Post by: jackelope on March 18, 2013, 05:42:04 PM
WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/
March 18, 2013
Contact, WDFW Wildlife Program, 360-902-2515
WDFW schedules meeting in Colville
on wolves' impact on game species
OLYMPIA - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) will hold a public meeting March 27 in Colville to discuss the potential impact of wolves on area game species such as deer and elk.
The meeting is scheduled from 6 to 8 p.m. at the Colville Ag Trade Center, 317 West Astor Ave.
State and local WDFW wildlife managers will present information on monitoring efforts in northeast Washington along with population trends and harvest data for white-tailed deer, elk and moose. They'll also discuss the status of wolves in the region and the impact wolves have had on deer and elk populations in other western states.
Dave Ware, WDFW game manager, said the department has not yet documented any measureable impacts from wolves on game species in Washington, but recognizes that reports from other states have raised public concerns.
"We want to talk to people in northeast Washington about this issue, because that's the area of the state that has the largest number of wolves," Ware said. "We'd encourage area residents who have concerns to attend this meeting."
This message has been sent to the WDFW All Information mailing list.
Visit the WDFW News Release Archive at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2013, 05:45:25 PM
Is anyone planning on taping it?
Post by: bearpaw on March 18, 2013, 05:46:18 PM
Post by: waterdoctor on March 18, 2013, 06:03:38 PM
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2013, 06:09:26 PM
I will be there and plan to shout. :tup:
fixed
I'd really like to see a tape of the meeting, wish I wasn't working swing :'(
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 18, 2013, 06:26:39 PM
Post by: denali on March 18, 2013, 06:38:37 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 18, 2013, 06:52:55 PM
I will be there and plan to shout. :tup:
fixed
I'd really like to see a tape of the meeting, wish I wasn't working swing :'(
I shouted last time, figured I better show a better side this time. :chuckle:
Post by: buckfvr on March 18, 2013, 06:54:20 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 18, 2013, 06:57:39 PM
Ill be there with a few of the neighbors......we're not happy, and they're going to know it.
Good, we need to pack that place and send a clear message to Olympia. :mgun:
Post by: Ridgeratt on March 18, 2013, 07:21:20 PM
Ill be there with a few of the neighbors......we're not happy, and they're going to know it.
Good, we need to pack that place and send a clear message to Olympia. :mgun:
Maybe you could talk Bobcat into driving over and see the warm welcome they give the WDFW. Also the sentiment of the crowd we have wolves!!
Post by: bobcat on March 18, 2013, 07:45:51 PM
Ill be there with a few of the neighbors......we're not happy, and they're going to know it.
Good, we need to pack that place and send a clear message to Olympia. :mgun:
Maybe you could talk Bobcat into driving over and see the warm welcome they give the WDFW. Also the sentiment of the crowd were they have wolves!!
Sorry, too far for me to go.
But I promise I'll go to the next one they have in Olympia.
Post by: Ridgeratt on March 18, 2013, 07:50:27 PM
This last weekend I had a single wolf howl just across the river from me in Ferry county at 12:30 a.m. when the dog and I went out and one of us peed in the back yard!!
I would like to ship that "one" to your side along with several other's! :IBCOOL:
Post by: bobcat on March 18, 2013, 07:52:35 PM
Not sure you would get the same effect from the meeting in Olympia!!
No,I'm sure of that, but I can provide a report of what all the wolf huggers had to say. Last meeting I was at they just about made me :puke:
Post by: bearpaw on March 18, 2013, 10:21:41 PM
Not sure you would get the same effect from the meeting in Olympia!!
No,I'm sure of that, but I can provide a report of what all the wolf huggers had to say. Last meeting I was at they just about made me :puke:
Probably good thing I am not at one of them. :chuckle:
Post by: wolfbait on March 18, 2013, 10:27:26 PM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs16.postimage.org%2Foelkvn039%2FMay_19_2012_Thurlow_s_calf_killed_by_WDFW_s_wol.jpg&hash=74062f322128d1c2fa84e6c3ddcf68d111378a7e)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs18.postimage.org%2F5vtsvbq6x%2FIMG_1439.jpg&hash=a336d568fe3b13191523e91058fb1af7653ea249)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs11.postimage.org%2Fdw5nw85qb%2FIMG_1440.jpg&hash=6cdaad6684fc3b64df0206b3de4c949da41bfe4b)
Post by: huntnphool on March 18, 2013, 10:28:19 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 19, 2013, 07:33:00 AM
The state needs accurate useful data.
Post by: KNOPHISH on March 19, 2013, 07:42:34 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 19, 2013, 09:01:26 AM
Ill be there with a few of the neighbors......we're not happy, and they're going to know it.
Good, we need to pack that place and send a clear message to Olympia. :mgun:
Maybe you could talk Bobcat into driving over and see the warm welcome they give the WDFW. Also the sentiment of the crowd were they have wolves!!
Sorry, too far for me to go.
But I promise I'll go to the next one they have in Olympia.
THIS one is in your back yard!
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20
Wednesday March 20
Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee House Hearing Room B 8 a.m.
Protecting Domestic Animals Against Gray Wolf Attacks Public Hearing on Senate Bill 5187
Acquisition of Habitat & Recreation Lands by the State Public Hearing on Senate Bill 5054
Derelict and Abandoned Vessels in State Waters Public Hearing on Senate Bill 5663
Post by: huntnphool on March 19, 2013, 09:09:08 AM
Post by: Elkslayer on March 19, 2013, 09:12:06 AM
Post by: buckfvr on March 19, 2013, 09:32:47 AM
I will come over to see what's going on. The real problem is the lack of wildlife data on both sides. Anecdotal evidence is pretty much meaningless...I'm sure we will hear all kinds of "there used to be 150 deer in those fields, now there might be 10"... that stuff is meaningless.
You're suggesting they have something on wolves that they still dont have on bear and cougar in a lifetime.............They base their plans on anecdotal evidence regularily..................... :dunno:
Post by: huntnphool on March 19, 2013, 09:45:33 AM
How about bringing up the transcripts from the proposal meetings where they said they did not anticipate a ungulate depredation problem even though they had plenty of evidence from other state officials that had already witnessed it.I will come over to see what's going on. The real problem is the lack of wildlife data on both sides. Anecdotal evidence is pretty much meaningless...I'm sure we will hear all kinds of "there used to be 150 deer in those fields, now there might be 10"... that stuff is meaningless.
You're suggesting they have something on wolves that they still dont have on bear and cougar in a lifetime.............They base their plans on anecdotal evidence regularily..................... :dunno:
One of you that goes to the meeting needs to get up there and point this out and get them to say "we were wrong". Them admitting it publicly would go a long way in helping in this battle. :twocents:
Post by: jackelope on March 19, 2013, 10:40:43 AM
I received a text from a good friend late last night informing me of a confirmed by bio elk wolf kill on his buddies land just two miles outside the Wenatchee city limits. I thought those wolves caught on trail cams a month ago "were just passing through"?
Just passing through for their winter break apparently.
Post by: bearpaw on March 19, 2013, 11:25:07 AM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,121109.msg1597573.html#msg1597573 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,121109.msg1597573.html#msg1597573)
Post by: jackelope on March 19, 2013, 02:58:32 PM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F13%2F03%2F20%2Feryryga8.jpg&hash=a44269496745f1f57bfc62dec3d25bad3fd46248)
Post by: gaddy on March 19, 2013, 03:10:56 PM
Post by: wolfbait on March 19, 2013, 03:26:00 PM
Some time back WDFW mentioned that they wouldn't have the fight with wolves that ID, MT and Wyoming had. Why do you think they said that?
WDFW and the pro-wolf crowd like to tout science, there is no science where wolves are concerned, wolves are black and white, they kill everything sooner or later, with seventeen plus years of facts on the ground, it all boils down to common sense.
Post by: huntnphool on March 19, 2013, 03:32:06 PM
Just saw the photo WDFW posted to announce the meeting on Facebook.Awesome, its about time the general public got the strait facts.
Post by: Ridgeratt on March 27, 2013, 05:12:04 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 27, 2013, 05:18:44 AM
Post by: ICEMAN on March 27, 2013, 05:35:56 AM
I will come over to see what's going on. The real problem is the lack of wildlife data on both sides. Anecdotal evidence is pretty much meaningless...I'm sure we will hear all kinds of "there used to be 150 deer in those fields, now there might be 10"... that stuff is meaningless.
The state needs accurate useful data.
The DFW has been avoiding accurate data on purpose, IMHO.
Hunter reporting places all the blame of low numbers on hunters. IN the past, bios would do animal counts, actually bootleather gathering of data. Not anymore.
If game numbers/stats are not to be trusted anymore, they can claim "not our fault"...."hunter reporting is the problem."
Post by: Ridgerunner on March 27, 2013, 07:08:07 AM
Post by: asl20bball on March 27, 2013, 09:00:57 AM
What's the final wor on whether or not it will be tapped? I'd like to see the video or watch it on the internet.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 27, 2013, 09:14:01 AM
Post by: denali on March 27, 2013, 12:45:41 PM
Post by: KFhunter on March 27, 2013, 09:01:32 PM
Post by: Ridgeratt on March 27, 2013, 09:18:46 PM
Post by: skywalker253 on March 28, 2013, 02:39:57 AM
I will be there and plan to speak. :tup:
I appreciate you speaking and the effort you put in. My only issue....
IMO- It would be better to have a rancher etc. speak versus someone like yourself, who is an outfitter. Any of those, who you are trying to convince could possibly dismiss your presentation, based off the fact that you make money off of game, which the wolves are killing. It could be viewed that you don't care so much about the game, but more about your wallet. An outfitter or a hunter speaking is to be expected. Their views are to be expected, that they are not pro-wolf. We need non hunters, non outfitters, etc. educating those who will listen about wolves and wolf management IMO, but I appreciate your passion and effor you have put in.
Post by: buckfvr on March 28, 2013, 07:19:28 AM
THey once again, started with a totally sideways skewed presentation that would make anyone NOT familiar with WDFW think we have the best hunting in the west along with the most thorough management.
When people spoke up, I focused on the faces of the WDFW personel rather than the speaker. The WDFW panel was so disconected and expressionless that they may as well have been mannikens.........When bearpaw spoke, they were decidedly uninterested.
It was clear to myself and four hunting partners that WDFW was once again, going through the motions, only doing what is required, uncaring, uninterested, their minds already made up, and ready to move on/ahead with their direction of choice.........MORE WOLVES. DONT LOOK FOR IT TO GET BETTER ANY TIME SOON!!!!!!!!!! :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on March 28, 2013, 07:57:54 AM
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2013, 08:00:51 AM
Post by: quadrafire on March 28, 2013, 08:10:53 AM
I think all should be heard regardless of their interest. Some are just better speakers and get their point across better. :dunno:
Care to elaborate BearPaw?
Post by: turkeyfeather on March 28, 2013, 08:16:46 AM
What did you guys expect?:yeah: I agree with Bobcat, these guys had their heads in the sand for so long that they couldn't pull them out at this point even if they wanted to. Nothing is gonna change as long as this state and WDFW continue to be run by tree huggers whose only goal is to make money and please those on the I-5 corridor. We are in need of a serious gov't makeover and only when that happens do I see this issue getting better.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 28, 2013, 08:57:53 AM
Once again, those that represented the WDFW appeared even more removed, aloof, disconnected, and all together unhappy about being there. I am sure they didnt hear a thing....in one ear out the other.
THey once again, started with a totally sideways skewed presentation that would make anyone NOT familiar with WDFW think we have the best hunting in the west along with the most thorough management.
When people spoke up, I focused on the faces of the WDFW personel rather than the speaker. The WDFW panel was so disconected and expressionless that they may as well have been mannikens.........When bearpaw spoke, they were decidedly uninterested.
It was clear to myself and four hunting partners that WDFW was once again, going through the motions, only doing what is required, uncaring, uninterested, their minds already made up, and ready to move on/ahead with their direction of choice.........MORE WOLVES. DONT LOOK FOR IT TO GET BETTER ANY TIME SOON!!!!!!!!!! :twocents:
THANK YOU buckfvr for the report on the meeting which I was able to plageurize and change my commission conrfirmation letter and resend it to all the committee members ......here it is
To: kirk.pearson@leg.wa.gov; john.smith@leg.wa.gov; christine.rolfes@leg.wa.gov; jim.hargrove@leg.wa.gov; mike.hewitt@leg.wa.gov; adam.kline@leg.wa.gov; linda.parlette@leg.wa.gov;
Subject: Confirmation of WDFW Wildlife Commissioners
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 06:47:01 -0700
Senate Natural Resources and Parks Committee
RE: Confirmation of WDFW Wildlife Commissioners
Dear Senator,
This is why Many oppose these confirmations since WDFW paid employees(by us) seem to think that they are the RULING class on these issues and seem to have forgotten they are public servants- And what the original purpose of the department is. (WAS) To confirm these 2 would be stepping farther over the line in a direction of destroying the North American wildlife management model which has been the envy of the world for almost a century! Here is an example regarding a WDFW wolf meeting and how the seeming "rulers" react to concerns and realities in a very affected area of northeastern Washington.
Thanks to buckfvr @ huntingwashington.
"Once again, those that represented the WDFW appeared even more removed, aloof, disconnected, and all together unhappy about being there. I am sure they didnt hear a thing....in one ear out the other.
They once again, started with a totally sideways skewed presentation that would make anyone NOT familiar with WDFW think we have the best hunting in the west along with the most thorough management.
When people spoke up, I focused on the faces of the WDFW personel rather than the speaker. The WDFW panel was so disconected and expressionless that they may as well have been mannikens.........When bearpaw spoke, they were decidedly uninterested.
It was clear to myself and four hunting partners that WDFW was once again, going through the motions, only doing what is required, uncaring, uninterested, their minds already made up, and ready to move on/ahead with their direction of choice.........MORE WOLVES. DONT LOOK FOR IT TO GET BETTER ANY TIME SOON!!!!!!!!!!"
Please OPPOSE THE CONFIRMATION of Jay Kehne as an Eastern Washington Commissioner. He is a paid employee of Conservation Northwest a western Washington special interest environmental organization which opposes management of wolves, cougars, or any other predators and is often in opposition to predator hunting seasons. Kehne's employment by Conservation Northwest is a direct conflict of interest with his appointment as an Eastern Washington Commissioner. As you must know, the County Commissioners of Kehne's home county are opposed to his appointment.
Please OPPOSE THE CONFIRMATION of David Jennings an extremist environmentalist with a known radical anti-sport fishing agenda who has proposed closing Neah Bay to rock fishing a vitally important activity to the economic stability of that region. Jennings is also opposed to needed wolf management, rarely if ever supports hunting, wants to expand wilderness areas and create Marine Protected Areas (Water Wilderness). Please remove David Jennings from the Wildlife Commission he is considered by many to be the worst Wildlife Commissioner.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Post by: 724wd on March 28, 2013, 09:02:51 AM
"We don't know the impact yet," Maddona Leurs with the Department of Fish and Wildlife said.
"We are not detecting an impact yet," she added.
"There is a good natural wild prey base for wolves here and so I think a lot of hunters are interested, curious, nervous maybe because what this is going to mean to elk and deer herds. We've got a new competitor on the landscape," Leurs said.
Right now, there are seven documented wolf packs in the Colville area and north to the Canadian border. There are 51 wolves making up 10 wolf packs statewide The wolf will be on the endangered species list until there are 15 successful breeding pairs, statewide for three consecutive years.
"Having wolves in Washington again is really, if you think about it, a point of pride. We are the smallest western state, second highest human population in the west, only to California. A lot of people, little bit of land and we are still wild enough to support wolves, that's pretty cool," Leurs said.
Not everyone shares Leurs' excitement."
Post by: buckfvr on March 28, 2013, 09:11:19 AM
Post by: jackelope on March 28, 2013, 09:17:25 AM
Thats an example of the majority that we face......brain dead majority.,
The brain dead majority who reports:
Right now, there are seven documented wolf packs in the Colville area and north to the Canadian border. There are 51 wolves making up 10 wolf packs statewide The wolf will be on the endangered species list until there are 15 successful breeding pairs, statewide for three consecutive years.
"Having wolves in Washington again is really, if you think about it, a point of pride. We are the smallest western state, second highest human population in the west, only to California. A lot of people, little bit of land and we are still wild enough to support wolves, that's pretty cool," Leurs said.
Not everyone shares Leurs' excitement."
If that is true, I've seen 1/3 of the population of wolves in this state in trail camera pictures in the last month and none of those cameras were owned or operated by WDFW or any other state or federal agency.
Post by: bearpaw on March 28, 2013, 09:39:53 AM
I will be there and plan to speak. :tup:
I appreciate you speaking and the effort you put in. My only issue....
IMO- It would be better to have a rancher etc. speak versus someone like yourself, who is an outfitter. Any of those, who you are trying to convince could possibly dismiss your presentation, based off the fact that you make money off of game, which the wolves are killing. It could be viewed that you don't care so much about the game, but more about your wallet. An outfitter or a hunter speaking is to be expected. Their views are to be expected, that they are not pro-wolf. We need non hunters, non outfitters, etc. educating those who will listen about wolves and wolf management IMO, but I appreciate your passion and effor you have put in.
I find it amazing that anyone would think I should not comment. Hunting is my life, yes it's how I earn a living, but that's no different than a rancher making a living off his cattle, a sporting goods store owner earning a living, restaurant owners selling meals to hunters, or motel owners renting rooms to hunters. The employees at WDFW even make their living off hunting and fishing. Should all these people not be allowed to have input because they earn some or all their livelihood from hunting. :dunno:
I was raised by a family of hunters, I spend as much time hunting as possible, hunting is what I do on vacation, all three of my kids are hunters to varying degrees, I maintain this forum for hunters to exchange thoughts and information, I frequently stay up half the night writing letters, and I have driven countless miles over the last 30 years to wildlife commission meetings to support hunters.
The future of hunting opportunities for all citizens is of sincere importance to me. I will continue speaking up for hunters as long as I can whether I am still an outfitter or not for as long as we have our 1st Amendment rights.
FYI - At these meetings many people get the opportunity to speak.
Post by: bearpaw on March 28, 2013, 09:43:29 AM
What did you guys expect?
You are right, we should not have expected anything real from WDFW.
Post by: huntnphool on March 28, 2013, 09:48:46 AM
Ignorance is bliss Dale, your interests would be better served if you stood on the sideline and kept your mouth shut..............yeah right! ;)I will be there and plan to speak. :tup:
I appreciate you speaking and the effort you put in. My only issue....
IMO- It would be better to have a rancher etc. speak versus someone like yourself, who is an outfitter. Any of those, who you are trying to convince could possibly dismiss your presentation, based off the fact that you make money off of game, which the wolves are killing. It could be viewed that you don't care so much about the game, but more about your wallet. An outfitter or a hunter speaking is to be expected. Their views are to be expected, that they are not pro-wolf. We need non hunters, non outfitters, etc. educating those who will listen about wolves and wolf management IMO, but I appreciate your passion and effor you have put in.
I find it amazing that anyone would think I should not comment. Hunting is my life, yes it's how I earn a living, but that's no different than a rancher making a living off his cattle, a sporting goods store owner earning a living, restaurant owners selling meals to hunters, or motel owners renting rooms to hunters. The employees at WDFW even make their living off hunting and fishing. Should all these people not be allowed to have input because they earn some or all their livelihood from hunting. :dunno:
I was raised by a family of hunters, I spend as much time hunting as possible, hunting is what I do on vacation, all three of my kids are hunters to varying degrees, I maintain this forum for hunters to exchange thoughts and information, I frequently stay up half the night writing letters, and I have driven countless miles over the last 30 years to wildlife commission meetings to support hunters.
The future of hunting opportunities for all citizens is of sincere importance to me. I will continue speaking up for hunters as long as I can whether I am still an outfitter or not for as long as we have our 1st Amendment rights.
FYI - At these meetings many people get the opportunity to speak.
Post by: KFhunter on March 28, 2013, 09:50:52 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 28, 2013, 09:51:52 AM
:yeah: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup:I will be there and plan to speak. :tup:
I appreciate you speaking and the effort you put in. My only issue....
IMO- It would be better to have a rancher etc. speak versus someone like yourself, who is an outfitter. Any of those, who you are trying to convince could possibly dismiss your presentation, based off the fact that you make money off of game, which the wolves are killing. It could be viewed that you don't care so much about the game, but more about your wallet. An outfitter or a hunter speaking is to be expected. Their views are to be expected, that they are not pro-wolf. We need non hunters, non outfitters, etc. educating those who will listen about wolves and wolf management IMO, but I appreciate your passion and effor you have put in.
I find it amazing that anyone would think I should not comment. Hunting is my life, yes it's how I earn a living, but that's no different than a rancher making a living off his cattle, a sporting goods store owner earning a living, restaurant owners selling meals to hunters, or motel owners renting rooms to hunters. The employees at WDFW even make their living off hunting and fishing. Should all these people not be allowed to have input because they earn some or all their livelihood from hunting. :dunno:
I was raised by a family of hunters, I spend as much time hunting as possible, hunting is what I do on vacation, all three of my kids are hunters to varying degrees, I maintain this forum for hunters to exchange thoughts and information, I frequently stay up half the night writing letters, and I have driven countless miles over the last 30 years to wildlife commission meetings to support hunters.
The future of hunting opportunities for all citizens is of sincere importance to me. I will continue speaking up for hunters as long as I can whether I am still an outfitter or not for as long as we have our 1st Amendment rights.
FYI - At these meetings many people get the opportunity to speak.
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2013, 10:06:05 AM
What did you guys expect?
You are right, we should not have expected anything real from WDFW.
What I mean is with the wolf plan being fairly new, what else do we really expect of the WDFW, other than following the plan, until wolves can be delisted?
It just doesn't seem like there is really anything happening with the wolves that wasn't predicted to happen.
Are we thinking that re-writing the wolf plan is a possibility?
Post by: huntnphool on March 28, 2013, 12:06:37 PM
When a hunter or outfitter speaks it is not going to be as well received. A) Those listening are aganist hunting, hunters, their views, etc. to begin withSo WDFW are "against hunters and their views to begin with"?
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2013, 12:16:20 PM
But I do understand your point Skywalker. I think it would be great to have people who are not associated with ranching or hunting, on our side.
Unfortunately, there aren't many who fit that description. If they're not into hunting or ranching, most people have very little interest in how wolves are managed (or not managed.)
Post by: jackelope on March 28, 2013, 12:18:23 PM
Skywalker I kind of see what you are saying, but does a Rancher not have a financial stake as well as an outfitter.
I think all should be heard regardless of their interest. Some are just better speakers and get their point across better. :dunno:
Care to elaborate BearPaw?
I agree with you. I understand what you are saying about Ranchers having a finacial stake. The difference IMO; Ranches are usually handed down from family generation to family generation, as a means of making a living. Their are strong family traditions associated with that. If wolves start killing off their means of making a living, then the wolves should be killed. You cannot just pick up your ranch, family traditions, etc. and move it. I think most listening would understand their point of view, and at least listen.
When a hunter or outfitter speaks it is not going to be as well received. A) Those listening are aganist hunting, hunters, their views, etc. to begin with B) An outfitter is taking advantage of a resource to make money. Whether that be hunting videos, TV shows, guide service, etc. I could see how an anti-hunter/pro-wolf individual would dismiss their credibility from the start. They are coming in pissed off, and likely not going to listen. My point is; choose the path of least resistence; work smart. Bearpaw presenting is not going to capture an audience and get anyone to listen. Perhaps Bearpaw take his information, facts, etc. and turn it over to somebody, who stands on neutral ground.
I don't agree with you at all.
Hunters and guides and outfitters should either keep their mouths shut or get a puppet to speak for them and we should let the wolf lovers speak out at will because WDFW is more likely to listen?
Come on, man. Get realistic.
Post by: huntnphool on March 28, 2013, 12:21:54 PM
:chuckle: Dale is not up there addressing the Pro Wolf group, he is addressing WDFW.I will be there and plan to speak. :tup:
I appreciate you speaking and the effort you put in. My only issue....
IMO- It would be better to have a rancher etc. speak versus someone like yourself, who is an outfitter. Any of those, who you are trying to convince could possibly dismiss your presentation, based off the fact that you make money off of game, which the wolves are killing. It could be viewed that you don't care so much about the game, but more about your wallet. An outfitter or a hunter speaking is to be expected. Their views are to be expected, that they are not pro-wolf. We need non hunters, non outfitters, etc. educating those who will listen about wolves and wolf management IMO, but I appreciate your passion and effor you have put in.
I find it amazing that anyone would think I should not comment. Hunting is my life, yes it's how I earn a living, but that's no different than a rancher making a living off his cattle, a sporting goods store owner earning a living, restaurant owners selling meals to hunters, or motel owners renting rooms to hunters. The employees at WDFW even make their living off hunting and fishing. Should all these people not be allowed to have input because they earn some or all their livelihood from hunting. :dunno:
I was raised by a family of hunters, I spend as much time hunting as possible, hunting is what I do on vacation, all three of my kids are hunters to varying degrees, I maintain this forum for hunters to exchange thoughts and information, I frequently stay up half the night writing letters, and I have driven countless miles over the last 30 years to wildlife commission meetings to support hunters.
The future of hunting opportunities for all citizens is of sincere importance to me. I will continue speaking up for hunters as long as I can whether I am still an outfitter or not for as long as we have our 1st Amendment rights.
FYI - At these meetings many people get the opportunity to speak.
I don't disagree with you Bearpaw. But everyone you are presenting to, knows this already. You views and opinions are all justified, but expected and predictible. Think about it. If somebody who is PRO WOLF (Bigtime Tree Hugger) is trying to convince you that wolves are needed in Wa, wolves are not going to damage the game, etc. Are you going to listen? or are you thinking they are an idiot, who has no clue what will happen to the resource. In other words; there is NO chance they are going to change your views about wolves in Wa. Based off the many posts I have read from you, and your involvment in this issue; you are NOT going to change your point of view.
Now jump over to the other side of it. Now you are presenting to the PRO WOLF (Big Time Tree Hugger). You are telling them what YOU expect to happen, what will hapeen, statistics, data, etc. They know you are a hunter (they dislike), they know you make money off the resource (they dislike); but you are asking them to LISTEN and attempting to change their point of view. What do you think they are thinking when you present? I am guessing that they think this guy is just trying to protect his pocket book and feels wolves are compeating with the big game resource you make money off of.
Hopefully you understand what I am saying. PRO WOLF presenting vs Anit-Wolf/Hunter/Outfitter, etc. is not a good mix to try and change either sides views. Both sides need representatives (mediator) to help each side find common ground. Otherwise all these meetings are USELESS!! Clearly based off the posts I have read; last nights Colville meeting was just that....USELESS!!
Post by: huntnphool on March 28, 2013, 12:22:52 PM
+1 :DOH:Skywalker I kind of see what you are saying, but does a Rancher not have a financial stake as well as an outfitter.
I think all should be heard regardless of their interest. Some are just better speakers and get their point across better. :dunno:
Care to elaborate BearPaw?
I agree with you. I understand what you are saying about Ranchers having a finacial stake. The difference IMO; Ranches are usually handed down from family generation to family generation, as a means of making a living. Their are strong family traditions associated with that. If wolves start killing off their means of making a living, then the wolves should be killed. You cannot just pick up your ranch, family traditions, etc. and move it. I think most listening would understand their point of view, and at least listen.
When a hunter or outfitter speaks it is not going to be as well received. A) Those listening are aganist hunting, hunters, their views, etc. to begin with B) An outfitter is taking advantage of a resource to make money. Whether that be hunting videos, TV shows, guide service, etc. I could see how an anti-hunter/pro-wolf individual would dismiss their credibility from the start. They are coming in pissed off, and likely not going to listen. My point is; choose the path of least resistence; work smart. Bearpaw presenting is not going to capture an audience and get anyone to listen. Perhaps Bearpaw take his information, facts, etc. and turn it over to somebody, who stands on neutral ground.
I don't agree with you at all.
Hunters and guides and outfitters should either keep their mouths shut or get a puppet to speak for them and we should let the wolf lovers speak out at will because WDFW is more likely to listen?
Come on, man. Get realistic.
Post by: whacker1 on March 28, 2013, 12:23:29 PM
Skywalker I kind of see what you are saying, but does a Rancher not have a financial stake as well as an outfitter.
I think all should be heard regardless of their interest. Some are just better speakers and get their point across better. :dunno:
Care to elaborate BearPaw?
I agree with you. I understand what you are saying about Ranchers having a finacial stake. The difference IMO; Ranches are usually handed down from family generation to family generation, as a means of making a living. Their are strong family traditions associated with that. If wolves start killing off their means of making a living, then the wolves should be killed. You cannot just pick up your ranch, family traditions, etc. and move it. I think most listening would understand their point of view, and at least listen.
When a hunter or outfitter speaks it is not going to be as well received. A) Those listening are aganist hunting, hunters, their views, etc. to begin with B) An outfitter is taking advantage of a resource to make money. Whether that be hunting videos, TV shows, guide service, etc. I could see how an anti-hunter/pro-wolf individual would dismiss their credibility from the start. They are coming in pissed off, and likely not going to listen. My point is; choose the path of least resistence; work smart. Bearpaw presenting is not going to capture an audience and get anyone to listen. Perhaps Bearpaw take his information, facts, etc. and turn it over to somebody, who stands on neutral ground.
Skywalker.... I get the feeling you have not participated in these sorts of meetings before. The cattelman are probably first in line or maybe second in line as the most outspoken groups on this issue Nationwide. They speak plenty to this issue. As do hunters, outfitters, local businesses that support hunters. The point of this conversation is that it is falling on deaf ears. Either the rank and file WDFW employees feel they can't make a difference, don't care to engage and make a difference, or are the problem themselves.
The department seems to be taking the wolf issue like any new beauracracy. Reinvent the wheel, starting with rectangle, sand off the rough spots, and let it lump along awkwardly, until you lose a bearing and then sand some more and hope the wheel turns, and when the wheel finally comes off, then we can engage when it is too late. beauracracies rarely learn from other jursidictions mistakes, and start from scratch with their heads in the clouds.....seems to be the same path.
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2013, 12:31:10 PM
Quote
Otherwise all these meetings are USELESS!! Clearly based off the posts I have read; last nights Colville meeting was just that....USELESS!!
And I agree with this. What is the point of having all these meetings? Just so the WDFW can listen to Bearpaw say the same things they've already heard a thousand times before?
And so people can listen to the WDFW talk about all the things we already know?
Waste of time and money, I say.
Dale, do you know what the purpose of the meeting was?
Post by: Curly on March 28, 2013, 12:35:14 PM
:yeah:Skywalker I kind of see what you are saying, but does a Rancher not have a financial stake as well as an outfitter.
I think all should be heard regardless of their interest. Some are just better speakers and get their point across better. :dunno:
Care to elaborate BearPaw?
I agree with you. I understand what you are saying about Ranchers having a finacial stake. The difference IMO; Ranches are usually handed down from family generation to family generation, as a means of making a living. Their are strong family traditions associated with that. If wolves start killing off their means of making a living, then the wolves should be killed. You cannot just pick up your ranch, family traditions, etc. and move it. I think most listening would understand their point of view, and at least listen.
When a hunter or outfitter speaks it is not going to be as well received. A) Those listening are aganist hunting, hunters, their views, etc. to begin with B) An outfitter is taking advantage of a resource to make money. Whether that be hunting videos, TV shows, guide service, etc. I could see how an anti-hunter/pro-wolf individual would dismiss their credibility from the start. They are coming in pissed off, and likely not going to listen. My point is; choose the path of least resistence; work smart. Bearpaw presenting is not going to capture an audience and get anyone to listen. Perhaps Bearpaw take his information, facts, etc. and turn it over to somebody, who stands on neutral ground.
I don't agree with you at all.
Hunters and guides and outfitters should either keep their mouths shut or get a puppet to speak for them and we should let the wolf lovers speak out at will because WDFW is more likely to listen?
Come on, man. Get realistic.
We need anyone who is well spoken to get up and speak when WDFW gives the opportunity to give input like at this meeting. I applaud Bearpaw and the others for standing up and giving WDFW a piece of their mind. :tup:
Post by: Curly on March 28, 2013, 12:37:42 PM
Post by: Buckblaster on March 28, 2013, 12:40:43 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2013, 12:42:01 PM
WDFW needs to feel the heat from us. They need to know how unhappy we are with their wolf plan. They never should have come up with that plan and the commission never should have approved it. We need to keep reminding them of how wrong we think they were/are. :twocents:
Well said. I can agree with that. I just don't think it helps to try to discredit their biologists with every single thing they say.
If the cow wasn't a wolf kill, let's be glad for that, and accept it.
This is not the conspiracy that many seem to think it is.
Post by: Curly on March 28, 2013, 12:43:33 PM
Dale, do you know what the purpose of the meeting was?
According to the press release, it seems that WDFW had the meeting to try to downplay the effect of wolves on wild game populations. I wonder how successful they were in convincing their audience. Likely not very successful...........
Post by: Curly on March 28, 2013, 12:47:13 PM
WDFW needs to feel the heat from us. They need to know how unhappy we are with their wolf plan. They never should have come up with that plan and the commission never should have approved it. We need to keep reminding them of how wrong we think they were/are. :twocents:
Well said. I can agree with that. I just don't think it helps to try to discredit their biologists with every single thing they say.
If the cow wasn't a wolf kill, let's be glad for that, and accept it.
This is not the conspiracy that many seem to think it is.
Well, WDFW has lost credibility........that is obvious. If they get caught in just one lie, then everything else they do is going to be suspect. And you can't really blame people for not trusting the bio 100% since there were wolves observed several hundred yards away during the investigation. (It sure would be nice to hear what the rancher's opinion is on what the cause of death is of the cow).
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2013, 12:50:33 PM
Quote
I said BOTH sides of the issue need a mediator to help them find common ground. I never said just let the Pro Wolf people speak and everyone else tuck tail and shut up. Appartently you are not very educated on how many political debates, dissolution of marriages, etc. work. They use MEDIATORS to make progress, because neither side is going to change their point of view or agree.
I think in this situation, the WDFW is the mediator.
Post by: Curly on March 28, 2013, 12:58:17 PM
The pro-wolf crowd are the narrow minded ones. They want to end hunting and replace us with wolves. :bash:
Post by: huntnphool on March 28, 2013, 01:04:04 PM
Now Dale is narrow minded as well. :chuckle::yeah:Skywalker I kind of see what you are saying, but does a Rancher not have a financial stake as well as an outfitter.
I think all should be heard regardless of their interest. Some are just better speakers and get their point across better. :dunno:
Care to elaborate BearPaw?
I agree with you. I understand what you are saying about Ranchers having a finacial stake. The difference IMO; Ranches are usually handed down from family generation to family generation, as a means of making a living. Their are strong family traditions associated with that. If wolves start killing off their means of making a living, then the wolves should be killed. You cannot just pick up your ranch, family traditions, etc. and move it. I think most listening would understand their point of view, and at least listen.
When a hunter or outfitter speaks it is not going to be as well received. A) Those listening are aganist hunting, hunters, their views, etc. to begin with B) An outfitter is taking advantage of a resource to make money. Whether that be hunting videos, TV shows, guide service, etc. I could see how an anti-hunter/pro-wolf individual would dismiss their credibility from the start. They are coming in pissed off, and likely not going to listen. My point is; choose the path of least resistence; work smart. Bearpaw presenting is not going to capture an audience and get anyone to listen. Perhaps Bearpaw take his information, facts, etc. and turn it over to somebody, who stands on neutral ground.
I don't agree with you at all.
Hunters and guides and outfitters should either keep their mouths shut or get a puppet to speak for them and we should let the wolf lovers speak out at will because WDFW is more likely to listen?
Come on, man. Get realistic.
We need anyone who is well spoken to get up and speak when WDFW gives the opportunity to give input like at this meeting. I applaud Bearpaw and the others for standing up and giving WDFW a piece of their mind. :tup:
That the problem. "standing up and giving someone a piece of their mind" and coming from a narrow minded view is not going to go over well and change anyones opinions on the issue. Especially coming from a hunter or outfitter.
Post by: huntnphool on March 28, 2013, 01:13:51 PM
Perhaps it's you that is not well educated in politics Sky, Dale represents potentially thousands of voters........which in this case should very well demand their attention. ;)QuoteI said BOTH sides of the issue need a mediator to help them find common ground. I never said just let the Pro Wolf people speak and everyone else tuck tail and shut up. Appartently you are not very educated on how many political debates, dissolution of marriages, etc. work. They use MEDIATORS to make progress, because neither side is going to change their point of view or agree.
I think in this situation, the WDFW is the mediator.
Then people like Bearpaw are pretty much screwed. The only suggestion would be to ban everyone together and sit a year or two out from hunting, fishing, etc. Do not purchase anything the WDFW offers. Once they feel it in their pocket book, they will be forced to listen and change the wolf plan. In the meantime it is all USELESS talk and predictible views of everyone involved. In other words, these meetings are being held to show effort on the WDFW part; nothing more....
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2013, 01:16:50 PM
Post by: huntnphool on March 28, 2013, 01:17:46 PM
I stand behind Dale 100% and am quite sure they count me as one of those potential voters.Now Dale is narrow minded as well. :chuckle::yeah:Skywalker I kind of see what you are saying, but does a Rancher not have a financial stake as well as an outfitter.
I think all should be heard regardless of their interest. Some are just better speakers and get their point across better. :dunno:
Care to elaborate BearPaw?
I agree with you. I understand what you are saying about Ranchers having a finacial stake. The difference IMO; Ranches are usually handed down from family generation to family generation, as a means of making a living. Their are strong family traditions associated with that. If wolves start killing off their means of making a living, then the wolves should be killed. You cannot just pick up your ranch, family traditions, etc. and move it. I think most listening would understand their point of view, and at least listen.
When a hunter or outfitter speaks it is not going to be as well received. A) Those listening are aganist hunting, hunters, their views, etc. to begin with B) An outfitter is taking advantage of a resource to make money. Whether that be hunting videos, TV shows, guide service, etc. I could see how an anti-hunter/pro-wolf individual would dismiss their credibility from the start. They are coming in pissed off, and likely not going to listen. My point is; choose the path of least resistence; work smart. Bearpaw presenting is not going to capture an audience and get anyone to listen. Perhaps Bearpaw take his information, facts, etc. and turn it over to somebody, who stands on neutral ground.
I don't agree with you at all.
Hunters and guides and outfitters should either keep their mouths shut or get a puppet to speak for them and we should let the wolf lovers speak out at will because WDFW is more likely to listen?
Come on, man. Get realistic.
We need anyone who is well spoken to get up and speak when WDFW gives the opportunity to give input like at this meeting. I applaud Bearpaw and the others for standing up and giving WDFW a piece of their mind. :tup:
That the problem. "standing up and giving someone a piece of their mind" and coming from a narrow minded view is not going to go over well and change anyones opinions on the issue. Especially coming from a hunter or outfitter.
Since you seem to know everything, and have develped a bad reputation of being a "know it all" on this site. Tell us how YOUR presentation in Colville went last night....
Let me guess; you were not in attendance and behind your computer telling everyone how much more you know then them again.
Post by: jackelope on March 28, 2013, 01:19:01 PM
QuoteI said BOTH sides of the issue need a mediator to help them find common ground. I never said just let the Pro Wolf people speak and everyone else tuck tail and shut up. Appartently you are not very educated on how many political debates, dissolution of marriages, etc. work. They use MEDIATORS to make progress, because neither side is going to change their point of view or agree.
I think in this situation, the WDFW is the mediator.
You're right. I have zero personal experience with running political debates. Nor do I have any experience in the dissolution of marriage thankfully. I do know when Dale speaks, it is well thought out and not just some redneck huntin guide spewing the word of the anti-wolf crowd. He puts a lot of thought into his word. I'd rather have him or a few other guys from here talk than someone else. That I do know. He is in the thick of it. The wolves are literally in his backyard.
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2013, 01:28:24 PM
They're not going to re-write the wolf plan.
Post by: 6x6in6 on March 28, 2013, 01:34:32 PM
The thing is, the wolf plan has been approved, and is no longer up for debate. It doesn't really matter what Dale, or anybody, says about the wolves at this point.:yeah:
They're not going to re-write the wolf plan.
Nor or they going to enact public comment of any sort from either side of the wolf fence. BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE TOO!
These meetings are required by the wolf plan. It's in black and white. It's also in black and white that the WDFW calls all the shots here.
Post by: Curly on March 28, 2013, 01:39:00 PM
Bearpaw's view is not narrow minded. I've read much of his research on the wolf issue and he knows his stuff.......(knows the stats and info better than WDFW).
The pro-wolf crowd are the narrow minded ones. They want to end hunting and replace us with wolves. :bash:
And Dale wants to end wolves in Wa. That is being narrow minded. And I know Dale knows his stuff. I follow him closely and have a ton of respect for what he does and his involvment. But that does not change the fact his presentations are failing and he is losing the battle IMO.
Maybe you started reading the wolf threads after Dale and others had come up with a plan that he tried to convince WDFW to go with. It was anything but eliminating all wolves. IMO it even called for too many, but it was a plan that should have been acceptable to WDFW. He is anything but narrow minded. You are flat out wrong..........(I've never met him, but just from reading what he posts on here). :twocents:
Post by: jackelope on March 28, 2013, 01:57:00 PM
Perhaps it's you that is not well educated in politics Sky, Dale represents potentially thousands of voters........which in this case should very well demand their attention. ;)QuoteI said BOTH sides of the issue need a mediator to help them find common ground. I never said just let the Pro Wolf people speak and everyone else tuck tail and shut up. Appartently you are not very educated on how many political debates, dissolution of marriages, etc. work. They use MEDIATORS to make progress, because neither side is going to change their point of view or agree.
I think in this situation, the WDFW is the mediator.
Then people like Bearpaw are pretty much screwed. The only suggestion would be to ban everyone together and sit a year or two out from hunting, fishing, etc. Do not purchase anything the WDFW offers. Once they feel it in their pocket book, they will be forced to listen and change the wolf plan. In the meantime it is all USELESS talk and predictible views of everyone involved. In other words, these meetings are being held to show effort on the WDFW part; nothing more....
If Dale is doing such a GREAT political job, then tell me why EVERYONE on here that supports him is bitching about the wolf plan, and his presentations at these meetings falling on deaf ears?
And last I checked; the score was about 1000 PRO WOLF to 0 ANTI WOLF, so perhaps Dale needs to remove himself from participating or develop a new strategy. His wolf plan is clearly NOT working...
But I admire his passion and involvement within this issue.
You speak like Dale is "THE" guy in the fight against wolves. Sure he is against wolves, and speaks openly about it, but he is not the only guy in the fight. It is not his "strategy" alone that is or isn't working. It needs to be more than just Dale. What are you doing, Skywalker? What are you doing to help ensure there are elk left in the Blues when you draw your tag? What are you doing to ensure my kids or yours can hunt moose in this state 15-20 years from now? Nothing I bet. Dale is doing something, and he knows what the heck he's talking about. I don't want him to "remove himself" from participating because he's one of the guys on here who actually has a lot of useful knowledge to use in the fight for wolf management on a state level. For someone so outspoken about him needing to remove himself from the fight, surely you must have some better ideas?? Let's hear them.
Post by: bearpaw on March 28, 2013, 02:00:14 PM
Now Dale is narrow minded as well. :chuckle::yeah:Skywalker I kind of see what you are saying, but does a Rancher not have a financial stake as well as an outfitter.
I think all should be heard regardless of their interest. Some are just better speakers and get their point across better. :dunno:
Care to elaborate BearPaw?
I agree with you. I understand what you are saying about Ranchers having a finacial stake. The difference IMO; Ranches are usually handed down from family generation to family generation, as a means of making a living. Their are strong family traditions associated with that. If wolves start killing off their means of making a living, then the wolves should be killed. You cannot just pick up your ranch, family traditions, etc. and move it. I think most listening would understand their point of view, and at least listen.
When a hunter or outfitter speaks it is not going to be as well received. A) Those listening are aganist hunting, hunters, their views, etc. to begin with B) An outfitter is taking advantage of a resource to make money. Whether that be hunting videos, TV shows, guide service, etc. I could see how an anti-hunter/pro-wolf individual would dismiss their credibility from the start. They are coming in pissed off, and likely not going to listen. My point is; choose the path of least resistence; work smart. Bearpaw presenting is not going to capture an audience and get anyone to listen. Perhaps Bearpaw take his information, facts, etc. and turn it over to somebody, who stands on neutral ground.
I don't agree with you at all.
Hunters and guides and outfitters should either keep their mouths shut or get a puppet to speak for them and we should let the wolf lovers speak out at will because WDFW is more likely to listen?
Come on, man. Get realistic.
We need anyone who is well spoken to get up and speak when WDFW gives the opportunity to give input like at this meeting. I applaud Bearpaw and the others for standing up and giving WDFW a piece of their mind. :tup:
That the problem. "standing up and giving someone a piece of their mind" and coming from a narrow minded view is not going to go over well and change anyones opinions on the issue. Especially coming from a hunter or outfitter.
Yes he is. I will stand behind that. He view is NO WOLVES IN WA PERIOD! That is being narrow minded. He needs to accept the fact, that they are not going anywhere and he needs to change his strategy or compromise his point of views if he wants to make any progress. Otherwise his presentations are going to fall on deaf ears....like last night.
Skywalker, you are wrong and you do not know what you are saying. I have stated on this forum my position on wolves. Please educate yourself.
Post by: huntnphool on March 28, 2013, 02:04:12 PM
+1Perhaps it's you that is not well educated in politics Sky, Dale represents potentially thousands of voters........which in this case should very well demand their attention. ;)QuoteI said BOTH sides of the issue need a mediator to help them find common ground. I never said just let the Pro Wolf people speak and everyone else tuck tail and shut up. Appartently you are not very educated on how many political debates, dissolution of marriages, etc. work. They use MEDIATORS to make progress, because neither side is going to change their point of view or agree.
I think in this situation, the WDFW is the mediator.
Then people like Bearpaw are pretty much screwed. The only suggestion would be to ban everyone together and sit a year or two out from hunting, fishing, etc. Do not purchase anything the WDFW offers. Once they feel it in their pocket book, they will be forced to listen and change the wolf plan. In the meantime it is all USELESS talk and predictible views of everyone involved. In other words, these meetings are being held to show effort on the WDFW part; nothing more....
If Dale is doing such a GREAT political job, then tell me why EVERYONE on here that supports him is bitching about the wolf plan, and his presentations at these meetings falling on deaf ears?
And last I checked; the score was about 1000 PRO WOLF to 0 ANTI WOLF, so perhaps Dale needs to remove himself from participating or develop a new strategy. His wolf plan is clearly NOT working...
But I admire his passion and involvement within this issue.
You speak like Dale is "THE" guy in the fight against wolves. Sure he is against wolves, and speaks openly about it, but he is not the only guy in the fight. It is not his "strategy" alone that is or isn't working. It needs to be more than just Dale. What are you doing, Skywalker? What are you doing to help ensure there are elk left in the Blues when you draw your tag? What are you doing to ensure my kids or yours can hunt moose in this state 15-20 years from now? Nothing I bet. Dale is doing something, and he knows what the heck he's talking about. I don't want him to "remove himself" from participating because he's one of the guys on here who actually has a lot of useful knowledge to use in the fight for wolf management on a state level. For someone so outspoken about him needing to remove himself from the fight, surely you must have some better ideas?? Let's hear them.
Post by: bearpaw on March 28, 2013, 02:11:13 PM
At the meeting a few weeks ago participants told the WDFW they would not be split up into small groups, everyone wanted to hear what each had to say. For this meeting the Region 1 Manager called retired Judge Christiansen to facilitate the meeting. We were told we could not talk about livestock or the constitution. I took this as a way of saying WDFW will be in full control of this meeting, they are not doing the meeting any differently or allowing comments other than what they desire. To WDFW's credit they did not try to break us up into small easy to control groups, but it was obvious to most everyone in attendance that WDFW tried to hold control of the floor as long as possible preaching some misleading and much irrelevant data so participants would have little time to comment and ask questions that the WDFW might be uncomfortable answering.
WDFW presented what seemed to be cherry picked information in an effort to pacify local citizens that wolf impacts would be minimal and that WDFW has game management under control and steering Washington's wildlife in the right direction. Near the end of their long-winded presentation discontent and disgust was so widespread the audience openly laughed at numerous WDFW comments. At one point Dave Ware mentioned that one of the collared Smackout wolves wandered into Canada and was shot by a legal hunter in Canada, there was loud applause.
WDFW spent a good portion of their time basically telling local residents all the reasons and excuses they will not control wolf numbers upon a 25% reduction in ungulate populations. In so many words WDFW made it very clear that they do not intend to control wolves when ungulate populations drop by 25%. They made it very clear they plan on taking years to study why an ungulate population is dropping.
(There's little doubt by anyone I spoke to that wolves will continue to increase and ungulate populations will continue to decline while WDFW studies the problem.)
When attendees were finally allowed to comment, several citizens wanted to know why the WDFW has not warned residents about wolf worms. One person mentioned that if McIrvins were Boeing and had a problem with wolves that the state would be taking care of the problem immediately. WDFW was questioned about their response to the dog attack near Twisp. WDFW was questioned about the moose population, the caribou, and there were many comments about elk and deer. Their were comments made to shoot wolves and people were handing out info with SSS in half-page sized letters and info about wolf tapeworms. There were many other comments. Hunting-Washington member Waterdoctor made some great points regarding management and science models being used by WDFW. GREAT JOB. :tup:
When I spoke I spoke to the audience, it was apparent the WDFW was there to preach but not to listen to local concerns, when I did ask them questions they actually seemed to not even hear my questions, I had to emphasize "this is a question". I told the audience that WDFW was following the same path that Idaho and Montana followed by using misleading data to hide the damage done by wolves. I told the audience that Idaho had to get rid of certain pro-wolf managers before real wolf management could begin in Idaho. Idaho and Montana increased cow harvest and season length in areas unaffected by wolves to make the elk harvest look stable across the state when in reality many elk herds in wolf infected areas suffered up to 80% losses and I noted specific herds.
I detailed the cougar and wolf numbers in NE Washington and that we probably have at least 500 cougar and probably at least 100 wolves. (Note: Even if we don't have 100 wolves now, we will soon as WDFW has admitted wolf populations doubled during the last year and will continue to increase) I noted that studies done by other agencies indicate documented predation levels for cougars is 25 to 50 deer per year and wolves is 17-22 elk or 44 deer per year. I said for the sake of mathematical simplicity lets say one wolf eats 20 elk or 44 deer and one cougar eats 40 deer. I verified with WDFW personnel that our NE deer harvest by hunters varied from 4000 last year to 10,000 deer in the best previous year and there are roughly 300 elk taken in the NE corner per year.
I asked WDFW if they knew what a "Predator Pit" is. They did reply with a partial answer, I informed the audience how Dr Charles Kay describes a Predator pit. "When ungulate herds decline for whatever reason to a level where predation by predators prevents recovery, that is a Predator Pit." I explained how Idaho has implemented 2 bear and 2 cougar areas where wolves are having an impact and that is what is needed in NE Washington to offset this predator pit. I estimated that 500 cougar eat roughly 20,000 deer, 100 wolves eat roughly 2,000 elk or 4,400 deer. I explained that is why deer harvest has continued to decline for several years after the bad winters that we experienced 4 years ago and said we need an open spring bear season and we need a 2 cougar limit without quotas to reduce predation on our herds.
With all this predation and knowing what wolves eat, I asked WDFW what their plans were for hunters?
I didn't get much of an answer, but that didn't surprise me, I didn't expect WDFW to have a plan to save hunting. Numerous people thanked me for my testimony and comments.
________________________________
Wolves are going to cause economic impacts on rural economies and lifestyles. The WA wolf plan under estimated wolf population growth, the wolf plan underestimated the cost of wolf management, the wolf plan underestimated livestock losses that have already occurred, the WDFW has admitted that wolves doubled in numbers since last year, the WDFW admitted that wolf numbers are growing faster than they anticipated, the WDFW said in the Colville meeting they do not plan to take quick action to control wolves when ungulate populations drop 25%, 72 US Legislators have submitted a letter prompting the USFWS to delist wolves, and finally it's questionable how wolves were listed as endangered in Washington in the first place. I submit that the endangered status of wolves in Washington should be reviewed and the Washington Wolf Plan needs to be thrown out or at the least revised to correct the many obvious mistakes it contains which has resulted in known inaccuracies in the rational used for delisting and will likely cause numerous impacts on localized areas due to these miscalculations in the plan.
Some steps that might help:
- WDFW mandate: "Conserve Fish & Wildlife at sustainable numbers while maximizing a fair ratio of recreational and commercial opportunity to all."
- Replace WDFW Commissioners who do not perpetuate this mandate
- Replace WDFW personnel who do not perpetuate this mandate or who provide misleading or inaccurate data to decision makers
- Manage predators based on ungulate herd numbers to prevent a "predator pit", when herds decline manage predators accordingly
- Scrap or revise the wolf plan to better address the real known wolf population growth and address real known wolf impacts in localized areas
Post by: Kola16 on March 28, 2013, 02:21:55 PM
Post by: combs338 on March 28, 2013, 02:23:31 PM
Thanks for the right-up bearpaw :tup:
+1
Post by: buckfvr on March 28, 2013, 02:35:41 PM
Everyone who attended the meeting should have been insulted. It was a waste of our time and they seemed to readily convey that message. There was/is nothing we can say to change what is inevitable......and that is a rapid decline in ungulates and continual decline in hunter opportunities. They know it and could care less.
Thanks WDFW and your employees for being such morons. :bash
Post by: bearpaw on March 28, 2013, 04:03:44 PM
Bearpaw's view is not narrow minded. I've read much of his research on the wolf issue and he knows his stuff.......(knows the stats and info better than WDFW).
The pro-wolf crowd are the narrow minded ones. They want to end hunting and replace us with wolves. :bash:
And Dale wants to end wolves in Wa. That is being narrow minded. And I know Dale knows his stuff. I follow him closely and have a ton of respect for what he does and his involvment. But that does not change the fact his presentations are failing and he is losing the battle IMO.
Sir, you need to know what you are talking about so I am going to help you.
I have said on more than one occasion that wolves could fit into Washington in reasonable numbers. I actually suggested 6 to 8 BP's as being reasonable for Washington and that wolves which move into inhabited areas should be open season in order to keep them in wilderness where they don't cause problems in our modern ecosystems. What I am adamantly opposed to is the maneuvering by WDFW to fill Washington with wolves and their wolf plan which throws NE WA to the wolves until every wolf zone has 4 BP's for 3 consecutive years. By WDFW's own admission wolf numbers doubled since last year. Is there any proven reason that wolves will not continue to double in population every year in NE WA until 4 BP's successfully breed for 3 consecutive years in all wolf zones.
WDFW is closed minded. They insisted on 15 BP's for 3 years, that's 1.5 times as many wolves as Montana's plan calls for, a state that is twice the size of Washington with a fraction of the human population. The biggest problem is that the F&G agencies do not know how many wolves are out there, WDFW even admits there are likely twice as many wolves as they have confirmed.
If one BP does not have pups at the end of the year the 3 year count will start over again, meanwhile the NE and the Methow suffer.
Please explain again who is closed minded?
oops fixed a number I had wrong
Post by: Ridgeratt on March 28, 2013, 04:20:15 PM
Somebody get me some Popcorn and a Beer! :tinfoil:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 28, 2013, 04:28:00 PM
I feel that the WDFW wolf meeting in Colville was an insult to the intelligence of all who attended. While my following account is not meant to be an exact quote, it's my impression of what took place. Basically a dog and pony show and a darned poor one at that.
At the meeting a few weeks ago participants told the WDFW they would not be split up into small groups, everyone wanted to hear what each had to say. For this meeting the Region 1 Manager called retired Judge Christiansen to facilitate the meeting. We were told we could not talk about livestock or the constitution. I took this as a way of saying WDFW will be in full control of this meeting, they are not doing the meeting any differently or allowing comments other than what they desire. To WDFW's credit they did not try to break us up into small easy to control groups, but it was obvious to most everyone in attendance that WDFW tried to hold control of the floor as long as possible preaching some misleading and much irrelevant data so participants would have little time to comment and ask questions that the WDFW might be uncomfortable answering.
WDFW presented what seemed to be cherry picked information in an effort to pacify local citizens that wolf impacts would be minimal and that WDFW has game management under control and steering Washington's wildlife in the right direction. Near the end of their long-winded presentation discontent and disgust was so widespread the audience openly laughed at numerous WDFW comments. At one point Dave Ware mentioned that one of the collared Smackout wolves wandered into Canada and was shot by a legal hunter in Canada, there was loud applause.
WDFW spent a good portion of their time basically telling local residents all the reasons and excuses they will not control wolf numbers upon a 25% reduction in ungulate populations. In so many words WDFW made it very clear that they do not intend to control wolves when ungulate populations drop by 25%. They made it very clear they plan on taking years to study why an ungulate population is dropping.
(There's little doubt by anyone I spoke to that wolves will continue to increase and ungulate populations will continue to decline while WDFW studies the problem.)
When attendees were finally allowed to comment, several citizens wanted to know why the WDFW has not warned residents about wolf worms. One person mentioned that if McIrvins were Boeing and had a problem with wolves that the state would be taking care of the problem immediately. WDFW was questioned about their response to the dog attack near Twisp. WDFW was questioned about the moose population, the caribou, and there were many comments about elk and deer. Their were comments made to shoot wolves and people were handing out info with SSS in half-page sized letters and info about wolf tapeworms. There were many other comments. Hunting-Washington member Waterdoctor made some great points regarding management and science models being used by WDFW. GREAT JOB. :tup:
When I spoke I spoke to the audience, it was apparent the WDFW was there to preach but not to listen to local concerns, when I did ask them questions they actually seemed to not even hear my questions, I had to emphasize "this is a question". I told the audience that WDFW was following the same path that Idaho and Montana followed by using misleading data to hide the damage done by wolves. I told the audience that Idaho had to get rid of certain pro-wolf managers before real wolf management could begin in Idaho. Idaho and Montana increased cow harvest and season length in areas unaffected by wolves to make the elk harvest look stable across the state when in reality many elk herds in wolf infected areas suffered up to 80% losses and I noted specific herds.
I detailed the cougar and wolf numbers in NE Washington and that we probably have at least 500 cougar and probably at least 100 wolves. (Note: Even if we don't have 100 wolves now, we will soon as WDFW has admitted wolf populations doubled during the last year and will continue to increase) I noted that studies done by other agencies indicate documented predation levels for cougars is 25 to 50 deer per year and wolves is 17-22 elk or 44 deer per year. I said for the sake of mathematical simplicity lets say one wolf eats 20 elk or 44 deer and one cougar eats 40 deer. I verified with WDFW personnel that our NE deer harvest by hunters varied from 4000 last year to 10,000 deer in the best previous year and there are roughly 300 elk taken in the NE corner per year.
I asked WDFW if they knew what a "Predator Pit" is. They did reply with a partial answer, I informed the audience how Dr Charles Kay describes a Predator pit. "When ungulate herds decline for whatever reason to a level where predation by predators prevents recovery, that is a Predator Pit." I explained how Idaho has implemented 2 bear and 2 cougar areas where wolves are having an impact and that is what is needed in NE Washington to offset this predator pit. I estimated that 500 cougar eat roughly 20,000 deer, 100 wolves eat roughly 2,000 elk or 4,400 deer. I explained that is why deer harvest has continued to decline for several years after the bad winters that we experienced 4 years ago and said we need an open spring bear season and we need a 2 cougar limit without quotas to reduce predation on our herds.
With all this predation and knowing what wolves eat, I asked WDFW what their plans were for hunters?
I didn't get much of an answer, but that didn't surprise me, I didn't expect WDFW to have a plan to save hunting. Numerous people thanked me for my testimony and comments.
________________________________
Wolves are going to cause economic impacts on rural economies and lifestyles. The WA wolf plan under estimated wolf population growth, the wolf plan underestimated the cost of wolf management, the wolf plan underestimated livestock losses that have already occurred, the WDFW has admitted that wolves doubled in numbers since last year, the WDFW admitted that wolf numbers are growing faster than they anticipated, the WDFW said in the Colville meeting they do not plan to take quick action to control wolves when ungulate populations drop 25%, 72 US Legislators have submitted a letter prompting the USFWS to delist wolves, and finally it's questionable how wolves were listed as endangered in Washington in the first place. I submit that the endangered status of wolves in Washington should be reviewed and the Washington Wolf Plan needs to be thrown out or at the least revised to correct the many obvious mistakes it contains which has resulted in known inaccuracies in the rational used for delisting and will likely cause numerous impacts on localized areas due to these miscalculations in the plan.
Some steps that might help:
- WDFW mandate: "Conserve Fish & Wildlife at sustainable numbers while maximizing a fair ratio of recreational and commercial opportunity to all."
- Replace WDFW Commissioners who do not perpetuate this mandate
- Replace WDFW personnel who do not perpetuate this mandate or who provide misleading or inaccurate data to decision makers
- Manage predators based on ungulate herd numbers to prevent a "predator pit", when herds decline manage predators accordingly
- Scrap or revise the wolf plan to better address the real known wolf population growth and address real known wolf impacts in localized areas
Thank you Dale..
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on March 28, 2013, 05:21:03 PM
Post by: CementFinisher on March 28, 2013, 06:38:46 PM
Post by: winshooter88 on March 28, 2013, 06:42:18 PM
Post by: asl20bball on March 28, 2013, 06:47:52 PM
The irony is that the WDFW has written a "plan' that will send them into a budge deficit and downward monetary spiral. more wolves is gonna cost a lot more $$$ and they will loose the support of the hunting community which is also lost revenue. what a bunch of ignorant, irratiional idiots. we had the upper hand being the last state into the wolf game (in regards to comparing other state's plans and the effect the wolves have had) yet the WDFW has choosen to ingore them both. un-b-fricken-leavable. :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Me personally...I've now began accumulating hunting points in 2 other states.
Post by: KFhunter on March 28, 2013, 06:50:46 PM
In more than one meeting the WDFW has said that they currently don't have good population estimates on the size of deer, elk and moose herds/population in the northeast part of the state. That means that they really have no baseline to look at to see if populations are decreasing. So they need to do studies to determine the baselines. By the time those studies are done the herds will already probably be declining. Then they will have to do 2-3 years of study to determine why the herds are declining/if they are declining. So by the time WDFW will say that they know whats going on, the populations will already be in big trouble. Also at one meeting Dave Ware said when asked what would happen if the WDFW thought a herd was declining by 25% or more, he said the first option would be reduced hunting opportunity since that is the easiest thing to control.
Well if he said it, then it's been well thought out and discussed.
Post by: buckfvr on March 28, 2013, 06:55:05 PM
Post by: asl20bball on March 28, 2013, 06:57:40 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2013, 06:58:04 PM
Post by: buckfvr on March 28, 2013, 06:59:56 PM
Post by: quadrafire on March 28, 2013, 07:01:47 PM
Dale, Thank you for the well spoken response. It is good to hear for those of us that cannot make all the meetings. :tup:
Post by: Curly on March 28, 2013, 07:04:37 PM
Thanks for the right-up bearpaw :tup:
+1
:yeah:
Post by: Harborhunter on March 28, 2013, 07:37:50 PM
Post by: cougarbart on March 28, 2013, 07:42:50 PM
Post by: TommyH on March 28, 2013, 08:48:38 PM
Thanks for voicing your opinion and speaking for the hunters who pay the salaries of these idiots at the WDFW.
Post by: Kola16 on March 28, 2013, 09:23:29 PM
That is such an ignorant statement that it is laughable.Bearpaw's view is not narrow minded. I've read much of his research on the wolf issue and he knows his stuff.......(knows the stats and info better than WDFW).
The pro-wolf crowd are the narrow minded ones. They want to end hunting and replace us with wolves. :bash:
And Dale wants to end wolves in Wa. That is being narrow minded. And I know Dale knows his stuff. I follow him closely and have a ton of respect for what he does and his involvment. But that does not change the fact his presentations are failing and he is losing the battle IMO.
Sir, you need to know what you are talking about so I am going to help you.
I have said on more than one occasion that wolves could fit into Washington in reasonable numbers. I actually suggested 6 to 8 BP's as being reasonable for Washington and that wolves which move into inhabited areas should be open season in order to keep them in wilderness where they don't cause problems in our modern ecosystems. What I am adamantly opposed to is the maneuvering by WDFW to fill Washington with wolves and their wolf plan which throws NE WA to the wolves until every wolf zone has 4 BP's for 3 consecutive years. By WDFW's own admission wolf numbers doubled since last year. Is there any proven reason that wolves will not continue to double in population every year in NE WA until 4 BP's successfully breed for 3 consecutive years in all wolf zones.
WDFW is closed minded. They insisted on 15 BP's for 3 years, that's 1.5 times as many wolves as Montana's plan calls for, a state that is twice the size of Washington with a fraction of the human population. The biggest problem is that the F&G agencies do not know how many wolves are out there, WDFW even admits there are likely twice as many wolves as they have confirmed.
If one BP does not have pups at the end of the year the 3 year count will start over again, meanwhile the NE and the Methow suffer.
Please explain again who is closed minded?
oops fixed a number I had wrong
At the end of the day you were not open minded enough with your plan. If you were, then they would have accepted it. I work off bottom lines. Bottom line A) they did not accept your plan B) even your buddies on here stated YOUR presentation last night fell on deaf ears C) take accountability D) it is time to go back to the drawing board. If the wolf plan is set in stone, what was the POINT of your presentation. Answer needed please...
Post by: CementFinisher on March 28, 2013, 09:25:52 PM
Post by: asl20bball on March 28, 2013, 09:29:19 PM
Post by: huntnphool on March 28, 2013, 09:32:01 PM
skywalker stop. just stop. Your so far out there on this topic its unbearable:chuckle:
Post by: asl20bball on March 28, 2013, 09:35:57 PM
Skywalker I think your missing the point...it doesn't matter who presents what b/c WDFW already had their minds made up.
Ughhhh....I think I said that way earlier bro. Go back and read. That is why I say the stupid meetings are USELESS!! They already know what they are going to do. They are just hosting meetings to try and make it look like they are listening to all sides etc. So actually...YOU missed it. Nice try thou! :tup:
LMAO
Post by: huntnphool on March 28, 2013, 09:37:18 PM
Fair enough :chuckle:skywalker stop. just stop. Your so far out there on this topic its unbearable:chuckle:
I know, but I don't care. I just like to have fun on here and stir the pot. :hello:
Post by: huntnphool on March 28, 2013, 09:44:08 PM
:chuckle: back to the sauce I see.Fair enough :chuckle:skywalker stop. just stop. Your so far out there on this topic its unbearable:chuckle:
I know, but I don't care. I just like to have fun on here and stir the pot. :hello:
HUNT "I KNOW IT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PHOOL
Need a hunting question answered?
Call now 1-800-KNOWIT
This weeks topic...
Natives in the Entiat, who locked the damn gates. LMFAO :hello: Call now for the answer.
Post by: huntnphool on March 28, 2013, 09:49:41 PM
:brew::chuckle: back to the sauce I see.Fair enough :chuckle:skywalker stop. just stop. Your so far out there on this topic its unbearable:chuckle:
I know, but I don't care. I just like to have fun on here and stir the pot. :hello:
HUNT "I KNOW IT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PHOOL
Need a hunting question answered?
Call now 1-800-KNOWIT
This weeks topic...
Natives in the Entiat, who locked the damn gates. LMFAO :hello: Call now for the answer.
Just firing a shot over your boww. Nothing more.... :hello:
I will stop now, but you know that was funny.
Post by: CementFinisher on March 28, 2013, 10:02:09 PM
Post by: jackelope on March 28, 2013, 10:17:44 PM
Ignorance is bliss...again. If you really thought Dale's input or any other person who spoke last night in Colville was going to change the wolf plan, then you, sir, have your head buried so far in the sand you will never again see daylight. You should pull up stakes and move on from here. Your credibility as far as I'm concerned, after these pointless and meaningless comments tonight, is gone.Bearpaw's view is not narrow minded. I've read much of his research on the wolf issue and he knows his stuff.......(knows the stats and info better than WDFW).
The pro-wolf crowd are the narrow minded ones. They want to end hunting and replace us with wolves. :bash:
And Dale wants to end wolves in Wa. That is being narrow minded. And I know Dale knows his stuff. I follow him closely and have a ton of respect for what he does and his involvment. But that does not change the fact his presentations are failing and he is losing the battle IMO.
Sir, you need to know what you are talking about so I am going to help you.
I have said on more than one occasion that wolves could fit into Washington in reasonable numbers. I actually suggested 6 to 8 BP's as being reasonable for Washington and that wolves which move into inhabited areas should be open season in order to keep them in wilderness where they don't cause problems in our modern ecosystems. What I am adamantly opposed to is the maneuvering by WDFW to fill Washington with wolves and their wolf plan which throws NE WA to the wolves until every wolf zone has 4 BP's for 3 consecutive years. By WDFW's own admission wolf numbers doubled since last year. Is there any proven reason that wolves will not continue to double in population every year in NE WA until 4 BP's successfully breed for 3 consecutive years in all wolf zones.
WDFW is closed minded. They insisted on 15 BP's for 3 years, that's 1.5 times as many wolves as Montana's plan calls for, a state that is twice the size of Washington with a fraction of the human population. The biggest problem is that the F&G agencies do not know how many wolves are out there, WDFW even admits there are likely twice as many wolves as they have confirmed.
If one BP does not have pups at the end of the year the 3 year count will start over again, meanwhile the NE and the Methow suffer.
Please explain again who is closed minded?
oops fixed a number I had wrong
At the end of the day you were not open minded enough with your plan. If you were, then they would have accepted it. I work off bottom lines. Bottom line A) they did not accept your plan B) even your buddies on here stated YOUR presentation last night fell on deaf ears C) take accountability D) it is time to go back to the drawing board. If the wolf plan is set in stone, what was the POINT of your presentation. Answer needed please...
Post by: bearpaw on March 29, 2013, 09:29:46 AM
These wolf lovers like to get on here and try to discredit anyone who is making waves with their beloved wolf plan. We have legislators who will eventually put an end to the wolf madness. Eventually people will get fed up with the wolf lovers in WDFW, we will identify who they are and we will replace them. As I stated in the Colville meeting, Idaho had to get rid of certain people in IDFG before real management could begin. Very good chance skywalker is one of the WDFW wolf loving employees or he is simply a wolf lover who sees the wolf lies being brought to task and proven false.
At any rate skywalker it appears you are only here to promote wolves and insult members. It is my opinion you are better suited to belong to a wolf lover's site.
Goodbye :ban:
Post by: bearpaw on March 29, 2013, 09:39:49 AM
Post by: huntnphool on March 29, 2013, 09:43:34 AM
If this happens I think we as sportsmen should band together in a law suit against them, start saving your pennies fellas.
Post by: buckfvr on March 29, 2013, 09:47:38 AM
hp, I have wondered about the prospects of a class action law suit, hunters vs. WDFW.......I am all about it.
Post by: 6x6in6 on March 29, 2013, 09:56:15 AM
Not trying to plagiarize your post Dale!!! I do 110% support you and your efforts in this battle for all of us now and in the future. :tup:
WDFW spent a good portion of their time basically telling local residents all the reasons and excuses they will not control wolf numbers upon a 25% reduction in ungulate populations. In so many words WDFW made it very clear that they do not intend to control wolves when ungulate populations drop by 25%. They made it very clear they plan on taking years to study why an ungulate population is dropping.
But and unfortunately, it looks like the WDFW is following pretty close to the wolf plan on the above subject.
Below is a copy and paste from the wolf plan.
Chapter 5 - Section F on page 115.
Link for those who do not have the wolf plan: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00001/wdfw00001.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00001/wdfw00001.pdf)
During recovery stages, while wolves are listed in Washington, it is unlikely that they will have a
significant negative effect on ungulate populations in the state. However, if WDFW determined that wolf predation was a primary limiting factor for an at-risk ungulate population, and the wolf population in that wolf recovery region was at least 4 successful breeding pairs, WDFW could consider reducing wolf abundance in the localized area occupied by the ungulate population before state delisting occurs.
For the purposes of this plan, an at-risk ungulate population is any federal or state listed ungulate
population (e.g., Selkirk Mountain woodland caribou, Columbian white-tailed deer). An at-risk
population would also include any ungulate population which falls 25% below its population
objective for two consecutive years and/or if the harvest decreases by 25% below the 10-year average harvest rate for two consecutive years. In ungulate populations without numeric estimates and/or without management objectives, the Department will rely on other factors of information to assess a decline, such as harvest trends, hunter effort trends, sex and age ratios, and others.
This just absolutely sucks!!! :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: 6x6in6 on March 29, 2013, 09:58:06 AM
Post by: buckfvr on March 29, 2013, 10:02:05 AM
Post by: huntnphool on March 29, 2013, 10:05:40 AM
Yeah, another interesting point in the proposal is how they purposely mention that "days in the field" per hunter has decreased over the years, suggesting that hunters are losing interest or its by our choice, yet they never mention the fact that our general seasons have been cut back during those statistical years they are using.Not trying to plagiarize your post Dale!!! I do 110% support you and your efforts in this battle for all of us now and in the future. :tup:
WDFW spent a good portion of their time basically telling local residents all the reasons and excuses they will not control wolf numbers upon a 25% reduction in ungulate populations. In so many words WDFW made it very clear that they do not intend to control wolves when ungulate populations drop by 25%. They made it very clear they plan on taking years to study why an ungulate population is dropping.
But and unfortunately, it looks like the WDFW is following pretty close to the wolf plan on the above subject.
Below is a copy and paste from the wolf plan.
Chapter 5 - Section F on page 115.
Link for those who do not have the wolf plan: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00001/wdfw00001.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00001/wdfw00001.pdf)
During recovery stages, while wolves are listed in Washington, it is unlikely that they will have a
significant negative effect on ungulate populations in the state. However, if WDFW determined that wolf predation was a primary limiting factor for an at-risk ungulate population, and the wolf population in that wolf recovery region was at least 4 successful breeding pairs, WDFW could consider reducing wolf abundance in the localized area occupied by the ungulate population before state delisting occurs.
For the purposes of this plan, an at-risk ungulate population is any federal or state listed ungulate
population (e.g., Selkirk Mountain woodland caribou, Columbian white-tailed deer). An at-risk
population would also include any ungulate population which falls 25% below its population
objective for two consecutive years and/or if the harvest decreases by 25% below the 10-year average harvest rate for two consecutive years. In ungulate populations without numeric estimates and/or without management objectives, the Department will rely on other factors of information to assess a decline, such as harvest trends, hunter effort trends, sex and age ratios, and others.
This just absolutely sucks!!! :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: Curly on March 29, 2013, 10:06:14 AM
Quote
An at-risk population would also include any ungulate population which falls 25% below its population objective for two consecutive years and/or if the harvest decreases by 25% below the 10-year average harvest rate for two consecutive years.
Now I'm starting to understand why they have so many doe permits or general season doe for archery in so many units. I wonder if they were trying to increase the harvest stats for the lead up to the wolf decimation. :dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on March 29, 2013, 10:07:20 AM
Not trying to plagiarize your post Dale!!! I do 110% support you and your efforts in this battle for all of us now and in the future. :tup:
WDFW spent a good portion of their time basically telling local residents all the reasons and excuses they will not control wolf numbers upon a 25% reduction in ungulate populations. In so many words WDFW made it very clear that they do not intend to control wolves when ungulate populations drop by 25%. They made it very clear they plan on taking years to study why an ungulate population is dropping.
But and unfortunately, it looks like the WDFW is following pretty close to the wolf plan on the above subject.
Below is a copy and paste from the wolf plan.
Chapter 5 - Section F on page 115.
Link for those who do not have the wolf plan: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00001/wdfw00001.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00001/wdfw00001.pdf)
During recovery stages, while wolves are listed in Washington, it is unlikely that they will have a
significant negative effect on ungulate populations in the state. However, if WDFW determined that wolf predation was a primary limiting factor for an at-risk ungulate population, and the wolf population in that wolf recovery region was at least 4 successful breeding pairs, WDFW could consider reducing wolf abundance in the localized area occupied by the ungulate population before state delisting occurs.
For the purposes of this plan, an at-risk ungulate population is any federal or state listed ungulate
population (e.g., Selkirk Mountain woodland caribou, Columbian white-tailed deer). An at-risk
population would also include any ungulate population which falls 25% below its population
objective for two consecutive years and/or if the harvest decreases by 25% below the 10-year average harvest rate for two consecutive years. In ungulate populations without numeric estimates and/or without management objectives, the Department will rely on other factors of information to assess a decline, such as harvest trends, hunter effort trends, sex and age ratios, and others.
This just absolutely sucks!!! :bash: :bash: :bash:
At the meeting it sounded to me like they intend to drag out confirming impacts as long as they could. :bash:
The wolf plan was based on so many issues which have proven to be inaccurate, I honestly think the WDFW needs to be forced to scrap or revise the wolf plan.
Post by: 6x6in6 on March 29, 2013, 10:07:58 AM
Doesnt make alot of sense that the Feds can see to list only a portion of this state, but the state refuses to fragment the management. Poor policy makers abound in this state.
The wolf plan is full of poor policy by it's makers. :bash:
I'm relatively certain you have buckfvr, as has many many of the HW members have too, but take the time and do a refresher read in the wolf plan as I did over the last couple evenings.
IT IS EVEN MORE PATHETIC after another reading. :tree1:
Post by: huntnphool on March 29, 2013, 10:14:16 AM
I have gone through it numerous times as well, it seems that now that its been forced upon us WDFW are going to sit back and choose which parts of it they are actually going to adhere to and which parts they are going to ignore...........sound familiar?Doesnt make alot of sense that the Feds can see to list only a portion of this state, but the state refuses to fragment the management. Poor policy makers abound in this state.
The wolf plan is full of poor policy by it's makers. :bash:
I'm relatively certain you have buckfvr, as has many many of the HW members have too, but take the time and do a refresher read in the wolf plan as I did over the last couple evenings.
IT IS EVEN MORE PATHETIC after another reading. :tree1:
Seems there is a Washington on both sides of the country issuing "executive orders"
Post by: 6x6in6 on March 29, 2013, 10:14:35 AM
WDFW is following the same path as Idaho and Montana .... :twocents:Not trying to plagiarize your post Dale!!! I do 110% support you and your efforts in this battle for all of us now and in the future. :tup:
WDFW spent a good portion of their time basically telling local residents all the reasons and excuses they will not control wolf numbers upon a 25% reduction in ungulate populations. In so many words WDFW made it very clear that they do not intend to control wolves when ungulate populations drop by 25%. They made it very clear they plan on taking years to study why an ungulate population is dropping.
But and unfortunately, it looks like the WDFW is following pretty close to the wolf plan on the above subject.
Below is a copy and paste from the wolf plan.
Chapter 5 - Section F on page 115.
Link for those who do not have the wolf plan: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00001/wdfw00001.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00001/wdfw00001.pdf)
During recovery stages, while wolves are listed in Washington, it is unlikely that they will have a
significant negative effect on ungulate populations in the state. However, if WDFW determined that wolf predation was a primary limiting factor for an at-risk ungulate population, and the wolf population in that wolf recovery region was at least 4 successful breeding pairs, WDFW could consider reducing wolf abundance in the localized area occupied by the ungulate population before state delisting occurs.
For the purposes of this plan, an at-risk ungulate population is any federal or state listed ungulate
population (e.g., Selkirk Mountain woodland caribou, Columbian white-tailed deer). An at-risk
population would also include any ungulate population which falls 25% below its population
objective for two consecutive years and/or if the harvest decreases by 25% below the 10-year average harvest rate for two consecutive years. In ungulate populations without numeric estimates and/or without management objectives, the Department will rely on other factors of information to assess a decline, such as harvest trends, hunter effort trends, sex and age ratios, and others.
This just absolutely sucks!!! :bash: :bash: :bash:
At the meeting it sounded to me like they intend to drag out confirming impacts as long as they could. :bash:
The wolf plan was based on so many issues which have proven to be inaccurate, I honestly think the WDFW needs to be forced to scrap or revise the wolf plan.
Maybe I'm wrong in my observation but I don't think they are following MT and ID. I think they are out there all by themselves to show the world that WA is the "leader of the pack" in wolf recovery. I think I just threw up in mouth as I typed that. >:(
I agree. But the scraping won't happen, we both know this.
That would require the WDFW to eat crow and swallow their mistake. Not gonna happen.
Hell, just amending it would be a crow eating experience.
Post by: 6x6in6 on March 29, 2013, 10:16:28 AM
I have gone through it numerous times as well, it seems that now that its been forced upon us WDFW are going to sit back and choose which parts of it they are actually going to adhere to and which parts they are going to ignore...........sound familiar?Doesnt make alot of sense that the Feds can see to list only a portion of this state, but the state refuses to fragment the management. Poor policy makers abound in this state.
The wolf plan is full of poor policy by it's makers. :bash:
I'm relatively certain you have buckfvr, as has many many of the HW members have too, but take the time and do a refresher read in the wolf plan as I did over the last couple evenings.
IT IS EVEN MORE PATHETIC after another reading. :tree1:
Seems there is a Washington on both sides of the country issuing "executive orders"
Well said, know-it-all. :chuckle:
Post by: huntnphool on March 29, 2013, 10:22:48 AM
:chuckle: I suppose I get a little fired up when it comes to our rights as American Citizens as well as hunters/gun owners. I do my best due diligence to make sure I am informed when going to battle against those that would deny me those rights. If I come across as a know it all its not intentional and I hope members see me as someone that is standing up for them as well. I'm getting old and I fight now for my kids. ;)I have gone through it numerous times as well, it seems that now that its been forced upon us WDFW are going to sit back and choose which parts of it they are actually going to adhere to and which parts they are going to ignore...........sound familiar?Doesnt make alot of sense that the Feds can see to list only a portion of this state, but the state refuses to fragment the management. Poor policy makers abound in this state.
The wolf plan is full of poor policy by it's makers. :bash:
I'm relatively certain you have buckfvr, as has many many of the HW members have too, but take the time and do a refresher read in the wolf plan as I did over the last couple evenings.
IT IS EVEN MORE PATHETIC after another reading. :tree1:
Seems there is a Washington on both sides of the country issuing "executive orders"
Well said, know-it-all. :chuckle:
Post by: Ridgeratt on March 29, 2013, 07:15:50 PM
From Bearpaw!!
At the meeting it sounded to me like they intend to drag out confirming impacts as long as they could. :bash:
The wolf plan was based on so many issues which have proven to be inaccurate, I honestly think the WDFW needs to be forced to scrap or revise the wolf plan.
[/quote]
As I have stated many times before. No one in this state will see any type of wolf management plan until the west side goals have been reached!! The faster they are met the sooner you will have any chance of a plan.
Even thought there are folks on here who think I am a nut case!! We have the problem and they don't want it in their backyard!! So they will resist them.
Some one posted on here the Buck to Doe ratios in some of the NE unit's Kelly hill was I think 8 to 100. Folks that's a non hunting unit!! Dale that's why your not seeing many deer. Granted the winters of 08 and 09 took the toll on the herds but after that we had a new problem. Once they had decimated the wild food source they started on the next best thing! Mcgirvin cattle , just as perhaps now they have started on cattle in Wenatchee. I have made almost every wolf meeting on this side of the state either in Colville or Spokane and have heard the same presentation along with the same slide show!! It could be condensed by showing the slides and lumping all the WDFW speakers in to a group instead of stalling on the time window.
To several folks who have made mention of ideas to eliminating them. I would guess that depending on just how hard they would care to make an example of you!! It could be considered ECO-Terrorism!!
Just be careful of your post's
So I'm getting another bag of Popcorn and a Beer!!
Post by: huntnphool on March 29, 2013, 07:20:31 PM
No one in this state will see any type of wolf management plan until the west side goals have been reached!! The faster they are met the sooner you will have any chance of a plan.
There isn't a seperate East/West plan ;)
Post by: Ridgeratt on March 29, 2013, 07:23:19 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 29, 2013, 07:25:14 PM
Post by: huntnphool on March 29, 2013, 07:25:55 PM
If you have followed any of my post's I have maintained that until they get Breeding packs on the west side the east side is doomed!! I know their isn't a divisionJust keeping it clear for those that don't know the facts. ;)
Post by: Ridgeratt on March 29, 2013, 07:28:27 PM
We just went over this today in the other thread. No wolves are required on the west side of the state.
Perhaps not by requirement!! But I will take the line that it is what will happen!!
So Bobcat sit back and watch your gonna get some!!!
I'll still donate to get them to ya!! Just tell me who gets the funds.
Post by: huntnphool on March 29, 2013, 07:33:41 PM
I sure hope they don't get established in the West, of course WDFW can cart them up and dump them here anytime they want. :bash:We just went over this today in the other thread. No wolves are required on the west side of the state.
Perhaps not by requirement!! But I will take the line that it is what will happen!!
So Bobcat sit back and watch your gonna get some!!!
I'll still donate to get them to ya!! Just tell me who gets the funds.
Post by: Dan-o on March 29, 2013, 07:34:24 PM
It's only a few wolves. It's not like you're talking about some terrible epidemic.
Post by: Dan-o on March 29, 2013, 07:34:56 PM
Said the guy who's children had no deer left to hunt. :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: Ridgeratt on March 29, 2013, 07:44:33 PM
:yeah:
Said the guy who's children had no deer left to hunt. :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
My Grandkids have few if any left to hunt!!!
I also have stayed in a Holiday Inn Express!
Post by: Dan-o on March 29, 2013, 08:57:19 PM
Last year was my last hunting SW Montana..... Our area has been decimated. We'll drive 5-6 hours further East.
I worry that NE Washington will go the way way of my SW Montana area. :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
Seriously bums me out.
Post by: huntnphool on March 29, 2013, 10:51:13 PM
Yep, this whole wolf debacle makes me wonder if my kids will get to experience good hunting in E Washington like, I have.My kids will never get to experience the good hunting I had there, those days are gone forever, I can only hope they get to draw a permit a couple times in their lifetimes to have a decent hunt.
Post by: bearpaw on March 30, 2013, 06:19:08 AM
Post by: mulehunter on March 30, 2013, 06:32:55 AM
Post by: antlerman on March 30, 2013, 07:34:14 AM
I have lived while hunting has been adequate in the areas where I have lived and only hope that my sons will have the same opportunities.
Post by: Special T on March 30, 2013, 08:10:38 AM
I seem to think that the only real way to get any traction on this issue is to get as many of our state reps/senators involved as possible, since they actually have some teeth with it comes to the WDFW.
Post by: buckfvr on March 30, 2013, 08:20:58 AM
Post by: bearpaw on March 30, 2013, 08:32:31 AM
During the meeting the WDFW mentioned deer in Central Washington (Basin) and how they manage lower numbers due to socially acceptable levels. I find that interesting in that I think that hunters would like higher numbers. The numbers are kept lower due to agriculture (crops). What is the socially accepted level of wolves in an area? Isn't ranching agriculture? I know there is a wolf plan and time will tell of what is to come.
I have lived while hunting has been adequate in the areas where I have lived and only hope that my sons will have the same opportunities.
Excellent point on the social tolerance, I will use that point in the future. :tup:
Post by: Killmore on March 30, 2013, 08:33:06 AM
:yeah: Ridgeratt, Dan-o, and huntnphool, that is one of the reasons I am so determined to make a difference, for my kids and my grandkids, it our responsibility to leave them the best future that we can, just as our parents and grandparents did for us. :tup:And a good job you have been doing!! I cant help but think even though they act they (game department) don't want to listen to you at the meetings ,I bet you are making a deep impression in there minds. Keep at it..you are making a difference. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on March 30, 2013, 08:47:15 AM
I have a comment and a couple of questions. Bearpaw, I think its good you changed up the tactic at the meeting ad addressed the people there instead of addressing the WDFW that is just going through the motions. You/ others have mentioned that ID MT didn't get anywhere till they replaced some commissioners. What other things were turning points IYO for those states. Additionally how can we spring board WA to getting there quicker?
I seem to think that the only real way to get any traction on this issue is to get as many of our state reps/senators involved as possible, since they actually have some teeth with it comes to the WDFW.
Great Post!
You are correct, WDFW will do nothing for us, their wolf policy is set, they do not seem to care much about our herds and are more interested in protecting predators of all types and pleasing anti-hunting groups. We must motivate the people to not accept the status quo. The biggest step right now is getting bad Wildlife commissioners replaced with good commissioners. The Wildlife Commissioners have the ability to change WDFW policy, it is imperative that we make our best effort at discouraging the confirmation of bad commissioners (anti-hunters or pro-wolfers) in the Senate and that we encourage appointment of commissioners who are pro-hunting and will support better wolf management.
Post by: JLS on March 30, 2013, 09:06:50 AM
During the meeting the WDFW mentioned deer in Central Washington (Basin) and how they manage lower numbers due to socially acceptable levels. I find that interesting in that I think that hunters would like higher numbers. The numbers are kept lower due to agriculture (crops). What is the socially accepted level of wolves in an area? Isn't ranching agriculture? I know there is a wolf plan and time will tell of what is to come.
I have lived while hunting has been adequate in the areas where I have lived and only hope that my sons will have the same opportunities.
Excellent point on the social tolerance, I will use that point in the future. :tup:
Social tolerance can be seen in more areas than the Columbia Basin, and not just in Washington. There are many areas in Washington that could support many more elk and deer than they currently do, but don't because of social pressure in regards to crop depredation complaints.
Post by: waterdoctor on April 01, 2013, 09:14:53 AM
Got an E-mail from one of the WFW people and it seems that our meeting may have had a small effect. Not on Dave Ware, I will not post my feelings here, he would not talk to me after the meeting about my statistical break down of the elk herd numbers. :bash:
Based on the numbers that I presented and the facts that Bearpaw lined out we have at best 12 months to get things turned around or the NE Elk herd will go into a non recoverable drop, the predator pit that was well presented by Bearpaw. Politically we have to push forward, we need to keep hammering the science and we need to do everything we can to document the packs in the state. Every one needs to get their game cams out and get pictures!!!. I think at this point we may have a very good case that the top members of the F&W have violated the public trust.
Post by: 20 Minutes on April 29, 2013, 12:53:05 AM
:chuckle: back to the sauce I see.Fair enough :chuckle:skywalker stop. just stop. Your so far out there on this topic its unbearable:chuckle:
I know, but I don't care. I just like to have fun on here and stir the pot. :hello:
HUNT "I KNOW IT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PHOOL
Need a hunting question answered?
Call now 1-800-KNOWIT
This weeks topic...
Natives in the Entiat, who locked the damn gates. LMFAO :hello: Call now for the answer.
Just firing a shot over your boww. Nothing more.... :hello:
I will stop now, but you know that was funny.
Skywalker, I read your posts and agree with much of what you say; however at times it appears you just say things to rattle people. Don't know much about this Bearpaw character, but he seems highly defensive towards any pro-wolf supporters. Thou you stated numerous times that you want all wolves dead and are not pro-wolf; I suggest you refrain from posting, as they will cancel your membership if you do not agree with what they say. At least that is my impression thus far. Most chat rooms accept all opinions and views. On Hunt-Wa it is very one sided when it comes to wolves.
Post by: CementFinisher on April 29, 2013, 01:03:09 AM
Post by: 20 Minutes on April 29, 2013, 02:50:01 AM
its one sided because we are hunters, because we understand wildlife management. Anyone is free to speak their opinion here. you wont be banished. Just keep the language civil, no name calling. and if all you do is incite confrontations it may get people tired of you. bearpaw is a good man and his views may differ from some other members on here, nothing wrong with that. welcome!
I don't agree with Bearpaw, based off what I have read. He seems a little defensive on the wolf issue, but who am I to judge. I am not a fan of wolves either, but I accept that they are here to stay. Bearpaw seems to bash and turn members in to be banned if they don't agree with his views. Skywalker agreed with him and said he supports his views; yet the guy turned him in and called him a wolf supporter. Did Bearpaw even read what Skywalker wrote? Seems pretty clear to me that Skywalker agreed with him. What did I miss, other than Skywalker stiring the pot.
Post by: huntnphool on April 29, 2013, 11:56:15 AM
its one sided because we are hunters, because we understand wildlife management. Anyone is free to speak their opinion here. you wont be banished. Just keep the language civil, no name calling. and if all you do is incite confrontations it may get people tired of you. bearpaw is a good man and his views may differ from some other members on here, nothing wrong with that. welcome!
I don't agree with Bearpaw, based off what I have read. He seems a little defensive on the wolf issue, but who am I to judge. I am not a fan of wolves either, but I accept that they are here to stay. Bearpaw seems to bash and turn members in to be banned if they don't agree with his views. Skywalker agreed with him and said he supports his views; yet the guy turned him in and called him a wolf supporter. Did Bearpaw even read what Skywalker wrote? Seems pretty clear to me that Skywalker agreed with him. What did I miss, other than Skywalker stiring the pot.
Bearpaw welcomes every opinion regardless whether or not they oppose his personal views, as do most on here. However, few are tolerant of individuals with mindless banter solely intent on disruption. ;)
Post by: jackelope on April 29, 2013, 12:08:27 PM
its one sided because we are hunters, because we understand wildlife management. Anyone is free to speak their opinion here. you wont be banished. Just keep the language civil, no name calling. and if all you do is incite confrontations it may get people tired of you. bearpaw is a good man and his views may differ from some other members on here, nothing wrong with that. welcome!
I don't agree with Bearpaw, based off what I have read. He seems a little defensive on the wolf issue, but who am I to judge. I am not a fan of wolves either, but I accept that they are here to stay. Bearpaw seems to bash and turn members in to be banned if they don't agree with his views. Skywalker agreed with him and said he supports his views; yet the guy turned him in and called him a wolf supporter. Did Bearpaw even read what Skywalker wrote? Seems pretty clear to me that Skywalker agreed with him. What did I miss, other than Skywalker stiring the pot.
You sound familiar. Are you Skywalker's neighbor?
Post by: bearpaw on April 29, 2013, 04:30:53 PM
its one sided because we are hunters, because we understand wildlife management. Anyone is free to speak their opinion here. you wont be banished. Just keep the language civil, no name calling. and if all you do is incite confrontations it may get people tired of you. bearpaw is a good man and his views may differ from some other members on here, nothing wrong with that. welcome!
I don't agree with Bearpaw, based off what I have read. He seems a little defensive on the wolf issue, but who am I to judge. I am not a fan of wolves either, but I accept that they are here to stay. Bearpaw seems to bash and turn members in to be banned if they don't agree with his views. Skywalker agreed with him and said he supports his views; yet the guy turned him in and called him a wolf supporter. Did Bearpaw even read what Skywalker wrote? Seems pretty clear to me that Skywalker agreed with him. What did I miss, other than Skywalker stiring the pot.
20 Minutes
I don't think anyone agrees on everything on any forum, simply disagreeing is not a reason we ban anyone, however, this is a hunting community so we may ban anyone whom we feel does not support hunting.
Skywalker
He kept escalating the antagonistic nature of his comments. His last posts about huntnphool combined with his comments indicating he enjoyed antagonizing people are why he was banned. H-W is better off without that type of behavior.
Wolves
I have seen what unregulated wolf numbers have done to formerly world class hunting areas in Idaho and Montana. Too many wolves impact ungulate herds, livestock, pets, hunter opportunity, human safety, and rural economies. Unregulated wolf numbers make an even bigger impact. The destruction of big game herds in Idaho and Montana has caused many businesses to close their doors because hunters no longer come to stay in motels, eat in restaurants, fill their gas tank, or buy local goods and services. In addition to the loss of hunters, ranchers in these areas have less income and that adds to the destruction of local economies. Maybe that's OK with some people who do not live with the wolves or do not care what happens because of wolves, it's not OK with me, so I have taken a stand against unregulated or excessive wolf numbers.
The numbers I used in my comments at the Colville meeting are from documented government studies, I asked the WDFW personnel about each set of numbers I used and they verified that was the numbers from the studies, so the numbers have all been proven and they do not add up well for hunter opportunity.
WDFW had no answer for my question at the end of my comments, "What exactly is your plan for hunters?". ;)
Post by: villageidiot on April 29, 2013, 06:56:07 PM
Post by: wolfbait on April 29, 2013, 07:10:23 PM
There are those who believe more habitat for deer, elk etc. is the answer, wolves have no bondaries! You also should get a good azz kicking for suggesting something so stupid.
Anyone who thinks these wolves, that the USFWS introduced illegally and then with the help of states game agencies like WDFW released them thoughout their states, once again illegally is a good thing. Sign your name below? How many people have the guts to admitt how stupid they really are?????????????????????????????????????????
Post by: 20 Minutes on April 29, 2013, 07:11:27 PM
its one sided because we are hunters, because we understand wildlife management. Anyone is free to speak their opinion here. you wont be banished. Just keep the language civil, no name calling. and if all you do is incite confrontations it may get people tired of you. bearpaw is a good man and his views may differ from some other members on here, nothing wrong with that. welcome!
I don't agree with Bearpaw, based off what I have read. He seems a little defensive on the wolf issue, but who am I to judge. I am not a fan of wolves either, but I accept that they are here to stay. Bearpaw seems to bash and turn members in to be banned if they don't agree with his views. Skywalker agreed with him and said he supports his views; yet the guy turned him in and called him a wolf supporter. Did Bearpaw even read what Skywalker wrote? Seems pretty clear to me that Skywalker agreed with him. What did I miss, other than Skywalker stiring the pot.
20 Minutes
I don't think anyone agrees on everything on any forum, simply disagreeing is not a reason we ban anyone, however, this is a hunting community so we may ban anyone whom we feel does not support hunting.
Skywalker
He kept escalating the antagonistic nature of his comments. His last posts about huntnphool combined with his comments indicating he enjoyed antagonizing people are why he was banned. H-W is better off without that type of behavior.
Wolves
I have seen what unregulated wolf numbers have done to formerly world class hunting areas in Idaho and Montana. Too many wolves impact ungulate herds, livestock, pets, hunter opportunity, human safety, and rural economies. Unregulated wolf numbers make an even bigger impact. The destruction of big game herds in Idaho and Montana has caused many businesses to close their doors because hunters no longer come to stay in motels, eat in restaurants, fill their gas tank, or buy local goods and services. In addition to the loss of hunters, ranchers in these areas have less income and that adds to the destruction of local economies. Maybe that's OK with some people who do not live with the wolves or do not care what happens because of wolves, it's not OK with me, so I have taken a stand against unregulated or excessive wolf numbers.
The numbers I used in my comments at the Colville meeting are from documented government studies, I asked the WDFW personnel about each set of numbers I used and they verified that was the numbers from the studies, so the numbers have all been proven and they do not add up well for hunter opportunity.
WDFW had no answer for my question at the end of my comments, "What exactly is your plan for hunters?". ;)
I am not educated on wildlife management or the wolf issue to have an plan or opinion for hunters. I have been researching wolves in Wa, which is what brought me to this site. I don't agree or disagree with your claims.
Post by: wolfbait on April 29, 2013, 07:19:02 PM
its one sided because we are hunters, because we understand wildlife management. Anyone is free to speak their opinion here. you wont be banished. Just keep the language civil, no name calling. and if all you do is incite confrontations it may get people tired of you. bearpaw is a good man and his views may differ from some other members on here, nothing wrong with that. welcome!
I don't agree with Bearpaw, based off what I have read. He seems a little defensive on the wolf issue, but who am I to judge. I am not a fan of wolves either, but I accept that they are here to stay. Bearpaw seems to bash and turn members in to be banned if they don't agree with his views. Skywalker agreed with him and said he supports his views; yet the guy turned him in and called him a wolf supporter. Did Bearpaw even read what Skywalker wrote? Seems pretty clear to me that Skywalker agreed with him. What did I miss, other than Skywalker stiring the pot.
20 Minutes
I don't think anyone agrees on everything on any forum, simply disagreeing is not a reason we ban anyone, however, this is a hunting community so we may ban anyone whom we feel does not support hunting.
Skywalker
He kept escalating the antagonistic nature of his comments. His last posts about huntnphool combined with his comments indicating he enjoyed antagonizing people are why he was banned. H-W is better off without that type of behavior.
Wolves
I have seen what unregulated wolf numbers have done to formerly world class hunting areas in Idaho and Montana. Too many wolves impact ungulate herds, livestock, pets, hunter opportunity, human safety, and rural economies. Unregulated wolf numbers make an even bigger impact. The destruction of big game herds in Idaho and Montana has caused many businesses to close their doors because hunters no longer come to stay in motels, eat in restaurants, fill their gas tank, or buy local goods and services. In addition to the loss of hunters, ranchers in these areas have less income and that adds to the destruction of local economies. Maybe that's OK with some people who do not live with the wolves or do not care what happens because of wolves, it's not OK with me, so I have taken a stand against unregulated or excessive wolf numbers.
The numbers I used in my comments at the Colville meeting are from documented government studies, I asked the WDFW personnel about each set of numbers I used and they verified that was the numbers from the studies, so the numbers have all been proven and they do not add up well for hunter opportunity.
WDFW had no answer for my question at the end of my comments, "What exactly is your plan for hunters?". ;)
I am not educated on wildlife management or the wolf issue to have an plan or opinion for hunters. I have been researching wolves in Wa, which is what brought me to this site. I don't agree or disagree with your claims.
I guess you don't know much about anything do you?
Post by: 20 Minutes on April 29, 2013, 07:54:38 PM
its one sided because we are hunters, because we understand wildlife management. Anyone is free to speak their opinion here. you wont be banished. Just keep the language civil, no name calling. and if all you do is incite confrontations it may get people tired of you. bearpaw is a good man and his views may differ from some other members on here, nothing wrong with that. welcome!
I don't agree with Bearpaw, based off what I have read. He seems a little defensive on the wolf issue, but who am I to judge. I am not a fan of wolves either, but I accept that they are here to stay. Bearpaw seems to bash and turn members in to be banned if they don't agree with his views. Skywalker agreed with him and said he supports his views; yet the guy turned him in and called him a wolf supporter. Did Bearpaw even read what Skywalker wrote? Seems pretty clear to me that Skywalker agreed with him. What did I miss, other than Skywalker stiring the pot.
20 Minutes
I don't think anyone agrees on everything on any forum, simply disagreeing is not a reason we ban anyone, however, this is a hunting community so we may ban anyone whom we feel does not support hunting.
Skywalker
He kept escalating the antagonistic nature of his comments. His last posts about huntnphool combined with his comments indicating he enjoyed antagonizing people are why he was banned. H-W is better off without that type of behavior.
Wolves
I have seen what unregulated wolf numbers have done to formerly world class hunting areas in Idaho and Montana. Too many wolves impact ungulate herds, livestock, pets, hunter opportunity, human safety, and rural economies. Unregulated wolf numbers make an even bigger impact. The destruction of big game herds in Idaho and Montana has caused many businesses to close their doors because hunters no longer come to stay in motels, eat in restaurants, fill their gas tank, or buy local goods and services. In addition to the loss of hunters, ranchers in these areas have less income and that adds to the destruction of local economies. Maybe that's OK with some people who do not live with the wolves or do not care what happens because of wolves, it's not OK with me, so I have taken a stand against unregulated or excessive wolf numbers.
The numbers I used in my comments at the Colville meeting are from documented government studies, I asked the WDFW personnel about each set of numbers I used and they verified that was the numbers from the studies, so the numbers have all been proven and they do not add up well for hunter opportunity.
WDFW had no answer for my question at the end of my comments, "What exactly is your plan for hunters?". ;)
I am not educated on wildlife management or the wolf issue to have an plan or opinion for hunters. I have been researching wolves in Wa, which is what brought me to this site. I don't agree or disagree with your claims.
I guess you don't know much about anything do you?
Well if you are being a smart ass then take your negativity elsewhere. If you are being serious, because I was honest, then yes I don't know much about wolves. I know enough to make my own opinions, but when it comes to statistics etc. I just started following it. Rather than spout off an make statements I know nothing or little about, I would rather research and reach out to the forum for answers.
Post by: huntnphool on April 29, 2013, 08:03:42 PM
It is quite evident you don't know too much I would suggest you do a bit of studing before you run off at the mouth!He has admitted as much, give him some credit for admitting it and some time to do his research before you rip him. :twocents:
Post by: wolfbait on April 29, 2013, 08:07:47 PM
It is quite evident you don't know too much I would suggest you do a bit of studing before you run off at the mouth!He has admitted as much, give him some credit for admitting it and some time to do his research before you rip him. :twocents:
That was quick HP, I had no sooner re-thought and you had me :chuckle: Your right of cource, everyone should get at least five years of studying before they get trampled :tup:
Post by: huntnphool on April 29, 2013, 08:09:55 PM
everyone should get at least five years of studying before they get trampled :tup:It is quite evident you don't know too much I would suggest you do a bit of studing before you run off at the mouth!He has admitted as much, give him some credit for admitting it and some time to do his research before you rip him. :twocents:
:chuckle: