Post by: pianoman9701 on October 30, 2012, 07:40:20 AM
Commission invites public comments on
fishery restructuring, livestock compensation
OLYMPIA - The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission will invite public comments on plans to restructure salmon and sturgeon fisheries on the lower Columbia River at a meeting scheduled Nov. 8-9 in Olympia.
In addition, the commission will take comments on new options proposed for allocating the Puget Sound shrimp catch along with a proposed update to rules for compensating landowners who lose livestock to bears, cougars and wolves.
The commission, which sets policy for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), will discuss all three issues at a public meeting in Room 172 of the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St. S.E., in Olympia. An agenda for the meeting is available on the commission’s website at http://goo.gl/HtqhI (http://goo.gl/HtqhI) .
The commission will consider taking action on all three issues at a meeting scheduled in December.
Since early last month, representatives from Washington and Oregon have been meeting to discuss options for restructuring fisheries on the lower Columbia River. At the direction of Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber, fishery managers in that state have been working to develop a plan that would phase out the use of gillnets by non-tribal fishers in the mainstem lower Columbia River by 2016.
At the upcoming meeting, WDFW staff will brief the Washington commission on alternatives proposed by members of the bi-state workgroup, and their implications for Columbia River fisheries. The commission will then take public comments on those proposals, which are posted on WDFW’s website at http://goo.gl/MCG5q (http://goo.gl/MCG5q) .
On a separate issue, the commission will discuss provisions of a new Puget Sound shrimp policy, along with proposed new options for allocating the catch of spot shrimp between recreational and commercial fisheries. Those options are posted on the commission’s website at http://goo.gl/c092L (http://goo.gl/c092L) .
The commission will also invite public comments on several changes proposed in state rules for compensating ranchers and other landowners who lose livestock to predatory carnivores. Those changes would:
Give top priority for compensation to ranchers who sign cooperative agreements with WDFW committing them to use non-lethal measures to protect their livestock.
Provide compensation for guard dogs and other animals used to guard livestock.
Allow ranchers to receive compensation for weight loss in livestock and other effects of wildlife predation that are not directly tied to the death or injury of an animal.
Establish a new way to determine the value of livestock lost to predation.
Prior to discussing that issue, commissioners are scheduled to attend an annual meeting with Gov. Chris Gregoire in the Governor’s office. The Governor appoints commission members to six-year terms, subject to confirmation by the state Senate.
Additional information about the commission and upcoming meetings is available at http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/) .
The ranchers and all of us have had this unreasonable wolf plan shoved down their (our) throats. Now, regardless of the fact that their fears were unheard and are now coming to fruition, they must comply or lose out on compensation. Why? Because the WDFW sorely underestimated the costs of controlling wolves in our state and is now panicking. They're desperately seeking ways to lower their liability in this case, liability caused by an over-zealous plan and kowtowing to the greenies, people with no stake in this issue at all. The wolves are everything we warned them they would be and more. Now, it's the rancher's responsibility. This is outrageous.
PMan
Post by: Maverick on October 30, 2012, 08:19:46 AM
Wolves need to be hunted. Why does the state have to make things so hard? All these greenies are wanting to protect wolves when then aren't even ranchers or hunters. They don't have any money put into this. They have no reason to have a say. If they love wolves so much then put them over there. Us east siders don't want them!!! If the greenies want wolves so bad then make a wolf tax for anyone that doesn't hunt. See how much they love them after that. I'm sorry for rambling but I'm just so sick of how our state handles the wolves.
Post by: Killmore on October 30, 2012, 08:24:13 AM
Post by: Special T on October 30, 2012, 08:28:27 AM
Post by: bobcat on October 30, 2012, 08:31:14 AM
Quote
reason to have a say. If they love wolves so much then put them over there. Us east siders don't want them!!!
Well, us west siders don't want them either. Why is it that people often assume that those living on the west side of the state are wolf lovers?
I'm sure there are plenty of wolf lovers in Spokane.
Post by: Special T on October 30, 2012, 08:33:44 AM
Post by: bobcat on October 30, 2012, 08:38:21 AM
But, I don't like the term "westsiders" being used, as if everyone that lives here is the same.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 30, 2012, 08:39:07 AM
Post by: Special T on October 30, 2012, 08:48:53 AM
Post by: bobcat on October 30, 2012, 08:53:32 AM
Would Californicators be a better term? :chuckle:
No. We have people on this forum who moved here from California, and they are not wolf lovers.
How about just using the term "wolf lover" rather than lumping people into one category based on nothing more than where they happen to live?
Post by: sebek556 on October 30, 2012, 08:58:05 AM
Post by: bearpaw on October 30, 2012, 09:04:58 AM
Would Californicators be a better term? :chuckle:
No. We have people on this forum who moved here from California, and they are not wolf lovers.
How about just using the term "wolf lover" rather than lumping people into one category based on nothing more than where they happen to live?
:chuckle: I have no problem using the term 'wolf lover"!
Piano, does it say the commission is going to require ranchers to sign the agreement? Perhaps the adjustments to the compensation fund are meant to be an improvement?
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 30, 2012, 09:12:55 AM
Post by: Maverick on October 30, 2012, 09:55:20 AM
Post by: Special T on October 30, 2012, 10:43:37 AM
Would Californicators be a better term? :chuckle:
No. We have people on this forum who moved here from California, and they are not wolf lovers.
How about just using the term "wolf lover" rather than lumping people into one category based on nothing more than where they happen to live?
I mostly said that toung in cheek. :o
Post by: CedarPants on October 30, 2012, 10:58:25 AM
Is the public comment really anything more than just a formality if they already have their minds made up what they are going to do? They proposed a wolf plan, took public comment, then moved forward with the very plan they proposed.
Post by: Humptulips on October 30, 2012, 11:44:37 AM
Post by: Jack Diamond on October 30, 2012, 12:24:51 PM
Post by: firefighter4607 on October 30, 2012, 12:41:46 PM
Post by: Ridgeratt on October 30, 2012, 04:10:56 PM
Wolf management will require cooperation, more money
Posted by Rich
Oct. 23, 2012 6:07 a.m. •
ENDANGERED SPECIES — Wolves continue to consume, among other things, a lot of time, money and attention in Washington.
Read on for an Associated Press report that rounds up what state Fish and Wildlife officials are doing and proposing as we head into winter, a critical time for wildlife as well as for wildlife officials seeking funding from the Legislature.
By PHUONG LE
Associated Press
SEATTLE — Taking aim from a helicopter flying over northeastern Washington state, a marksman last month killed the alpha male of a wolf pack that had repeatedly attacked a rancher's cattle. The shooting put an end to the so-called Wedge pack, but it did little to quell the controversy over wolves in the state.
The issue has been so explosive that state wildlife officials received death threats and the head of the Fish and Wildlife Commission warned the public at a recent hearing in Olympia on wolves that uniformed and undercover officers were in the room ready to act.
More conflicts between wolves and livestock are inevitable, officials say, as wolves in Washington recover, growing in number more quickly than expected. The animals numbered a handful in 2008, and are now estimated at between 80 and 100.
“What are we going to do so we don't have this again?” asked Steve Pozzanghera, a Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife regional director.
He said officials are trying to be proactive to prevent the need to kill wolves in the future. They plan to collar more wolves this winter to keep better track of them. They plan to ask the Legislature to beef up money to compensate livestock owners whose animals are killed by wolves. And they're urging livestock operators to sign agreements with the state to share the cost of using a broad range of non-lethal measures to prevent livestock-wolf conflicts.
So far, only one livestock owner has signed an agreement, with four to six others in the hopper - underscoring the challenges the agency faces as it tries to recover the endangered native species while encouraging social tolerance of the wolves by minimizing livestock losses.
“We understand there is some resistance out there,” said Pozzanghera, but the agency is committed to working with ranchers and cattlemen.
“The whole situation is really tragic, most of all because it could have been avoided,” said Jasmine Minbashian, of the nonprofit Conservation Northwest, which supported the decision in the end to kill the wolf pack because the animals had become reliant on livestock.
“If you remove the pack without changing something on the ground, this situation is bound to repeat itself,” she said.
The Stevens County Cattlemen's Association is urging its roughly 50 members not to sign those agreements. It wants the commission to remove gray wolves from the state endangered list in Eastern Washington in the near future.
“Our guys are willing to use these nonlethal methods … The problem is these methods are not always effective,” said the group's spokeswoman Jamie Henneman, noting the agreements address only symptoms. “The illness happens to be that we're oversaturated with wolves.”
Grey wolves are protected as an endangered species throughout Washington state. The animals are federally listed as endangered only in the western two-thirds of the state. Removing the animals from the state endangered list could open the way to future wolf hunting.
While Montana, Idaho and Wyoming have been grappling with wolves in the past decade, Washington has dealt with wolves only in recent years. In 2008, a wolf pack was documented for the first time in 70 years. Now, there are eight confirmed packs, with four others suspected.
The killing of seven members of the Wedge Pack - named for the area they inhabit along the Canadian border near Laurier - has prompted an outcry from some wolf advocates. Some have criticized the owners of the Diamond M ranch for not taking enough non-lethal measures.
“As far as I know, we've done everything that they suggested might be effective,” Bill McIrvin said during a recent Olympia hearing. McIrvin is one of the owners of the ranch, where wolves killed or injured at least 17 animals on both private and public land. The ranch employed cowboys, delayed the turnout of their cow-calf pairs until the animals were bigger and quickly removed injured cattle, state officials said.
Wildlife officials say they're working on new rules to compensate ranchers for losses, including for reduced weight gain or reduced pregnancy rates.
Ranchers who sign onto nonlethal agreements with WDFW would have priority for livestock compensation.
Sam Kayser, an Ellensburg cattle rancher, said he signed an agreement with the state because he knows wolves will eventually target his cattle and he wanted help.
“What are the wolves going to eat? They're going to eat elk. If the elk numbers go short, they're going to eat my cattle,” said Kayser, whose cattle graze on thousands of acres of private land that he leases in central Washington.
“Fish and Wildlife (department) was trying to be proactive and I was trying to be a little proactive myself,” he added.
The state is sharing the cost of a range rider who stays with the cattle to make sure they don't become prey to wolves.
Range riders have been used in other states to prevent wolf-livestock conflicts. A pilot project in Stevens County over the summer is testing the concept in this state. Officials have been working with a rancher there and will review the success of that project in coming months to see whether and how it can be duplicated elsewhere.
Kayser says he and other cattlemen saw the conflicts coming.
“If they're willing to try, I'm willing to try,” Kayser said. “(But) I think it's putting off the eventuality of what's going to be.”
Heres an article from the Spokesman Review'
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2012/oct/23/wolf-management-will-require-cooperation-more-money/#more (http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2012/oct/23/wolf-management-will-require-cooperation-more-money/#more)
Post by: steen on October 30, 2012, 06:25:14 PM
Post by: villageidiot on October 30, 2012, 10:23:12 PM
Public comments are only a procedure they go through with deaf ears. The wolf lovers will flood the comments from their city dwellings and the ranchers and hunters will have to suffer the consequences. The wolf lovers will sit at home and read or watch on TV the blood and monetary sacrafices the ranchers make and accuse them as being greedy, money hungry, self centered ranchers that have no regard for the environment.
Allowing wolves to overpopulate is NOT wildlife management. They have already reached that level in Eastern Washington.
Post by: KyleMB123 on October 30, 2012, 11:03:29 PM
:yike: I'm sure there are going to be a few geuinni pigs that will sign up, but if EVERYONE signed up there would be NO $$$ for compensation...Signing an agreement with the State is like doing a deal with the Mob. Once your in its IMPOSSIBLE to get out!
Signing an agreement with any gov't is like doing a deal with the mob because the gov't is THEE mob.
Post by: Maverick on October 31, 2012, 08:20:01 AM
Here's what else I don't understand. We (hunters, fisherman, outdoors, etc) are the ones paying thousands of dollars to the state each year for all kinds of licenses and passes. Why are we the ones getting shafted? Why is it that people on the other aide of the state that rarely get up in the woods on the eastside have a say in this?
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 31, 2012, 08:24:45 AM
I just don't get it.... How can any animal lover want an animal around that kills all the other animals? These people need to quit watching Disney. This isn't a cartoon you wolf loving dumb***es
Here's what else I don't understand. We (hunters, fisherman, outdoors, etc) are the ones paying thousands of dollars to the state each year for all kinds of licenses and passes. Why are we the ones getting shafted? Why is it that people on the other aide of the state that rarely get up in the woods on the eastside have a say in this?
You'll figure it out when there's nothing to hunt. Wolves are only a pawn in the anti-hunting game. Take away the game, take away the hunting. No more dead Bambi at the hands of the ruthless humans (apparently, they'd rather see them die slowly, being eaten alive by a pack of wolves). It's truly bizarre how these people think.
Post by: Maverick on October 31, 2012, 08:31:35 AM
:yike:
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 31, 2012, 08:32:14 AM
Post by: sebek556 on October 31, 2012, 08:40:39 AM
Well if all the deer and elk are gone then I guess we'll just have to start hunting greenies. It'll be just like the book most dangerous game.I dunno I've already hunted man, its really not that challenging. Eye sight is questionable, sense of smell sucks so you don't need to play the wind, hearing moderate so no need to sneak, and are the easiest animal in the world to pattern. :dunno:
:yike:
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 31, 2012, 08:44:44 AM
Well if all the deer and elk are gone then I guess we'll just have to start hunting greenies. It'll be just like the book most dangerous game.I dunno I've already hunted man, its really not that challenging. Eye sight is questionable, sense of smell sucks so you don't need to play the wind, hearing moderate so no need to sneak, and are the easiest animal in the world to pattern. :dunno:
:yike:
I think I'm ready. Hunting elk is hard. It takes being in shape (and I don't mean round as the shape), you have to work hard. I could use the break. How much do you think the tags will be?
Post by: Maverick on October 31, 2012, 08:48:25 AM
Post by: Humptulips on October 31, 2012, 12:24:22 PM
Public comments are a waste of time. A multitude of public comments against the wolves were heard and some of the members of the wolf group that supposedly designed the wolf plan were against the plan to begin with and never agreed to it. The wolf lovers have the reigns and they will do what they want to do regardless of our comments. WDFW chose the number of 15 pairs long before the wolf plan was ever designed and it was used as the target. WHY?
Public comments are only a procedure they go through with deaf ears. The wolf lovers will flood the comments from their city dwellings and the ranchers and hunters will have to suffer the consequences. The wolf lovers will sit at home and read or watch on TV the blood and monetary sacrafices the ranchers make and accuse them as being greedy, money hungry, self centered ranchers that have no regard for the environment.
So true, I was on one of WDFWs commissions. The department makes sure they get the outcome they wanted in the first place but they go through the motions to make things look good.
Allowing wolves to overpopulate is NOT wildlife management. They have already reached that level in Eastern Washington.
Post by: Scooter929 on November 07, 2012, 09:19:34 PM
A lot of us don't have the time to spend getting up to speed with this wolf deal and it's too bad....
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 08, 2012, 05:43:01 AM
Allow ranchers to receive compensation for weight loss in livestock and other effects of wildlife predation that are not directly tied to the death or injury of an animal.
How is this bad? I'm not really sure why you guys are foaming at the mouth right now.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 08, 2012, 05:54:05 AM
Provide compensation for guard dogs and other animals used to guard livestock.
Allow ranchers to receive compensation for weight loss in livestock and other effects of wildlife predation that are not directly tied to the death or injury of an animal.
How is this bad? I'm not really sure why you guys are foaming at the mouth right now.
Because the wolf plan is much more aggressive than it should've been for our state and was shoved down the throats of all of us. The ranchers objected to its scope vehemently and now, they're being told they need to change their methods if they want compensation that's already been "guaranteed". The whole reason that this has changed is that the DFW underestimated the impact of this aggressive plan on our state and the expense it would require to maintain. It is this PP planning that now requires changes in how the ranchers do business, instead of making changes to the awful plan.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 08, 2012, 06:39:28 AM
I agree that the plan needs a bunch of work- this might be a step in the right direction.
BTW- I tend to agree that most of the wolf deterrants are a joke, but we all have to jump through hoops at times. If the state is paying for it they will eventually figure out what works and give up on what doesn't.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 08, 2012, 06:51:05 AM
Oh- so adding compensation for weight loss and paying for working dogs is bad?
I agree that the plan needs a bunch of work- this might be a step in the right direction.
BTW- I tend to agree that most of the wolf deterrants are a joke, but we all have to jump through hoops at times. If the state is paying for it they will eventually figure out what works and give up on what doesn't.
I'm not saying these measures are bad. I'm saying that when the plan was shoved down our throats, these measures weren't part of the deal for compensation because the people who put the plan together had no idea of what they'd be dealing with, even though all of us were screaming it at the top of our lungs. Now, mid-stream, the government has decided that this is way bigger than they'd previously thought and they have to change the game. Well, no chit! If they'd have listened to their people who would be most affected instead of the greenies in Seattle who'll never be affected, the plan would've have been about 50% less aggressive, in line with our population density and the amount of wilderness area available for a new apex predator. It comes as no surprise to me that after being completely ignored during the planning stages of the plan, that the cattlemen are now calling foul and refusing to cooperate.
Post by: Maverick on November 08, 2012, 06:53:51 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 08, 2012, 06:59:17 AM
Wolves are a costly species to manage. Hopefully hunting then will offset those costs...someday. Given the political climate here, it's unlikely to happen soon.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 08, 2012, 07:23:04 AM
The cattlemen participated in the working group and agreed to the compensation details in that forum. They were ignored when they initiated the "minority opinion", but they should have been pushing that before the 11th hour. It happened too damn late.
Wolves are a costly species to manage. Hopefully hunting then will offset those costs...someday. Given the political climate here, it's unlikely to happen soon.
They participated from the beginning and were completely ignored. They begged to be heard and their fears were never given even the slightest consideration. The 11th hour statement is a fantasy. They were objecting to the scope of this plan from the get-go.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 08, 2012, 07:32:38 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 08, 2012, 07:40:05 AM
Wow- that's not really the way it seemed during the wolf meetings. I know they were heavily involved and they fought for some changes. I know a few of the folks that were at all of the meetings and they felt like everyone at least got something from the deal. No group got everything they wanted.
You have only to look at the scope of the plan to see who it was that got what they wanted.
Post by: villageidiot on November 08, 2012, 08:34:43 AM
Post by: huntnphool on November 08, 2012, 08:54:58 AM
This is completely unacceptable! I was sitting there when vice chair Duvia called them out on their numbers. If they want to revamp the compensation plan then it should only be done with a completely revamped wolf plan, anything else is absolutely unacceptable and I hope the cattlemans association holds their feet over the fire!!!
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 08, 2012, 08:57:12 AM
This is absolute BS!!! Duvia called them out on their numbers estimate during the proposal meetings, telling them that the other states experienced much higher depredation and compensation than WDFW had in their power point presentation and flat out asked them why they thought their experts and numbers would be any different and they didn't have a legit answer. Now reality slaps them in the face and they want to revamp the compensation plan? (https://hunting-washington.com/smf/MGalleryItem.php?id=6996)
This is completely unacceptable! I was sitting there when vice chair Duvia called them out on their numbers. If they want to revamp the compensation plan then it should only be done with a completely revamped wolf plan, anything else is absolutely unacceptable and I hope the cattlemans association holds their feet over the fire!!!
What he said, but while trying to maintain my lower blood pressure! :yeah: :tup:
Post by: huntnphool on November 08, 2012, 09:04:33 AM
:chuckle: Sorry Brother, after four years of this BO administration and then all the chaos of this election this wolf issue is close to putting me right over the top. Liberal thinking in this country is going to have us in a revolution if this BS continues. :twocents:This is absolute BS!!! Duvia called them out on their numbers estimate during the proposal meetings, telling them that the other states experienced much higher depredation and compensation than WDFW had in their power point presentation and flat out asked them why they thought their experts and numbers would be any different and they didn't have a legit answer. Now reality slaps them in the face and they want to revamp the compensation plan? (https://hunting-washington.com/smf/MGalleryItem.php?id=6996)
This is completely unacceptable! I was sitting there when vice chair Duvia called them out on their numbers. If they want to revamp the compensation plan then it should only be done with a completely revamped wolf plan, anything else is absolutely unacceptable and I hope the cattlemans association holds their feet over the fire!!!
What he said, but while trying to maintain my lower blood pressure! :yeah: :tup:
Post by: firefighter4607 on November 08, 2012, 12:47:44 PM
Post by: Northway on November 12, 2012, 11:15:18 AM
:yike: I'm sure there are going to be a few geuinni pigs that will sign up, but if EVERYONE signed up there would be NO $$$ for compensation...Signing an agreement with the State is like doing a deal with the Mob. Once your in its IMPOSSIBLE to get out!
Kass Kayser's dad signed a cooperative agreement, I believe. I think most of the acreage they run cattle on is in Kittitas County. It would be great to hear someone's perspective that actually signed an agreement.
I can imagine that signing a cooperative agreement could be extremely unpopular with some of your peers. I've been curious to know how the internal politics of the cattleman's association works. There is no doubt that there are a lot of colorful personalities involved, but is the group more heavily influenced by large, powerful producers, or is the voice of the organization equally reflective of all its members?
Post by: sakoshooter on November 12, 2012, 07:16:04 PM
Post by: wence5 on November 30, 2012, 09:22:50 AM
:yike: I'm sure there are going to be a few guinea pigs that will sign up, but if EVERYONE signed up there would be NO $$$ for compensation...Signing an agreement with the State is like doing a deal with the Mob. Once your in its IMPOSSIBLE to get out!
And what will the $$$ amount be? 3, 4, 5 hundred a head? How can they put a dollar amount on the value of lost livestock? Are they going to take into account lost production over the years that animal could have generated? No, they will just put a figure out there that some idiot in Olympia comes up with that seems fair. I say this is a BS feel good attempt to try and stroke the ranchers and farmers, but it will not work. It will run out of funds in the first year, just like they did in Oregon. Let the ranchers take care of the problem them selves and protect their own property. Just my :twocents: from a westsider that feels for you eastsiders.
Post by: motg9_6 on November 30, 2012, 09:49:53 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 30, 2012, 09:56:14 AM
the only way to quit dealing with the west side mentality (wolf lovers) is to secede the east side of washington from the west. this IS possible!! maybe more people should do like me and talk with our congressman about this. it has been approached several times but with little backing from the people. (mainly because they tried to keep it quite)
Yep, been said before. I hope you like poverty because without the revenues of the west side, you'll be patching roads with hay. I understand the frustration, though.
Post by: motg9_6 on November 30, 2012, 10:09:53 AM
Post by: bearpaw on November 30, 2012, 10:31:31 AM
the only way to quit dealing with the west side mentality (wolf lovers) is to secede the east side of washington from the west. this IS possible!! maybe more people should do like me and talk with our congressman about this. it has been approached several times but with little backing from the people. (mainly because they tried to keep it quite)
Yep, been said before. I hope you like poverty because without the revenues of the west side, you'll be patching roads with hay. I understand the frustration, though.
I don't think this is a true statement. Without the massive spending habits of the liberal westside, the eastside would not waste as much money and likely not need the tax base you think it does. I would gladly separate from the westside at any time. :twocents:
The waste of money on wolves is a prime example. Most eastsiders don't want them and we would not be wasting the millions the westside is wasting on wolves.
Post by: motg9_6 on November 30, 2012, 10:38:55 AM
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on November 30, 2012, 10:40:35 AM
the only way to quit dealing with the west side mentality (wolf lovers) is to secede the east side of washington from the west. this IS possible!! maybe more people should do like me and talk with our congressman about this. it has been approached several times but with little backing from the people. (mainly because they tried to keep it quite)
Yep, been said before. I hope you like poverty because without the revenues of the west side, you'll be patching roads with hay. I understand the frustration, though.
I don't think this is a true statement. Without the massive spending habits of the liberal westside, the eastside would not waste as much money and likely not need the tax base you think it does. I would gladly separate from the westside at any time. :twocents:
The waste of money on wolves is a prime example. Most eastsiders don't want them and we would not be wasting the millions the westside is wasting on wolves.
North Idaho feels just as disenfranchised as we do. A new State comprised of Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho is something I would vote for. Leave the squishies to stew in their own juice. :tup:
Post by: motg9_6 on November 30, 2012, 10:51:32 AM
Post by: bobcat on November 30, 2012, 10:53:06 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 30, 2012, 10:54:11 AM
Post by: motg9_6 on November 30, 2012, 11:01:17 AM
Post by: wence5 on November 30, 2012, 12:30:35 PM