favorite hunting areas due to poaching, don't come crying.
Thanks for nothing ahead of time.
Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express
Please tell us when and where this has ever happened? Ever??
You live in Washington. What do you think will happen when wolf poaching gets in the news on the west side? What will you do when an initiative gets put forward?
Remember, citizens can literally play wildlife biologist and vote in a law against your right to hunt an animal and potentially an entire area just as they did with hound hunting.
This is something that can blow up in your face and make a bad situation much worse. Think it through before pulling that trigger illegally.
Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express
Dear All,
I agree the laws need to be changed, I agree that there's a big problem with wolves, and I know this is a frustrating and often infuriating issue for hunters. Deer and elk hunting are passions of mine, second only to the non-hunting time with my family. My main point, I guess, boils down to the reality that we hunters (and other people who recreate and/or live off of the land) are in the extreme minority in this country. If you really think SSS is the way to counter the majority, that's your prerogative. But the logic of SSS could be applied to livestock being allowed on public land. I do not by any means advocate SSS for that, but some people might. Anyone objecting to SSS in THAT context would be right to point out that killing cattle or sheep is violating the law, that if they don't want private businesses (i.e., ranches) to be able to graze on public lands, they should lobby to put an end to that practice, not take matters into their own hands.
One could try to say that I am comparing apples to oranges, that cattle and sheep are someone's private property, that there's a longstanding tradition of public grazing, that ranchers helped settle the West. All of those elements are true, but the comparison still holds that SSS advocates--whatever they want to shoot, shovel, and shut up about--are not noble practitioners of civil disobedience or highly principled Constitutionalists fighting for our very way of life. They are people who are putting their individual interests and livelihoods ahead of all other Americans. They are in fact bending the laws to their own (and their families' and friends' and neighbors') will rather than operating in a way that feeds into the common good. I know a lot of people who have served in the military, and I have yet to meet one who would say they served so that hunters and ranchers could feel "covered" when they decided to take the laws into their own hands. SSS is the wrong approach to this problem. I am hoping Dale and others involved with Washington for Wildlife will come out with a strong, public condemnation against SSS and in support of the principles articulated in the organization's mission statement. That sort of unified, organized voice is exactly what is needed. As Dale noted in a previous post, bad laws need to be changed. That change will only occur through collective action. SSS will work against the kind of change that will be more than a temporary solution. We need change that is lasting, and that will come through policy, not SSS.
My two cents,
John
First of all no one here is advocating pulling the trigger illiegally or promoting SSS..... Simply stating that NO they would not turn in someone who did. I most definately would not turn in any individual who shoots a woof!! I am not even sure that I would turn myself in for shooting one in self defense.....
Post by: Kola16 on September 26, 2012, 01:23:17 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on September 26, 2012, 03:59:56 PM
Quote
First of all no one here is advocating pulling the trigger illiegally or promoting SSS..... Simply stating that NO they would not turn in someone who did. I most definately would not turn in any individual who shoots a woof!! I am not even sure that I would turn myself in for shooting one in self defense.....
Let's face it, if the same poll was for bear, deer, elk, grouse etc.....it wouldn't be a 100% in favor of turning people in poll result.
Post by: KFhunter on September 26, 2012, 04:03:37 PM
QuoteFirst of all no one here is advocating pulling the trigger illiegally or promoting SSS..... Simply stating that NO they would not turn in someone who did. I most definately would not turn in any individual who shoots a woof!! I am not even sure that I would turn myself in for shooting one in self defense.....
Let's face it, if the same poll was for bear, deer, elk, grouse etc.....it wouldn't be a 100% in favor of turning people in poll result.
I bet it would be a lot higher ;)
I'd guess 97% in favor and maybe 3% would not.
Some folks have had a bad run in with WDFW Officers and wouldn't talk to one if their lives depended on it.
Post by: Gringo31 on September 26, 2012, 04:08:35 PM
A guy poaching a big horn is worse than a guy shooting a raccoon out of a pickup. A guy letting a deer rot to me is worse than a guy shooting an extra goose. We all have our lines of where the law needs to be involved.
Post by: h2ofowlr on September 26, 2012, 04:39:32 PM
QuoteFirst of all no one here is advocating pulling the trigger illiegally or promoting SSS..... Simply stating that NO they would not turn in someone who did. I most definately would not turn in any individual who shoots a woof!! I am not even sure that I would turn myself in for shooting one in self defense.....
Let's face it, if the same poll was for bear, deer, elk, grouse etc.....it wouldn't be a 100% in favor of turning people in poll result.
Correct! We are not comparing apples to apples. The WDFW is bringing them in and they are not going to be grazing on greens. They will be killing the game in this state 7 days a week. 365 days a year. Don't release them and their are no ethics questions. You release a half dozen pitbulls in my neighborhood and I bet they would be gone within a day or two.
Post by: JLS on September 26, 2012, 06:24:38 PM
No one in WA will be able to run cattle in open range in just a handful of years if this continues.
That might be a bit of a chicken little statement. I have a very good friend that runs a lot of cattle in areas that have been populated by wolves for years. They do suffer economic losses, but a well run cattle operation should not go bankrupt simply because of wolves.
So tell me does your friend lease open range and run cattle on public lands in Washington? My statement was regarding open range, not private lands, and in the state of Washington.
I stick by my statement.
Open range in WA, ID, and OR. I stick by mine also.
Post by: bobcat on September 26, 2012, 09:32:44 PM
QuoteFirst of all no one here is advocating pulling the trigger illiegally or promoting SSS..... Simply stating that NO they would not turn in someone who did. I most definately would not turn in any individual who shoots a woof!! I am not even sure that I would turn myself in for shooting one in self defense.....
Let's face it, if the same poll was for bear, deer, elk, grouse etc.....it wouldn't be a 100% in favor of turning people in poll result.
Correct! We are not comparing apples to apples. The WDFW is bringing them in and they are not going to be grazing on greens. They will be killing the game in this state 7 days a week. 365 days a year. Don't release them and their are no ethics questions. You release a half dozen pitbulls in my neighborhood and I bet they would be gone within a day or two.
OK, I'm no fan of wolves but let's not make up stuff. The WDFW is not bringing wolves into the state. Where did you get that idea?
Post by: Sawbuck on September 26, 2012, 10:06:08 PM
Why do you think they haven't?QuoteFirst of all no one here is advocating pulling the trigger illiegally or promoting SSS..... Simply stating that NO they would not turn in someone who did. I most definately would not turn in any individual who shoots a woof!! I am not even sure that I would turn myself in for shooting one in self defense.....
Let's face it, if the same poll was for bear, deer, elk, grouse etc.....it wouldn't be a 100% in favor of turning people in poll result.
Correct! We are not comparing apples to apples. The WDFW is bringing them in and they are not going to be grazing on greens. They will be killing the game in this state 7 days a week. 365 days a year. Don't release them and their are no ethics questions. You release a half dozen pitbulls in my neighborhood and I bet they would be gone within a day or two.
OK, I'm no fan of wolves but let's not make up stuff. The WDFW is not bringing wolves into the state. Where did you get that idea?
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on September 26, 2012, 10:26:16 PM
You guys that are trying to say poaching is poaching NO MATTER what kill me!
So according to you law abiding , BY the BOOK guys,
YOU dont speed? come to a complete stop at every stop sign, never throw a gum wrapper out the window, throw a cigarette butt out the window, slow to 35 on the curve, YA right.
To hell with them wolves and anyone who supports them. Bitch about hunting but yet support wolves!! you got issues.. :
RTSPRING
Had to think about this a bit. But there's a couple big difference between speeding and illegally shooting wolves. First, my word is not going to get someone else arrested for speeding. It MIGHT get an LEO to keep an eye out for your rig, but that's about it. And a speeder is certainly breaking the law. And he's making a choice usually to consciously break a law. But his speeding doesn't affect mine or anyone else's right to drive. Only his own if he gets too many tickets. It doesn't matter how many speeding tickets are written, as long as I keep my nose clean, I'll still be able to drive. But someone illegally shooting a wolf could lead to a curtailing of hunting for myself and others. It probably wouldn't happen over one dead wolf but if it started happening regularly, that could be one of the consequences, hunting seasons closed. How would you feel about turning in a wolf poacher then?
If you think I'm just being dramatic, I fish salmon in Alaska for a living. We already live under the threat of having our fishery closed if dead seals or sea lions are found that were shot and can be linked to someone in our fishery. The feds believe in a heavy hand in these situations. Think IRS heavy handed. They like to make examples to scare people off from breaking the law. I'm not saying I agree with this method of law enforcement, just saying it is what it is.
Post by: villageidiot on September 27, 2012, 06:44:59 AM
Just because it's the law does not always make it right. If we sit on our hands and do nothing the law will not change. We must get off our duffs. Make phone calls, write letters, attend meetings and speak up. The world is run by the people that show up. SHOW UP!
Post by: TheHunt on September 27, 2012, 06:54:53 AM
Post by: jackmaster on September 27, 2012, 06:55:49 AM
Post by: boneaddict on September 27, 2012, 07:11:43 AM
Post by: jackmaster on September 27, 2012, 07:19:39 AM
I expect them to actually replace coyotes or many of them.:yeah:
Post by: Special T on September 27, 2012, 09:52:38 AM
Post by: GrousePointer on September 27, 2012, 10:21:23 AM
ya know its obvious we are never gonna be able to do a damn thing about wolves and what cracks me up is in a few years when these wolves are as thick as coyotes, which they will be, the anti's and liberal *censored*s are gonna be cryin up a storm that their dogs and kids are getn killed and they will whine about how they cant go out and enjoy nature for the fear of being attacked, and then they will sue the state and WDFW for not containing numbers and they will win and then the people posting on this very thread that would turn in a poacher will be singing a differant tune on how the wdfw messed it all up....... I SAY SHOOTEM WHEN YA SEE THEM, and if you see someone shootn one dont be a friggin lowlife rat, now some will say if you shoot a wolf then what is to stop you from shootn other animals illegally, well anyone on this huntn site would turn anyone in for poachn a deer,elk, bear,sheep, goat or anything other than a wolf then i can guarantee that i and anyone else would turn their ass in, so you peeps that think we wouldnt because we wouldnt turn in a wolf poacher need to come up with a differant angle.........
A different angle? Ok, wolves can be seen as a public safety problem right? Like it would be helpful to know where packs are active and denning to prevent unfortunate encounters with man and bird dogs right?
The WDFW will never make specific information like that available if poaching of wolves becomes prevalent. So essentially you'll compound the problem for the public as the wolf population expands.
Thanks for nothing.
Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express
Post by: bearpaw on September 27, 2012, 10:29:06 AM
Do you think they will inhabit areas like the Columbia basin? That will make for BIG coyotes to hunt! Maybe i don't need an AR just keep my 06?
They are all over eastern Montana now. :twocents:
Post by: jackmaster on September 27, 2012, 12:20:14 PM
ya know its obvious we are never gonna be able to do a damn thing about wolves and what cracks me up is in a few years when these wolves are as thick as coyotes, which they will be, the anti's and liberal *censored*s are gonna be cryin up a storm that their dogs and kids are getn killed and they will whine about how they cant go out and enjoy nature for the fear of being attacked, and then they will sue the state and WDFW for not containing numbers and they will win and then the people posting on this very thread that would turn in a poacher will be singing a differant tune on how the wdfw messed it all up....... I SAY SHOOTEM WHEN YA SEE THEM, and if you see someone shootn one dont be a friggin lowlife rat, now some will say if you shoot a wolf then what is to stop you from shootn other animals illegally, well anyone on this huntn site would turn anyone in for poachn a deer,elk, bear,sheep, goat or anything other than a wolf then i can guarantee that i and anyone else would turn their ass in, so you peeps that think we wouldnt because we wouldnt turn in a wolf poacher need to come up with a differant angle.........
A different angle? Ok, wolves can be seen as a public safety problem right? Like it would be helpful to know where packs are active and denning to prevent unfortunate encounters with man and bird dogs right?
The WDFW will never make specific information like that available if poaching of wolves becomes prevalent. So essentially you'll compound the problem for the public as the wolf population expands.
Thanks for nothing. really thats the new angle.... sorry but i am a realist, that info would never be made available whether there was poaching or not, hell the wdfw cant even find the wolves they have collared, so try somethn else, i would rather you just be honest with everyone here and quit beatn around the wolves tail, are you really humanure back for round 2....... seriously though if you havent kept up on current wolf issues as reffering to idaho, and montana the you my friend are very naive, the big problem is washington is more populated than these other states, can you tell me what makes you think that washington has management all figured out when states like idaho and montana started with less wolves and they are also states that depend alot on out of state hunting monies, so you tell me how liberal washington is gonna handle this when we have to have more wolves before they get delisted. i can tell you.... by a few good men killn them when they see them and it still wont put a dent in them.... before you know it we will be spending millions to erradicate them AGAIN..... KILLEM ALL AND KEEP' QUIET :sry:
Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express
Post by: Northway on September 27, 2012, 01:40:13 PM
Do you think they will inhabit areas like the Columbia basin? That will make for BIG coyotes to hunt! Maybe i don't need an AR just keep my 06?
They are all over eastern Montana now. :twocents:
I've wondered how much they will encroach on the Columbia Basin outside of the occasional young disperser. It would only be midly surprising if a pack managed to show up at some point somewhere around the eastern side of the reservation or down around Hanford. I recently saw some pictures of some magnificent looking bulls that I believe were taken on the Hanford Reserve.
Post by: jackmaster on September 27, 2012, 02:26:51 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 27, 2012, 02:45:37 PM
i read on another thread that people are startn to see wolves on the westside as well, this is just hear say but a couple were seen in raymond, i doubt they will last long out there though :chuckle: and someone said they seen 4 up in st helens...... wont be long and this state is gonna be crawln with them......sucks for are elk and deer heards, its really gonna suck when the elk move into their winter feeding ranges and that wont take long for the wolves to figure it out, gonna be some bloody feeding stations for mama, papa and baby tree hugger to watch, wait till they see that carnage, " hey mommy, why is that big doggy killing that poor baby elk right in front of us :'( :'("
I'm surprised you haven't heard them in Graham yet. It won't be long.
Post by: jackmaster on September 27, 2012, 03:26:38 PM
Post by: copasj on September 27, 2012, 04:20:50 PM
Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2
Post by: GrousePointer on September 27, 2012, 04:28:58 PM
Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express
Post by: KFhunter on September 28, 2012, 09:06:33 PM
If you have already voted it will now show the results.
Post by: Curly on September 29, 2012, 04:44:11 AM
Post by: Special T on September 29, 2012, 09:02:47 AM
Post by: Kowsrule30 on September 29, 2012, 12:41:30 PM
Post by: Kola16 on September 29, 2012, 12:53:34 PM
Maybe i don't need an AR just keep my 06?
Yep you need an AR :chuckle: AR-10 in .308 :whoo:
Post by: KFhunter on September 29, 2012, 04:15:22 PM
Had I dressed it up a little bit and omitted the word "poaching" I think the results would be a bit higher :dunno:
Post by: luvmystang67 on October 04, 2012, 09:33:01 AM
Post by: KFhunter on October 04, 2012, 09:44:44 AM
I think the word you might have been looking for was "wolf control vigilante"
I can see that on a shirt :chuckle:
WOLF CONTROL (in arched lettering up high on the shirt)
*picture of howling wolf in crosshairs*
VIGILANTE (on the bottom of the shirt in arched lettering)
Post by: luvmystang67 on October 04, 2012, 03:28:29 PM
http://www.customink.com/designs/wolfctrl/ujb0-000r-w4zp/share/?pc=EMAIL-40778&cm_mmc=share-_-emailb-_-button-_-end (http://www.customink.com/designs/wolfctrl/ujb0-000r-w4zp/share/?pc=EMAIL-40778&cm_mmc=share-_-emailb-_-button-_-end)
Who's in?
(kidding, kind of...)
Post by: luvmystang67 on October 04, 2012, 03:31:39 PM
Post by: Roundhead on October 07, 2012, 08:03:20 PM
Post by: Rudy on October 22, 2012, 12:24:10 PM
Post by: christopheri on October 22, 2012, 12:37:08 PM
Post by: bearpaw on October 22, 2012, 01:00:47 PM
Just sayin! :dunno:
Post by: yakimarcher on October 22, 2012, 01:12:05 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 22, 2012, 01:15:41 PM
Post by: boneaddict on October 22, 2012, 01:26:21 PM
Post by: christopheri on October 22, 2012, 02:10:56 PM
I wonder if the results of this vote has anything to do with the fact that WDFW did not give fair consideration to hunters, ranchers, and other wildlife management in the current wolf plan. The former director unfairly stacked the wolf working group with pro-wolf votes. How can they expect hunters to support something that was forced upon them unfairly?
Just sayin! :dunno:
I can empathize with that how ever we all have allot of crap forced upon us unfairly and still have managed to remain law abiding citizens. Once again I am in no way pro wolf but I am very anti poaching.
Post by: Rudy on October 22, 2012, 02:17:15 PM
I wonder if the results of this vote has anything to do with the fact that WDFW did not give fair consideration to hunters, ranchers, and other wildlife management in the current wolf plan. The former director unfairly stacked the wolf working group with pro-wolf votes. How can they expect hunters to support something that was forced upon them unfairly?
Just sayin! :dunno:
I can empathize with that how ever we all have allot of crap forced upon us unfairly and still have managed to remain law abiding citizens. Once again I am in no way pro wolf but I am very anti poaching.
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: Life isnt fair, doesnt mean you get to break the law
Post by: jackmaster on October 22, 2012, 02:18:27 PM
Post by: Curly on October 22, 2012, 02:19:03 PM
Post by: scout/sniper on October 22, 2012, 02:20:00 PM
Big fat nope! Wouldn't condone it it, yet I wouldn't throw a guy under the bus for it!Amen!
Post by: C-Money on October 22, 2012, 02:42:38 PM
I am really surprised at the 82.5% of the people would not turn in a poacher yet everyone here preaches about hunting legally... Kinda hypocritical if you ask me. Even as much as I disagree with the wolf reintroduction and hate what the wolves are doing to hunting in this state and other states, poaching is poaching and is a :bdid: :twocents:
Wait until they snack on your way of life. Gets a little more personel then. I think I would look the other way.
Post by: scout/sniper on October 22, 2012, 02:46:34 PM
:yeah:I am really surprised at the 82.5% of the people would not turn in a poacher yet everyone here preaches about hunting legally... Kinda hypocritical if you ask me. Even as much as I disagree with the wolf reintroduction and hate what the wolves are doing to hunting in this state and other states, poaching is poaching and is a :bdid: :twocents:
Wait until they snack on your way of life. Gets a little more personel then. I think I would look the other way.
Post by: hardcorecarnivore on October 22, 2012, 03:14:39 PM
Post by: christopheri on October 22, 2012, 03:22:32 PM
:yeah:I am really surprised at the 82.5% of the people would not turn in a poacher yet everyone here preaches about hunting legally... Kinda hypocritical if you ask me. Even as much as I disagree with the wolf reintroduction and hate what the wolves are doing to hunting in this state and other states, poaching is poaching and is a :bdid: :twocents:
Wait until they snack on your way of life. Gets a little more personel then. I think I would look the other way.
Don't ranchers have a right to protect their livestock with deadly force if needed? Do citizens have a right to protect their pets and live stock from a predator with out fear of prosecution? I ask these questions because I am under the impression that there were laws already in place to protect ranchers and lives stock from wolfs. If I am wrong about this please educate me. The issue the OP was talking about was poaching a wolf.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 22, 2012, 03:27:39 PM
I wonder if the results of this vote has anything to do with the fact that WDFW did not give fair consideration to hunters, ranchers, and other wildlife management in the current wolf plan. The former director unfairly stacked the wolf working group with pro-wolf votes. How can they expect hunters to support something that was forced upon them unfairly?
Just sayin! :dunno:
I can empathize with that how ever we all have allot of crap forced upon us unfairly and still have managed to remain law abiding citizens. Once again I am in no way pro wolf but I am very anti poaching.
You confuse a non-existent duty to report poachers with duties to obey otherwise annoying laws. People generally report poaching, because it is in the interest of good management of game animals, and it is aligned with their moral compasses.
With an ill-conceived and dishonestly executed wolf-plan put forth by the WDFW, one that subverts a person's interest in game management and neglects the input of the very customers that the WDFW depends upon, what else would you expect than for law-abiding people to look the other way in the face of street justice.
I would not fault anyone for refusing to be an agent of the man when it comes to enforcement of laws that he or she considers unjust. Jury nullification is a completely acceptable outcome for the unjust enforcement of laws.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 22, 2012, 03:29:05 PM
Post by: MikeWalking on October 22, 2012, 03:41:28 PM
Post by: Curly on October 22, 2012, 03:44:03 PM
If someone was willing to poach a wolf what else might they be willing to poach?
Might be a good point. But I bet some that would smoke a wolf would only do it because they feel they really should be delisted anyway. But I understand the argument. (I won't shoot a wolf illegally, but I won't blame someone who actually has the balls to do it. I'd just be afraid that one of the 20% would see me do it).
Post by: christopheri on October 22, 2012, 03:57:06 PM
I wonder if the results of this vote has anything to do with the fact that WDFW did not give fair consideration to hunters, ranchers, and other wildlife management in the current wolf plan. The former director unfairly stacked the wolf working group with pro-wolf votes. How can they expect hunters to support something that was forced upon them unfairly?
Just sayin! :dunno:
I can empathize with that how ever we all have allot of crap forced upon us unfairly and still have managed to remain law abiding citizens. Once again I am in no way pro wolf but I am very anti poaching.
You confuse a non-existent duty to report poachers with duties to obey otherwise annoying laws. People generally report poaching, because it is in the interest of good management of game animals, and it is aligned with their moral compasses.
With an ill-conceived and dishonestly executed wolf-plan put forth by the WDFW, one that subverts a person's interest in game management and neglects the input of the very customers that the WDFW depends upon, and what else would you expect than for law-abiding people to look the other way in the face of street justice.
I would not fault anyone for refusing to be an agent of the man when it comes to enforcement of laws that he or she considers unjust. Jury nullification is a completely acceptable outcome for the unjust enforcement of laws.
Honestly, I never thought about it that way. You make a very good point.
No a rancher can't shoot one to protect his stock and no someone can't shoot one to protect a pet, so far anyway. They're still protected in this state and until the state delists the E 1/3 of WA, the DFW is the only authority who gets to make that decision. Unless I'm incorrect, you can only shoot one in self defense or defense of another human in danger.
Well then I stand corrected. How in the hell is it that a rancher can not protect his or hers lively hood from being decimated by a pack of wolfs?
Delisting 1/3 of the state is rather condescending.. How about delisting the whole state. That is a whole nother topic.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 22, 2012, 04:07:45 PM
Well then I stand corrected. How in the hell is it that a rancher can not protect his or hers lively hood from being decimated by a pack of wolfs?
Delisting 1/3 of the state is rather condescending.. How about delisting the whole state. That is a whole nother topic.
My memory could be failing me, but in protecting livestock, the touchstone is that you have to catch them in the act of depredation or attack.
So merely seeing one nearby and having a dead animal from your stock on the ground does not seem to be enough. This is especially problematic with free range livestock, such as was the case with the Wedge pack problem, if I am remembering correctly. (From what I gathered reading, it is rare to see an actual attack on such animals.)
So WDFW introduced a problem for these groups and did not give them the tools to effectively deal with it.
Post by: Kola16 on October 22, 2012, 05:09:50 PM
Well then I stand corrected. How in the hell is it that a rancher can not protect his or hers lively hood from being decimated by a pack of wolfs?
Delisting 1/3 of the state is rather condescending.. How about delisting the whole state. That is a whole nother topic.
My memory could be failing me, but in protecting livestock, the touchstone is that you have to catch them in the act of depredation or attack.
I think the McIrvins had to get special permission before they could do that :dunno:
Post by: Special T on October 22, 2012, 05:31:10 PM
If someone was willing to poach a wolf what else might they be willing to poach?
I think this is likely the exception to that rule. :twocents:
I think Fl0und3rs makes a good point. When some law is wrong or not well thought out do you try to stay law abiding with the same kind of zeal? Believe it or not we all break laws intentionally or unintentionally. Does that mean i think we should abandon laws wholesale? No. But what it does prove is that it is much easier, and common, for excessive laws that are not well thought out. I bet i can find a negative unitended consequence for most laws... We should strive to be better, but not whipped by our master. (The State).
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 22, 2012, 05:45:13 PM
Or a bit more extreme, would you be a witness to/report a homicide? What if that homicide was a parent that killed a child molester that was caught with their child?
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on October 22, 2012, 06:18:26 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 23, 2012, 07:46:29 AM
I wonder if the results of this vote has anything to do with the fact that WDFW did not give fair consideration to hunters, ranchers, and other wildlife management in the current wolf plan. The former director unfairly stacked the wolf working group with pro-wolf votes. How can they expect hunters to support something that was forced upon them unfairly?
Just sayin! :dunno:
I can empathize with that how ever we all have allot of crap forced upon us unfairly and still have managed to remain law abiding citizens. Once again I am in no way pro wolf but I am very anti poaching.
You confuse a non-existent duty to report poachers with duties to obey otherwise annoying laws. People generally report poaching, because it is in the interest of good management of game animals, and it is aligned with their moral compasses.
With an ill-conceived and dishonestly executed wolf-plan put forth by the WDFW, one that subverts a person's interest in game management and neglects the input of the very customers that the WDFW depends upon, and what else would you expect than for law-abiding people to look the other way in the face of street justice.
I would not fault anyone for refusing to be an agent of the man when it comes to enforcement of laws that he or she considers unjust. Jury nullification is a completely acceptable outcome for the unjust enforcement of laws.
Honestly, I never thought about it that way. You make a very good point.No a rancher can't shoot one to protect his stock and no someone can't shoot one to protect a pet, so far anyway. They're still protected in this state and until the state delists the E 1/3 of WA, the DFW is the only authority who gets to make that decision. Unless I'm incorrect, you can only shoot one in self defense or defense of another human in danger.
Well then I stand corrected. How in the hell is it that a rancher can not protect his or hers lively hood from being decimated by a pack of wolfs?
Delisting 1/3 of the state is rather condescending.. How about delisting the whole state. That is a whole nother topic.
The wolves were only removed from protection under the ESA for the Northern Rocky states, to include only the eastern 1/3 of WA. They still remain protected under the ESA in the western 2/3 of WA. Our state, even if they wanted to (which they don't) couldn't delist west of that line.
Post by: FALFire on October 24, 2012, 07:22:55 AM
:chuckle: :chuckle: :tup:
Post by: h2ofowlr on October 24, 2012, 07:51:40 AM
I am really surprised at the 82.5% of the people would not turn in a poacher yet everyone here preaches about hunting legally... Kinda hypocritical if you ask me. Even as much as I disagree with the wolf reintroduction and hate what the wolves are doing to hunting in this state and other states, poaching is poaching and is a :bdid: :twocents:
The only reason it isn't a 100% is that there are guys/ gals that haven't scene first hand what these creature have done. They have put a lot of guides out of business in Idaho alone. In specific areas, guys don't buy tags anymore. When you go from having experiences that you could tell generations to stories of not even seeing animals in only 4-6 year period it opens peoples eyes wide open. Lots of money and careful management have helped build these herds to where they were 8-10 years ago over a course of 50 years. These wolves have changed this, like I mentioned in 4-6 years in specific areas. This isn't the 1800's. The old timers had ways to knock down the population from year around trapping, shooting and poisioning to get rid of them. We have seasons, no poisioning, limits, and trapping bans in this state. It seems minor now, but wait until this train gets rolling, it will change things drastically. You will still find animals in peoples back yards until the wolves run low on food and come finding them. The ones that can't jump the fence or run away will get taken out.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 24, 2012, 08:17:44 AM
I am really surprised at the 82.5% of the people would not turn in a poacher yet everyone here preaches about hunting legally... Kinda hypocritical if you ask me. Even as much as I disagree with the wolf reintroduction and hate what the wolves are doing to hunting in this state and other states, poaching is poaching and is a :bdid: :twocents:
The only reason it isn't a 100% is that there are guys/ gals that haven't scene first hand what these creature have done. They have put a lot of guides out of business in Idaho alone. In specific areas, guys don't buy tags anymore. When you go from having experiences that you could tell generations to stories of not even seeing animals in only 4-6 year period it opens peoples eyes wide open. Lots of money and careful management have helped build these herds to where they were 8-10 years ago over a course of 50 years. These wolves have changed this, like I mentioned in 4-6 years in specific areas. This isn't the 1800's. The old timers had ways to knock down the population from year around trapping, shooting and poisioning to get rid of them. We have seasons, no poisioning, limits, and trapping bans in this state. It seems minor now, but wait until this train gets rolling, it will change things drastically. You will still find animals in peoples back yards until the wolves run low on food and come finding them. The ones that can't jump the fence or run away will get taken out.
Nope, that's not it. The wolves are a symptom of a larger picture where anti-hunting fanatics have been able to convince some of the general public that hunting is extreme, more extreme than the fanatics themselves, and that it should be villainized and eventually, eliminated. The wolves are only a vehicle for them to achieve this; wolves are the pawns of the antis. One way they are able to do this is by pointing out that hunters are willing to flaunt the law and they point to threads like this to prove it. Hunters who stand up, even in the line of fire from their own ranks, and say that poaching of any kind is intolerable do so not because of their ignorance to the catastrophic damage caused by the reintroduction of these apex predators, but as a testament to the general public that we're not the extreme ones willing to take the law into our own hands, the antis are.
In my humble opinion, this thread is is divisive and does nothing positive to further the advancement of hunting and the sporting life in the eyes of the 97% of our public who don't hunt and don't understand hunting, especially with regards to wildlife conservation. A thread like this can cancel out, in the mind of the non-hunting public, all of the vast good that hunters do for our wildlife and environment. In addition, it serves to split us as a group and forces us to choose sides on an issue over which we've had little control. If this continues, the antis win, plain and simple. We must find a way to present a common, mainstream front to present to the majority of voters so we don't lose the little that remains for us and our passion. Voicing our willingness to ignore the law is not that mainstream front.
Post by: RG on October 24, 2012, 08:25:33 AM
In my humble opinion, this thread is is divisive and does nothing positive to further the advancement of hunting and the sporting life in the eyes of the 97% of our public who don't hunt and don't understand hunting, especially with regards to wildlife conservation. A thread like this can cancel out, in the mind of the non-hunting public, all of the vast good that hunters do for our wildlife and environment. In addition, it serves to split us as a group and forces us to choose sides on an issue over which we've had little control. If this continues, the antis win, plain and simple. We must find a way to present a common, mainstream front to present to the majority of voters so we don't lose the little that remains for us and our passion. Voicing our willingness to ignore the law is not that mainstream front.[/quote]
I agree with pianoman on this. We have a lot more productive topics on here without getting to the level of would we commit a crime or not given the right circumstances. These forums are monitored by people like our old friend Humanure and his vast list of cronies. This isn't the message we should be sending out there. I'm certainly not a wolf guy and I can't wait till we can buy 5 wolf tags here like you can in other states. I'll be at the front of that line.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 24, 2012, 08:31:29 AM
Post by: bearpaw on October 24, 2012, 09:08:10 AM
The local radio station in Stevens County reports on the cattlemen regularly here in Stevens County and the local people talk about wolves on the streets of local towns the same way hunters talk about them on this forum. Take a ride to some rural towns in Idaho, you will find those people are far more vociferous about the wolf issue because they have been suffering the impacts for a longer time. There are restaurants, motels, and other businesses that have suffered because hunters quit going to Idaho. Idahoans eventually got their wolf plan changed by speaking out.
I am not one who will break the law but I also do not think we should hide the truth. I think the fact that so many people are speaking out is a testament to the need to change the Washington Wolf Plan. It's not only hunters, that my :twocents:
Post by: Special T on October 24, 2012, 09:32:06 AM
I respect your desire, and other hunters, to play by the rules and rise above taking the high road. However taking the high road and working within the system will NOT help rancher or our deer and elk herds.
We should not forget the lessons learned by our neighbors! DELAY is a tactic! ID and MT are/were much more skeptical as a whole than here in WA, and they still are/were unable to stop this decline in herds and property loss.
DoL and other antis have shaped and framed the debate. While they have us talking about IF we should take out a pack because of damages, wolves are breeding and dispersing. The State is NOT working very hard to document packs. let us remember that we need 18 packs in one year or ?15? for 3 year consecutively... We know how the antis work just see how the lawsuits pile up in other states as they try to manage "recovered" populations.
We need to re frame the debate, not participate in the current one. WY is the ONLY state that has had a chance BECAUSE they told the feds to Pound Sand From day one. IF we want to get some where we NEED to push the Repeal of the ESA. I pray that when we get a new President, congress and Governor that we may make some head way on this issue.
Spotted owl, Salmon, Mazama pocket gophers.... Wolves... these are ALL ESA protected species that have affected our lives, and i believe that the Antis have found their magic animal... All other animals have kept us divided usually geographically. Our one chance to change this awful course is to scrap the ESA...
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 24, 2012, 09:48:37 AM
Post by: Special T on October 24, 2012, 10:05:12 AM
Post by: Special T on October 24, 2012, 10:05:52 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 24, 2012, 11:07:56 AM
Post by: Bean Counter on October 24, 2012, 11:33:55 AM
Post by: Special T on October 24, 2012, 11:34:29 AM
How is it ANY different when citizens discuss not enforcing the other laws that we think are unjust?
I personally don't care about weed, but know people who ARE adamant about the negative effects of it. THAT discussion seems to be OK but this one is not. WHY? Because it is less socially acceptable? By whom?
Part of the reason WHY we have this problem with wolves is because so many people are ignorant to the issue. There is a saying in advertising that ALL news is good news! The more this issue is placed in front of people the better chance we have At educating them. It may do less good here where we are preaching to the Choir, however i have had some good discussions with non hunting relatives because of articles i have forwarded to them. BTW they did not necessarily pain hunters in a good light either.
Post by: Bean Counter on October 24, 2012, 11:41:58 AM
In this state we are currently talking about telling state officials NOT to enforce FEDERAL law when it comes to Marijuana.
....
Afterall, we can't have Arizona assisting in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. :bash:
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 24, 2012, 11:43:41 AM
One of many reasons to make this thread private and out of the public view. :twocents:
Yes, exactly.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 24, 2012, 11:51:48 AM
In this state we are currently talking about telling state officials NOT to enforce FEDERAL law when it comes to Marijuana.
How is it ANY different when citizens discuss not enforcing the other laws that we think are unjust?
I personally don't care about weed, but know people who ARE adamant about the negative effects of it. THAT discussion seems to be OK but this one is not. WHY? Because it is less socially acceptable? By whom?
Part of the reason WHY we have this problem with wolves is because so many people are ignorant to the issue. There is a saying in advertising that ALL news is good news! The more this issue is placed in front of people the better chance we have At educating them. It may do less good here where we are preaching to the Choir, however i have had some good discussions with non hunting relatives because of articles i have forwarded to them. BTW they did not necessarily pain hunters in a good light either.
Special T, you're comparing apples to oranges. It would be one thing if there were a vote of the people in WA which said we can kill wolves on sight. Then we'd be defying the feds as a state. That would be the only way there'd be a valid comparison to legalizing pot and the wolf issue.
There's no reason we can't oppose the state without endorsing illegal activity regarding the wolves. Why do we have to give the antis so much ammunition with which to defeat us? I don't get why you insist that it's OK to publicly support wolf poaching when it will do our sport so much harm.
Post by: Special T on October 24, 2012, 12:11:49 PM
If you neighbor burns dimensional lumber do you turn them in for breaking the law? If you neighbor grades more than 6k sq feet do you tell the county about it?
When there is a disconnect between laws and reality it think it IS important to talk about it. We must point it out for others to see.
Post by: Special T on October 24, 2012, 12:16:21 PM
In this state we are currently talking about telling state officials NOT to enforce FEDERAL law when it comes to Marijuana.
....
Afterall, we can't have Arizona assisting in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. :bash:
What i was trying to say is that it seems socially acceptable to talk about enforcement when it comes to MJ or illegals but not this subject? now maybe my analogy isn't apples to apples, BUT our ability to talk about these ISSUES are. ( I just used the MJ issue because i saw another thread talking about it...)
Post by: bearpaw on October 24, 2012, 12:40:29 PM
In another year or two it will be called Protecting Washington!
When some of you guys have as many wolves as we do a little closer to home, you will see the light!
Post by: bearpaw on October 24, 2012, 12:43:22 PM
Post by: bobcat on October 24, 2012, 12:44:32 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 24, 2012, 12:44:48 PM
People in Idaho do not call it wolf poaching, it's called Protecting Idaho!
In another year or two it will be called Protecting Washington!
When some of you guys have as many wolves as we do a little closer to home, you will see the light!
Yes, and they have the support of their governor to do so. We do not. This is a huge distinction. This, however unfortunately, is not ID.
Post by: Special T on October 24, 2012, 12:45:11 PM
That is kind of my point. It is only natural that we only care about what effects us. Make it know to more people, and make it affect them and they will be more inclined to care.
Pman we may have a new gov come Nov...
Post by: buckhorn2 on October 24, 2012, 12:48:00 PM
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on October 24, 2012, 12:49:15 PM
Post by: bearpaw on October 24, 2012, 01:06:21 PM
There are probably 15 wolf packs in Region 1 right now. Unfortunately WDFW does not have the staff to get them all documented, but they are here and they are eating every day. This is as true as when I told everyone two years ago that the packs they have now confirmed were already here.
In 2 or 3 years if this state sits on their a$$ about delisting and as these packs multiply it's going to be called "Protecting NE Washington". There is no way I will ever turn in my neighbors for protecting their cattle and livlihood. I would rather buy them a beer and laugh with them about the negligent management of this state.
I do not hold back, I have told people in several levels of our government that they better get a handle on this wolf issue. It's not good for wildlife management due to the fact government officials are pratically forcing rural folks to take the law in their own hands in order to protect their livlihood and people by the droves are beginning to consider shooting wolves illegally as necessary for survival because the government will not manage and does not care if wolves kill people's livlihood and neither do the wolf lovers who want wolves in our backyards. There has to be some fairness soon in this wolf plan or this whole situation will get worse just as it did in the other states. This is really only the beginning, things are going to get much, much, worse. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on October 24, 2012, 01:14:01 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 24, 2012, 01:29:11 PM
I hope I don't have to let my community down when I see a wolf because I am not going to break the law, I can't take that kind of risk. But I can tell the truth about what is happening in Idaho all day long and I can tell you that it's going to happen here in NE WA if they sit on their thumbs with delisting. There is only so much social tolerance for the likes of these wolf lovers that seem to be in control of Washington. :twocents:
I absolutely understand you, Dale. And, if something has to be done, will you be starting a thread to talk about it? Hardly.
Post by: Bob33 on October 24, 2012, 01:34:19 PM
Isn't it ironic, and sad, that issues like wolves are not even touched on in the political arena? We know Jay Inslee can drive a bulldozer. Woo hoo: I guess that makes him the best candidate for governor.People in Idaho do not call it wolf poaching, it's called Protecting Idaho!
In another year or two it will be called Protecting Washington!
When some of you guys have as many wolves as we do a little closer to home, you will see the light!
Yes, and they have the support of their governor to do so. We do not. This is a huge distinction. This, however unfortunately, is not ID.
Post by: bearpaw on October 24, 2012, 01:50:33 PM
I hope I don't have to let my community down when I see a wolf because I am not going to break the law, I can't take that kind of risk. But I can tell the truth about what is happening in Idaho all day long and I can tell you that it's going to happen here in NE WA if they sit on their thumbs with delisting. There is only so much social tolerance for the likes of these wolf lovers that seem to be in control of Washington. :twocents:
I absolutely understand you, Dale. And, if something has to be done, will you be starting a thread to talk about it? Hardly.
Obviously I will not be starting a topic titled "Farmer Joe gets a double on illegal wolves!" :chuckle:
But I will have no qualm about posting a topic generalizing about what is going on because wolf lovers are controlling our government. The worst that can happen is that the wolf nazis hook me up to an electrical shocker to try and get local gossip out of me. :chuckle:
Post by: Ridgeratt on October 24, 2012, 02:27:44 PM
Post by: RG on October 24, 2012, 03:22:06 PM
Post by: h2ofowlr on October 24, 2012, 08:19:14 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 25, 2012, 07:13:50 AM
Pianoman, you must work at Columbia Sportswear where they give large donations to the anti's along with donations to the hunting groups. Play both sides of the field. You aren’t going to fix stupid with these anti's. It doesn't matter how nice you try to play with them, they have an agenda. No compromise. The agreement with Conservation NW to remove the wedge pack was a political move to stop all the negative publicity. It is hard to push a bad agenda when the media turns on them. If you could report every wolf cattle kill to the radio and news station that is the only way we can push back. If the public actually start getting facts on these killers, they won't be as tolerant and let these anti's run amuck with this plan.
This is exactly the kind of in-fighting crap that will break us down as a group and empower the antis to beat us in public opinion.
H2O, you couldn't be farther from the truth. I've opposed the wolf program every step of the way. I have never wavered in my opposition to having wolves back in WA. I've written letters, emails, made testimony, dozens of phone calls and opposed the appointment of Jay Kehne, a member of Conservation Northwest, to the Wildlife Commission very vocally, both on this forum and to the DFW and our Wildlife commission, as well as with all of my state reps. I got in a heated battle with Don Benton's (R) office when they told me they don't oppose those gubernatorial appointments out of "courtesy" and took the matter up with the state GOP chair. I've worked with the Cattleman's Association, WFW, and several other groups in absolute opposition to the wolf program every step of the way. I'm not sure what you've done in opposition to the plan and don't really care. That fact that you call me a friend of the wolf lovers shows you speak without any knowledge of the topic. Your comments are ignorant of my efforts and typify the ignorance that would have someone publicly flaunt illegal actions and poaching, giving the antis all of the ammunition they need.
It's one thing to take matters into your own hands out of necessity and protection of one's land, family, and livestock. It's another altogether to announce it to the world as a banner of pride. You guys go ahead and continue to publicly promote illegal actions. I'm sure it'll be received quite well by the general public, who for the most part don't know the issue and think of wolves as being cuddly and cute like their doggies. Good luck with that. I'm done being called a wolf lover and partaking in this damaging thread.
Post by: bearpaw on October 25, 2012, 08:26:02 AM
Isn't it ironic, and sad, that issues like wolves are not even touched on in the political arena? We know Jay Inslee can drive a bulldozer. Woo hoo: I guess that makes him the best candidate for governor.People in Idaho do not call it wolf poaching, it's called Protecting Idaho!
In another year or two it will be called Protecting Washington!
When some of you guys have as many wolves as we do a little closer to home, you will see the light!
Yes, and they have the support of their governor to do so. We do not. This is a huge distinction. This, however unfortunately, is not ID.
The politicians know that wolves are loved by the masses in western Washington, any politician who wants elected by western Washington voters is going to avoid this topic. :twocents:
In Montana/Idaho that's different, wolves are now a part of those campaigns. Once wolves infiltrate western Washington and problems come to the suburbs, politics will change in Washington.
I totally hate the fact that wolves were reintroduced and have become the huge game management disaster that they have become. I worked as a hunting guide and chased the north Yellowstone elk herd in the area north of Gardener MT in the late 80's and early 90's. I also worked on a cattle ranch on which we had forest service grazing permits in that same area for as many as 1100 head. I know how it was then and I know how it is now since the wolves totally decimated that area. The funny thing is there were already wolves in there that we saw on a regular basis on the north boundary of Yellowstone when the snow came. They hung out in the area where the bighorns wintered. We saw them and their tracks in the Ramshorn Peak area. I have friends who hunt and guide in a lot of areas in the West and it is a disaster. I am 100% in favor of Wyoming's wolf plan since it designates portions of the state where wolves can be and it also designates portions of the state where they just aren't going to work out. It provides for the means to keep them out of those portions since they are basically considered a predator there. I love that plan and wish Washington had the same one instead of the little pansy-ass plan we have. I also know that there is "rumor" that wolves are shot on a regular basis in various western states and that the powers that be don't care. I don't have a problem with that either, I can't afford to break a law because it could cost me my career but I don't care if discretionary enforcement is applied sometimes when it makes sense. I just don't think we should make a point to encourage or emphasize breaking the law on this forum. Just my opinion obviously and I accept the fact that others don't agree.
Very well said, I definitely agree on most of your points. I am still not certain one way or the other if this hurts or helps to discuss this. I wonder how people will fully understand the issue if they are shielded from some of the facts and realities?
The big problem is that Eastern WA is having to live under a wolf plan adopted by Western Washington. The feds themselves have delisted eastern Wa and we could hunt wolves in Eastern Washington if we changed our wolf plan. I see the WDFW as being at fault for subscribing to the wolf groups.
It is clearly proven that the drug wars have not worked, people openly talk about being able to get drugs whenever they want and one of the big arguments is that we need to change the law and tax marijuana to help resolve the crime caused by high priced drugs. As the drug issue evolves we are learning that we must talk about other ways to help with the issue.
I may be wrong, but I think that the wolf lovers need to know that rural people are not going to put up with unregulated wolf numbers. Idaho is a priime example, the wolf lovers pushed the people too far. Now there will be fewer wolves in the end than if the wolf lovers would have been more reasonable.
Maybe we should remove this topic and maybe nobody should talk about what is happening where I live and where some other members live or hunt, maybe we should stop posting any wolf topics, let the problem explode, maybe in the end that would cause a stronger reaction and we end up with fewer wolves. But it is hard to watch the damage that is being done in your own backyard.
Good Example: We have a friend in Idaho who is not a hunter or cattle rancher, he and his family owned a restaurant in a small town, 3 or 4 years ago when hunters quit coming in the fall it was too much of a loss of business, he lost the restaurant and now has to travel away from the area to work. He comes home on weekends to see his family. That family hates wolves and this is how unregulated wolf numbers affect whole communities. I do not want to see this happen in Stevens County.
Wolves are in my backyard and for the first time this year I have been forced to look at other hunting areas and avoid areas I have hunted since I was a child that the wolves are impacting. If we do not talk about this problem and resolve it, it can only get worse. These wolves are like a cancer, they will grow in numbers and soon destroy the whole area, then they move to the next area.
No, I will not stand idly by and allow this to happen again in yet another area, especially my own backyard, I am drawing a line in the sand. State government is failing for Stevens County and I will not report anyone for actually helping our county by killing wolves. The more I think about it, it seems the only way to counter this problem is to hope and pray that more people break the law, because these wolves are not waiting, they are eating every day more and more animals as their numbers grow.
As I said many times, I cannot break the law, but the future of this county depends on law breakers because government is simply failing. Fix government and you fix the problem, this wolf plan needs changed, until then I will encourage people to break the law in Stevens County before more livlihoods are damaged or completely lost as I have seen happen in so many other areas.
This is really a sad situation. My friends and family tell me that I am too straight laced and that I am a law abiding fanatic. Yet here I am saying that people need to break the law to save the county, yet I hope we can get the state to reconsider their ignorant wolf plan and delist NE Washington.
For a quick reminder of the realities of this situation I need only look at the areas where many friends in Idaho live to know that waiting for government to save the county will probably not happen, those people had to step in and do what was neccessary to protect what was left of their counties or the problem would be even worse.
So I hope government will wake up soon and do something right. Most of you do not yet have wolves in your backyard, but those of us in Stevens County have them in our backyards now. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on October 25, 2012, 09:39:46 AM
Post by: bonkellekter on October 25, 2012, 10:05:05 AM
Well said Dale! Thanks for voicing your opinion on this critical matter!!
Post by: RG on October 25, 2012, 10:22:15 AM
Post by: bearpaw on October 25, 2012, 10:50:34 AM
Honestly, I doubt many wolves have been taken illegally in Wa, most people are hoping WDFW handles the problem before it gets to the point where we all lose confidence. But in Stevens County I am telling you the people are quickly getting closer to that point. In Idaho I can tell you that the people have passed that point and have been handling the problem since the time that Judge Malloy shut down wolf hunting. I am a firm believer that Malloy caused the killing of more wolves in Idaho than any other single person. The people of Idaho are taking care of business all over that state now, season never ends in most areas, the residents will tell you that on the street in any small town in Idaho, except for maybe a few small towns near the Sun Valley area. People in Idaho talk about killing wolves more openly than drug addicts talk about pot. :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on October 25, 2012, 11:00:02 AM
PROBLEM SOLVED!
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 25, 2012, 11:00:49 AM
For the safety of these innocent face licking wolves and the benefit of the wolf lovers who want wolves frolicking in the meadows with butterflies so badly, I propose we relocate 3/4 of NE WA's wolves to the wooded areas of Puget Sound. Those counties who want these wolves can keep them protected and let them multiply. Whenever NE WA exceeds our share of the wolf plan (about 3 packs) we simply relocate the excess to Puget Sound where the people who want them can have them.
PROBLEM SOLVED!
NIMBY
Post by: KFhunter on October 25, 2012, 11:59:45 AM
When ranchers, one who's never owned his own gun, has never fired a gun in their life until recently, are coming to me asking how to predator hunt and protect their livestock from wolves.....then somethings changed?
I've taken him out coyote hunting, and let him borrow my foxpro. His expression when 5 yotes came blasting in from all directions was something like :yike:
Post by: washelkhunter on October 25, 2012, 12:02:33 PM
Post by: Curly on October 25, 2012, 12:06:23 PM
For the safety of these innocent face licking wolves and the benefit of the wolf lovers who want wolves frolicking in the meadows with butterflies so badly, I propose we relocate 3/4 of NE WA's wolves to the wooded areas of Puget Sound. Those counties who want these wolves can keep them protected and let them multiply. Whenever NE WA exceeds our share of the wolf plan (about 3 packs) we simply relocate the excess to Puget Sound where the people who want them can have them.
PROBLEM SOLVED!
NIMBY
:yeah:
Not all of us in the Puget Sound area are wolf lovers. I'd rather transplant the wolf lovers to the NE........ :chuckle: :chuckle: :hello:
Post by: bearpaw on October 25, 2012, 02:10:57 PM
For the safety of these innocent face licking wolves and the benefit of the wolf lovers who want wolves frolicking in the meadows with butterflies so badly, I propose we relocate 3/4 of NE WA's wolves to the wooded areas of Puget Sound. Those counties who want these wolves can keep them protected and let them multiply. Whenever NE WA exceeds our share of the wolf plan (about 3 packs) we simply relocate the excess to Puget Sound where the people who want them can have them.
PROBLEM SOLVED!
NIMBY
:yeah:
Not all of us in the Puget Sound area are wolf lovers. I'd rather transplant the wolf lovers to the NE........ :chuckle: :chuckle: :hello:
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: Yes, I know, I was only trying to make a point, you guys don't want them any more than I do. Can we put them in downtown pugetropolis? :chuckle:
Post by: Curly on October 25, 2012, 03:05:59 PM
:)For the safety of these innocent face licking wolves and the benefit of the wolf lovers who want wolves frolicking in the meadows with butterflies so badly, I propose we relocate 3/4 of NE WA's wolves to the wooded areas of Puget Sound. Those counties who want these wolves can keep them protected and let them multiply. Whenever NE WA exceeds our share of the wolf plan (about 3 packs) we simply relocate the excess to Puget Sound where the people who want them can have them.
PROBLEM SOLVED!
NIMBY
:yeah:
Not all of us in the Puget Sound area are wolf lovers. I'd rather transplant the wolf lovers to the NE........ :chuckle: :chuckle: :hello:
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: Yes, I know, I was only trying to make a point, you guys don't want them any more than I do. Can we put them in downtown pugetropolis? :chuckle:
I suppose so.........just have to make sure they have enough liberals to eat so they don't wander outside of Seattle, Tacoma, and Olympia. 8) ;)
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on October 25, 2012, 03:07:00 PM
Post by: RG on October 25, 2012, 04:27:53 PM
Post by: Special T on October 25, 2012, 08:11:39 PM
Post by: deadwoodbuck on October 26, 2012, 11:32:18 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 26, 2012, 06:41:21 PM
just as soon they put a season or special tag on them...keep it legal...once you go down the poaching road you can justify anything. unless my livelyhood or family were in danger. just don't put me in that situation or I just might.
Agreed. They put a season on them and I'll be out there hunting them with you. But until then, poaching is poaching, you can't have it both ways.
Post by: Special T on October 26, 2012, 09:30:31 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 26, 2012, 10:14:46 PM
Personally, I think it's unjust that I have to wear a seatbelt. But I do.
Post by: SemperFidelis97 on October 26, 2012, 10:52:36 PM
For the safety of these innocent face licking wolves and the benefit of the wolf lovers who want wolves frolicking in the meadows with butterflies so badly, I propose we relocate 3/4 of NE WA's wolves to the wooded areas of Puget Sound. Those counties who want these wolves can keep them protected and let them multiply. Whenever NE WA exceeds our share of the wolf plan (about 3 packs) we simply relocate the excess to Puget Sound where the people who want them can have them.
PROBLEM SOLVED!
NIMBY
I hear Discovery park in Seattle is 500 acres of perfect wolf habitat lots of cover, and ample herbavores running around that would make great prey. I don't see it happening though libs up there are more interested in preserving nature in our backyard rather than their own.
:yeah:
Not all of us in the Puget Sound area are wolf lovers. I'd rather transplant the wolf lovers to the NE........ :chuckle: :chuckle: :hello:
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: Yes, I know, I was only trying to make a point, you guys don't want them any more than I do. Can we put them in downtown pugetropolis? :chuckle:
Post by: KFhunter on October 26, 2012, 11:41:10 PM
just as soon they put a season or special tag on them...keep it legal...once you go down the poaching road you can justify anything. unless my livelyhood or family were in danger. just don't put me in that situation or I just might.
Agreed. They put a season on them and I'll be out there hunting them with you. But until then, poaching is poaching, you can't have it both ways.
The slippery slope argument is :crap:
Post by: Special T on October 27, 2012, 09:07:21 AM
But Special T, the problem is, who gets to decide which laws we consider unjust? Maybe some guys think it's unjust they can't party hunt and shoot somebody else's animal for them. Maybe some guys think there shouldn't be a limit on game birds that are planted. Some guys might feel it's unjust that they cant just shoot a doe instead of having to shoot a buck. And I KNOW there are people who think it's unjust having to drive the speed limit. I see them every day. We can't just pick and choose which laws we follow. If it's unjust, work to change it. If enough people feel that way, it will be changed.
Personally, I think it's unjust that I have to wear a seatbelt. But I do.
The question isn't IF you would shoot one, its would you turn one in? So i'm assuming that whenever you see some one speeding you hop on the phone and call the police? How bout when your neighbor is burning wood that isn't dry enough?
BTW there are all kinds of BS laws that i abide by because i don't want to be taxed. But if my neighbor doesn't want to abide by the letter of the law I'm not gona be the person to turn them in...
Post by: Curly on October 27, 2012, 09:12:21 AM
But Special T, the problem is, who gets to decide which laws we consider unjust? Maybe some guys think it's unjust they can't party hunt and shoot somebody else's animal for them. Maybe some guys think there shouldn't be a limit on game birds that are planted. Some guys might feel it's unjust that they cant just shoot a doe instead of having to shoot a buck. And I KNOW there are people who think it's unjust having to drive the speed limit. I see them every day. We can't just pick and choose which laws we follow. If it's unjust, work to change it. If enough people feel that way, it will be changed.
Personally, I think it's unjust that I have to wear a seatbelt. But I do.
The question isn't IF you would shoot one, its would you turn one in? So i'm assuming that whenever you see some one speeding you hop on the phone and call the police? How bout when your neighbor is burning wood that isn't dry enough?
BTW there are all kinds of BS laws that i abide by because i don't want to be taxed. But if my neighbor doesn't want to abide by the letter of the law I'm not gona be the person to turn them in...
:yeah:
Until it becomes illegal to look the other way, that is exactly what I would do if I ever came across a wolf
Post by: bearpaw on October 27, 2012, 09:28:49 AM
Bottom line, the wolf plan is a bad law that needs changed, it will cause some people to violate and many others are not going to report those violators. :twocents:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 27, 2012, 02:38:23 PM
But Special T, the problem is, who gets to decide which laws we consider unjust? Maybe some guys think it's unjust they can't party hunt and shoot somebody else's animal for them. Maybe some guys think there shouldn't be a limit on game birds that are planted. Some guys might feel it's unjust that they cant just shoot a doe instead of having to shoot a buck. And I KNOW there are people who think it's unjust having to drive the speed limit. I see them every day. We can't just pick and choose which laws we follow. If it's unjust, work to change it. If enough people feel that way, it will be changed.
Personally, I think it's unjust that I have to wear a seatbelt. But I do.
The question isn't IF you would shoot one, its would you turn one in? So i'm assuming that whenever you see some one speeding you hop on the phone and call the police? How bout when your neighbor is burning wood that isn't dry enough?
BTW there are all kinds of BS laws that i abide by because i don't want to be taxed. But if my neighbor doesn't want to abide by the letter of the law I'm not gona be the person to turn them in...
Someone else speeding isn't going to affect my right to drive or anyone else's. Somebody illegally shooting wolves might affect my right to hunt or everybody else's.
Pulling over to report every speeder I see would mean I might as well walk, because I wouldn't be getting anywhere fast.
I catch you dumping garbage in the woods, I'm turning you in too. Not only is it stupid, but again, it affects mine and everyone else's chances of using roads into hunting areas. It's one of the big reasons roads get gated.
Post by: Curly on October 27, 2012, 03:23:32 PM
A bad wolf plan that should never have been put forth by WDFW, and should have been voted down by the commission is reason for around 80% of us to look the other way if faced with the decision to report. I'm okay with that. And I don't mind WDFW knowing the percentage of hunters that would look the other way. :twocents:
Post by: Special T on October 28, 2012, 02:59:01 PM
But Special T, the problem is, who gets to decide which laws we consider unjust? Maybe some guys think it's unjust they can't party hunt and shoot somebody else's animal for them. Maybe some guys think there shouldn't be a limit on game birds that are planted. Some guys might feel it's unjust that they cant just shoot a doe instead of having to shoot a buck. And I KNOW there are people who think it's unjust having to drive the speed limit. I see them every day. We can't just pick and choose which laws we follow. If it's unjust, work to change it. If enough people feel that way, it will be changed.
Personally, I think it's unjust that I have to wear a seatbelt. But I do.
The question isn't IF you would shoot one, its would you turn one in? So i'm assuming that whenever you see some one speeding you hop on the phone and call the police? How bout when your neighbor is burning wood that isn't dry enough?
BTW there are all kinds of BS laws that i abide by because i don't want to be taxed. But if my neighbor doesn't want to abide by the letter of the law I'm not gona be the person to turn them in...
Someone else speeding isn't going to affect my right to drive or anyone else's. Somebody illegally shooting wolves might affect my right to hunt or everybody else's.
Pulling over to report every speeder I see would mean I might as well walk, because I wouldn't be getting anywhere fast.
I catch you dumping garbage in the woods, I'm turning you in too. Not only is it stupid, but again, it affects mine and everyone else's chances of using roads into hunting areas. It's one of the big reasons roads get gated.
The once twice, three times removed "Possibility" of it affecting me/you holds no water with me. That same kind of logic is why we have the seat belt, tobacco, Mc Donalds police because it "may" effect me through higher prices on insurance and medicare. It IS the same thing because you have mandatory Auto insurance, and speeding and wrecks DO affect the price you pay because of it.
You want to turn in someone for dumping garbage? Good for you... My whole point is IF you feel the need to turn in some one for shooting a wolf go right ahead I won't try and stop you. There is a BIG difference between a REAL problem with Physical consequences like dumping trash vs some imagined one like turning in a wolf shooter or some one burning dimensional lumber.
Post by: Hi-Liter on October 29, 2012, 12:08:10 PM
Post by: dscubame on October 30, 2012, 08:39:09 PM
Post by: MountainWalk on November 01, 2012, 08:57:52 AM
Post by: villageidiot on November 01, 2012, 07:12:00 PM
Post by: Ripper on November 08, 2012, 06:55:47 AM
Post by: boneaddict on November 08, 2012, 06:56:45 AM
It is amazing that there are still people that would kill their own mother if THE LAW REQUIRED IT. It is a very good thing that our forefathers had a mind of their own and did not follow that intellect or we would not be a free country ,or else we would still be under British control.Very well Put!
Post by: Bob33 on November 08, 2012, 07:23:42 AM
Regardless of the ethics, poaching now may hurt more than help in the long run by delaying legal hunting. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 08, 2012, 07:25:46 AM
I believe we're already too far along to control wolves with illegal poaching. In my opinion, legal hunting of wolves is the only hope we have of controlling them. That won't occur until enough breeding pairs have been documented.
Regardless of the ethics, poaching now may hurt more than help in the long run by delaying legal hunting. :twocents:
And, three more years pass after those breeding pairs have been documented. That's the other big kicker to this awful plan.
Post by: villageidiot on November 08, 2012, 08:42:20 AM
Post by: huntnphool on November 08, 2012, 09:00:38 AM
I believe we're already too far along to control wolves with illegal poaching. In my opinion, legal hunting of wolves is the only hope we have of controlling them.Legal hunting in every other state has done nothing to control the wolf population Bob. Just as vice chair Duvia asked WDFW, I'll ask you, what makes you think it will work here when it completely failed in those other states?
Post by: boneaddict on November 08, 2012, 09:11:36 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 08, 2012, 09:28:28 AM
I think you are also living in a fantasy camp if you think wolf hunting will ever become legal in this state, you know the one where you can smoke pot and marry your gay lover. :chuckle:
It'll come, Bone, but it'll be way too late by the time it does.
Post by: Bob33 on November 08, 2012, 10:10:03 AM
Please provide evidence that poaching is working well in the other states. Thanks.I believe we're already too far along to control wolves with illegal poaching. In my opinion, legal hunting of wolves is the only hope we have of controlling them.Legal hunting in every other state has done nothing to control the wolf population Bob. Just as vice chair Duvia asked WDFW, I'll ask you, what makes you think it will work here when it completely failed in those other states?
Post by: huntnphool on November 08, 2012, 10:14:34 AM
Um...........I never said it did, I simply asked you a question.Please provide evidence that poaching is working well in the other states. Thanks.I believe we're already too far along to control wolves with illegal poaching. In my opinion, legal hunting of wolves is the only hope we have of controlling them.Legal hunting in every other state has done nothing to control the wolf population Bob. Just as vice chair Duvia asked WDFW, I'll ask you, what makes you think it will work here when it completely failed in those other states?
Post by: Bob33 on November 08, 2012, 10:31:21 AM
Ok. I cannot provide a definitive answer but I believe legal hunting does help in other states. It certainly does not eliminate the problem, and possibly has no significant effect. My concern is that illegal activity may not solve the problem either, but without question will cast hunters in a negative light by anti hunters and may also delay legal hunting indefinitely.Um...........I never said it did, I simply asked you a question.Please provide evidence that poaching is working well in the other states. Thanks.I believe we're already too far along to control wolves with illegal poaching. In my opinion, legal hunting of wolves is the only hope we have of controlling them.Legal hunting in every other state has done nothing to control the wolf population Bob. Just as vice chair Duvia asked WDFW, I'll ask you, what makes you think it will work here when it completely failed in those other states?
Post by: Colville on November 08, 2012, 10:43:26 AM
Wolves in NE idao or WA are going to be impossible to control by hunting or poaching because of the habitat. It'll take copters and marksmen or trapping.
Post by: boneaddict on November 08, 2012, 10:44:50 AM
Post by: huntnphool on November 08, 2012, 10:46:53 AM
Obviously any wolf killed helps, regardless of how its killed, thats easy, but its been proven that it indeed has no significant effect...........................And as far as hunters being seen by anything other than negative light by anti's, well I think we both know that anti's are never going to see hunting/hunters in anything but negative light, regardless if wolves are left alone or not. :twocents:Ok. I cannot provide a definitive answer but I believe legal hunting does help in other states. It certainly does not eliminate the problem, and possibly has no significant effect. My concern is that illegal activity may not solve the problem either, but without question will cast hunters in a negative light by anti hunters and may also delay legal hunting indefinitely.Um...........I never said it did, I simply asked you a question.Please provide evidence that poaching is working well in the other states. Thanks.I believe we're already too far along to control wolves with illegal poaching. In my opinion, legal hunting of wolves is the only hope we have of controlling them.Legal hunting in every other state has done nothing to control the wolf population Bob. Just as vice chair Duvia asked WDFW, I'll ask you, what makes you think it will work here when it completely failed in those other states?
Post by: Bob33 on November 08, 2012, 10:49:56 AM
That may be true, but there are lots and lots of non hunters that aren't anti hunting...yet.
It's the independent "swing" voters that matter, right? :chuckle:
Post by: kentrek on November 08, 2012, 10:51:05 AM
Please provide evidence that poaching is working well in the other states. Thanks.I believe we're already too far along to control wolves with illegal poaching. In my opinion, legal hunting of wolves is the only hope we have of controlling them.Legal hunting in every other state has done nothing to control the wolf population Bob. Just as vice chair Duvia asked WDFW, I'll ask you, what makes you think it will work here when it completely failed in those other states?
have you been to idaho ?? been to a place ran by wolves ?? a place void of big game ??
wolfs are a much bigger threat to hunting than poaching
the gamies told us to shoot em all when there wasnt even as season yet :dunno: and now the trappers are really puting a damper on the wolfs by trapping in illegal trapping areas,some how never get caught :dunno: ..people in id went "above" the law to take care of the problem an i believe its the only reason there is still some good hunting left over there
look at what the legal system has done here with yotes...bears... cougars...
wolfs need to be treated before they get to the point of no control like yotes,which involves moving faster than what fish an game can..and they know it
Post by: huntnphool on November 08, 2012, 10:54:10 AM
That may be true, but there are lots and lots of non hunters that aren't anti hunting...yet.True, but you said anti's, not non hunters or "swing voters" :chuckle:
Post by: Bob33 on November 08, 2012, 10:55:57 AM
You're right. I still think the good that comes from advocating illegal poaching may not outweigh the negative consequences.That may be true, but there are lots and lots of non hunters that aren't anti hunting...yet.True, but you said anti's, not non hunters or "swing voters" :chuckle:
Post by: Colville on November 08, 2012, 11:02:50 AM
No one blames the Sierra Club or Nature Conservancy or any other environmentalist org, or environmentalists as a whole when earth first spikes trees or burns a lumber yard. People typically place blame on individuals when it comes to law breaking. Rest assured there have been numerous MB threads at enviro web sites complimenting enviro-terrorism. It's had no effect on the movement as a whole. Same holds true as it relates to hunters vs poachers.
Post by: Bob33 on November 08, 2012, 11:11:43 AM
non issue, PR that is.Have you read any comments on here about PETA (the organization)? HSUS? Bank Of America? Do the posts all blame only individuals, or the organization?
No one blames the Sierra Club or Nature Conservancy or any other environmentalist org, or environmentalists as a whole when earth first spikes trees or burns a lumber yard. People typically place blame on individuals when it comes to law breaking.
Do you not blame these groups?
Post by: boneaddict on November 08, 2012, 11:23:08 AM
Post by: Bob33 on November 08, 2012, 11:32:51 AM
My eight year old daughter had some friends over the other day. She told them that her dad was hunting. Several of them said something equivalent to "yuk". My daughter then proceeded to tell them what really happens in nature: animals die of disease, get eaten alive by predators, starve to death, get run over by cars, and so forth. She asked them where their meat came from. She changed some of their minds because she educated them.
Look at the black eye "hunters" got in the public's eye from the octopus killing at Alki. (For starters, when did harvest of marine creatures become hunting?)
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 08, 2012, 11:41:02 AM
I just don't agree. I think there are lots of people who don't understand or are ignorant about hunting. They don't have an anti-hunting mentality. They will be swayed by either the good or the bad they see in hunters.
My eight year old daughter had some friends over the other day. She told them that her dad was hunting. Several of them said something equivalent to "yuk". My daughter then proceeded to tell them what really happens in nature: animals die of disease, get eaten alive by predators, starve to death, get run over by cars, and so forth. She asked them where their meat came from. She changed some of their minds because she educated them.
I absolutely have changed non-hunters misconceptions about hunting. I do it by listening to their ideas and concerns, and then addressing their concerns in an informed and non-confrontational manner. I know population statistics, safety statistics, and I use reasoning based on common sense and man's history with regards to hunting. I don't waste my time on antis. You can't use reason with someone who argues with none.
93.5% of our population doesn't hunt in WA. Less than 1% of those are anti-hunting. The rest are fairly ignorant to what we do and open to discussion. 97% of our population eats meat in some form or other. You may not convince these people that they should hunt, but you should certainly be able to convince them that what we do is sound and worthy of their support.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on November 08, 2012, 11:44:35 AM
Post by: Bob33 on November 08, 2012, 11:45:55 AM
It's actually closer to almost 97%.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 08, 2012, 11:47:09 AM
"93.5% of our population doesn't hunt in WA."
It's actually closer to almost 97%.
Sorry, it's 95.5 because 4.5% hunts here I believe. Thanks for the correction, Bob.
Post by: Colville on November 08, 2012, 11:51:44 AM
Hunters aren't a homogenous or even an affiliated group. We aren't a club. Neither are hikers or bike riders or any other outdoor users. Now RMEF is a club. If an RMEF exec is caught poaching or if RMEF is caught allowing it's membership to openly promote poaching that would be a problem.... FOR RMEF.
The public takes out it's anger at organizations or individuals but not against user groups that are unaffiliated in any way. As I said before. No one is going to attack Sierra club tomorrow if some eco-warrior burns some logging equipment, because they weren't involved and didn't promote it. Nor will the public at large blame the green/enviro movement. Poachers aren't "hunters" as a group anymore than eco-terrorists are environmentalists as a group.
You can find non membership goup, non affiliated blogs or message boards for environmentalists that promote or accept the acts I described above. That doesn't create some sort of cascade against the law abiding movement as a whole.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 08, 2012, 12:14:32 PM
Bob,
Hunters aren't a homogenous or even an affiliated group. We aren't a club. Neither are hikers or bike riders or any other outdoor users. Now RMEF is a club. If an RMEF exec is caught poaching or if RMEF is caught allowing it's membership to openly promote poaching that would be a problem.... FOR RMEF.
The public takes out it's anger at organizations or individuals but not against user groups that are unaffiliated in any way. As I said before. No one is going to attack Sierra club tomorrow if some eco-warrior burns some logging equipment, because they weren't involved and didn't promote it. Nor will the public at large blame the green/enviro movement. Poachers aren't "hunters" as a group anymore than eco-terrorists are environmentalists as a group.
You can find non membership goup, non affiliated blogs or message boards for environmentalists that promote or accept the acts I described above. That doesn't create some sort of cascade against the law abiding movement as a whole.
Actually I can prove you wrong on this very site, most likely this very thread. A great many hunters lump all greenies into one group of anti-hunters. To them, Elf is no different than the Sierra Club and PETA is no different than the Nature Conservancy. It is human nature to lump people into groups, even when those groups have nothing in common. It happens out of ignorance the same way that people will label all hunters as cruel when they read about one who is.
Post by: Bob33 on November 08, 2012, 12:25:54 PM
Hunter behavior. Another common reason that people oppose hunting is poor behavior of
hunters themselves. One study found that hunter behavior strongly affected opposition to hunting, with
the researchers concluding that, in general, the public is not against hunting, but the public “sure feels
differently about the hunter” (Rohlfing 1978). These researchers found that the top problems perceived
by the public to be associated with hunting had little to do with hunting itself (at least not ethical hunting), but were associated with individual hunters and their poor behavior (e.g., hunters fail to track wounded animals, hunters shoot animals that they are not allowed to shoot, hunters ignore safety regulations, hunters trespass, hunters shoot too close to highways, hunters don’t know what they are shooting at). The aforementioned study of Minnesota residents found that 73% agree that they are “bothered by disrespectful conduct of some hunters” (MNDNR 1992). Another researcher found that disrespectful and unethical conduct of some hunters was among the reasons given for opposition to hunting (Kellert 1980).
Even among hunters, poor behavior of other hunters is a reason for opposing hunting strictly for
recreation: 27% of hunters in one study opposed hunting strictly for recreation, and they most commonly said their opposition was because of the disrespectful conduct of some hunters (MNDNR 1992)."
Post by: Colville on November 08, 2012, 12:42:49 PM
That "some" people lump other "some" peoples into groups they don't belong in, hunters with poachers, eco-terrorists with environmentalists, isn't evidence that those people thinking that way have any affect on public policy or rises to the level of broad public agreement. I don't really care if there's a segment of the public that thinks poacher when they hear hunter. They are not the majority by any stretch and they've not caused any loss of hunting opportunity.
Broadly incidents of poaching don't even rise to public consciousness. When they do, there's no hew and cry against hunters in general, but against poaching. Even if some of the public believes incorrectly that more hunters are poachers than is reality.
This MB does not raise to any level of public awareness. Period. the anonymous rants of a handful of hunters in a non affiliated message board isn't something the public can act against. They need a target. An organization or an individual. Wolf poaching, even if cheered by some, doesn't provide any specific means to target hunters as a group. Like I said before, I wouldn't want to be a business, or organization that is caught poaching or promoting it. If we were going to face this ground swell as the result of poaching it should have happened. There's been poaching as long as there's been hunting laws so apparently that ground swells very little.
I remind you that the trapping, bear and cougar situations weren't driven by "hunting" but by perceived animal cruelty. Killing wolves is already illegal.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 08, 2012, 01:32:20 PM
You haven't proven anything.
That "some" people lump other "some" peoples into groups they don't belong in, hunters with poachers, eco-terrorists with environmentalists, isn't evidence that those people thinking that way have any affect on public policy or rises to the level of broad public agreement. I don't really care if there's a segment of the public that thinks poacher when they hear hunter. They are not the majority by any stretch and they've not caused any loss of hunting opportunity.
Broadly incidents of poaching don't even rise to public consciousness. When they do, there's no hew and cry against hunters in general, but against poaching. Even if some of the public believes incorrectly that more hunters are poachers than is reality.
This MB does not raise to any level of public awareness. Period. the anonymous rants of a handful of hunters in a non affiliated message board isn't something the public can act against. They need a target. An organization or an individual. Wolf poaching, even if cheered by some, doesn't provide any specific means to target hunters as a group. Like I said before, I wouldn't want to be a business, or organization that is caught poaching or promoting it. If we were going to face this ground swell as the result of poaching it should have happened. There's been poaching as long as there's been hunting laws so apparently that ground swells very little.
I remind you that the trapping, bear and cougar situations weren't driven by "hunting" but by perceived animal cruelty. Killing wolves is already illegal.
Yes, killing wolves is already illegal. And, if you don't think it gives all hunters a black eye when some promote the poaching of them, I believe you're mistaken.
Post by: Colville on November 08, 2012, 02:16:16 PM
Some Christian says all x/y/z people should be killed or are going to hell.
When someone of my political persuasion promotes vote fraud, he doesn't rep the party or me.
When some fisherman say kill every dogfish you catch.
When some white man makes a racist comment.
In general is our image important? You bet. But that image is driven by audience. This place has a tiny fraction of the state's hunters and their audience is just themselves and maybe, maybe a few curious outsiders... and of course LE who are paying close attention to what is posted in wolf poaching threads. Posters can scream out support of poaching wolves and like a tree falling in the woods, it'll make no sound. But how they've posted will be recorded and certain people are watching.
Only large scale news events have the chance to really do damage and I'd argue that hunters shooting other hunters and non hunters does 100's X the damage of any individual poaching event and millions of times the damage of some anonymous posts on a message board.
Post by: Bob33 on November 08, 2012, 02:22:53 PM
Posts on here may or may not have much effect. However, an act of illegal or "unethical" hunting may. The Alki octopus story is a recent example.
:tup: