Post by: clockwork on June 19, 2014, 07:15:11 PM
Gonna be rough while a balance is achieved and I'm no biologist but I like my wilderness as wild as possible. Isn't that what makes alaska awesome?
It's the wilderness, not a game farm, anyone else have this perspective?
With all this talk about gut shooting every wolf you see it seems strange coming from a group that shares the same background as me.
Post by: Houndhunter on June 19, 2014, 07:19:35 PM
Post by: JJB11B on June 19, 2014, 07:22:09 PM
Post by: singleshot12 on June 19, 2014, 07:49:01 PM
Gonna be rough while a balance is achieved and I'm no biologist but I like my wilderness as wild as possible. Isn't that what makes alaska awesome?
I think I see your point,but having a balance with wolves here in the western states is really not going to happen with so much livestock and people.
Alaska is more wild and can handle a balance of wolves.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 19, 2014, 08:20:59 PM
I'll probably get bum rushed here but are there any hunters out there that welcome the recovery of Washington wolves?I find it best to focus on current and future management...not so much on "should they be here", or "isn't it neat they are here" etc.
Gonna be rough while a balance is achieved and I'm no biologist but I like my wilderness as wild as possible. Isn't that what makes alaska awesome?
It's the wilderness, not a game farm, anyone else have this perspective?
With all this talk about gut shooting every wolf you see it seems strange coming from a group that shares the same background as me.
I accept that wolves have returned, they need managed, and like all other wildlife (including predators) hunters need to demonstrate that we can play an important role in conserving/managing them. Any hunter who speaks publicly of SSS, gut shooting, or poaching wolves is being counterproductive to their de-listing and proper management in the future...whether hunters "welcome" recovery or loathe the idea that wolves are in Washington we should be able to agree on those facts. :twocents:
Post by: mazama on June 19, 2014, 08:24:18 PM
Post by: snowpack on June 19, 2014, 08:37:30 PM
Post by: hogsniper on June 19, 2014, 08:42:07 PM
And just because someone has cool pictures or none at all doesn't give them a relevant opinion!
Post by: clockwork on June 19, 2014, 09:35:16 PM
I'll probably get bum rushed here but are there any hunters out there that welcome the recovery of Washington wolves?I find it best to focus on current and future management...not so much on "should they be here", or "isn't it neat they are here" etc.
Gonna be rough while a balance is achieved and I'm no biologist but I like my wilderness as wild as possible. Isn't that what makes alaska awesome?
It's the wilderness, not a game farm, anyone else have this perspective?
With all this talk about gut shooting every wolf you see it seems strange coming from a group that shares the same background as me.
I accept that wolves have returned, they need managed, and like all other wildlife (including predators) hunters need to demonstrate that we can play an important role in conserving/managing them. Any hunter who speaks publicly of SSS, gut shooting, or poaching wolves is being counterproductive to their de-listing and proper management in the future...whether hunters "welcome" recovery or loathe the idea that wolves are in Washington we should be able to agree on those facts. :twocents:
Agreed. I think a lot of the apparent blind hate for wolves just motivates the anti hunters that much more. We need to show constructive criticism and solutions rather than the "gut shoot em all" rhetoric. Might work out for us better.
Post by: KFhunter on June 19, 2014, 09:42:09 PM
I'll probably get bum rushed here but are there any hunters out there that welcome the recovery of Washington wolves?I find it best to focus on current and future management...not so much on "should they be here", or "isn't it neat they are here" etc.
Gonna be rough while a balance is achieved and I'm no biologist but I like my wilderness as wild as possible. Isn't that what makes alaska awesome?
It's the wilderness, not a game farm, anyone else have this perspective?
With all this talk about gut shooting every wolf you see it seems strange coming from a group that shares the same background as me.
I accept that wolves have returned, they need managed, and like all other wildlife (including predators) hunters need to demonstrate that we can play an important role in conserving/managing them. Any hunter who speaks publicly of SSS, gut shooting, or poaching wolves is being counterproductive to their de-listing and proper management in the future...whether hunters "welcome" recovery or loathe the idea that wolves are in Washington we should be able to agree on those facts. :twocents:
Agreed. I think a lot of the apparent blind hate for wolves just motivates the anti hunters that much more. We need to show constructive criticism and solutions rather than the "gut shoot em all" rhetoric. Might work out for us better.
While you're all talking about it an SSS'r is managing a wolf.
So continue to talk about it until you're blue and in the end the SSS'r will be the only one in the woods actually doing something about it.
:twocents:
Post by: ICEMAN on June 19, 2014, 09:49:34 PM
I think a lot of the apparent blind hate for wolves just motivates the anti hunters that much more. We need to show constructive criticism and solutions rather than the "gut shoot em all" rhetoric. Might work out for us better.
Let me get this straight.
You feel that anti hunters are motivated by the hate that hunters may have for wolves.
You feel that we will win over the anti hunters by showing constructive criticism and "solutions".
What are you smoking? If you were a hunter, you would probably know by now that "anti hunters" are just that....anti hunters. They could care less what we think, it is what we do that bothers them.
Will they hate us less if we adopt their mindset? Yes. Yes they would like us more if we stopped killing all their forest friends and eating them.
Are you a hunter? Have you shared your thoughts on this topic before?
Post by: pd on June 19, 2014, 10:13:02 PM
1. I have no problems with wolves. Get rid of the invasive species that the government imported from BC. Would you be happy if they brought African lions here?
2. I have no problem with wolves. Introduce them into your metropolitan suburbs, and see how it works for you. Cattle ranches in Okanogan need to be treated the same as soccer fields in Kirkland.
Post by: Special T on June 19, 2014, 10:24:17 PM
WDFW COULD have handled this differently and taken a lot of the aggression out of hunters but botched that up badly. This state loves ALL predators wolves are just the ones that get hunters fire up.
We could be hunting more cougars and bears but we dont for some damn reason.
WDFW is not run by sportsmen. Its run by people who play defense against Bunny huggers and wacko enviros. Sportmen are just starting to get thier crap together and getting organized to set the department straight.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 19, 2014, 10:26:50 PM
While it can motivate the base of anti-hunters to raise money, push for legislative change and push voter initiatives like the hound and bait bans, the real damage is when it pushes away non-hunting voters, which is something we can't afford to lose in Washington. Hunters have a remarkable history of wildlife conservation and we can sell the very compelling reasons we hunt to non-hunters and gain their acceptance...but nobody should accept poaching, gut shooting, torturing, or vilifying wildlife...even wolves.I'll probably get bum rushed here but are there any hunters out there that welcome the recovery of Washington wolves?I find it best to focus on current and future management...not so much on "should they be here", or "isn't it neat they are here" etc.
Gonna be rough while a balance is achieved and I'm no biologist but I like my wilderness as wild as possible. Isn't that what makes alaska awesome?
It's the wilderness, not a game farm, anyone else have this perspective?
With all this talk about gut shooting every wolf you see it seems strange coming from a group that shares the same background as me.
I accept that wolves have returned, they need managed, and like all other wildlife (including predators) hunters need to demonstrate that we can play an important role in conserving/managing them. Any hunter who speaks publicly of SSS, gut shooting, or poaching wolves is being counterproductive to their de-listing and proper management in the future...whether hunters "welcome" recovery or loathe the idea that wolves are in Washington we should be able to agree on those facts. :twocents:
Agreed. I think a lot of the apparent blind hate for wolves just motivates the anti hunters that much more. We need to show constructive criticism and solutions rather than the "gut shoot em all" rhetoric. Might work out for us better.
You are also very correct that we need to be more constructive and lose the poaching/gut shooting attitude. Its illegal and unethical and while it might make for entertaining campfire talk it has no place in the public forum. Sadly, many who participate in the wolf threads are playing checkers while the anti's are playing chess.
If you keep up your rationale, level-headed thought process regarding the best path for wolf management in Washington you can expect to be constantly attacked and accused of all kinds of things...if you are a hunter you should establish yourself as such quickly...or you will be labeled an imposter and likely banned.
Post by: GameHunter1959 on June 19, 2014, 10:33:10 PM
The mods are watching... :chuckle:
Post by: Landowner on June 19, 2014, 10:35:02 PM
That's all.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 19, 2014, 10:35:52 PM
While you're all talking about it an SSS'r is managing a wolf.Sadly, you may be correct. Certainly you would agree that poachers are scumbags who should be subject to prosecution though?? I really hope you don't condone poaching wildlife.
So continue to talk about it until you're blue and in the end the SSS'r will be the only one in the woods actually doing something about it.
:twocents:
Post by: ICEMAN on June 19, 2014, 10:56:31 PM
Most hunters are convinced that non native wolves introduced and allowed to roam our wild areas benefit only the giddy joy that city loving metrovironmentalist experience wet dreams over; wolves howling in the distance, and hunters losing opportunity. The wolf is their tool. They don't hunt, they don't want you to hunt. Show me the average wolf enthusiast who kills their own meat. You are amazed that hunters would secretly cheer over a wolf shot down?
wild·life
/ˈwīldˌlīf/ noun
1.wild animals collectively; the native fauna (and sometimes flora) of a region.
Post by: bearpaw on June 19, 2014, 11:01:19 PM
I'll probably get bum rushed here but are there any hunters out there that welcome the recovery of Washington wolves?I find it best to focus on current and future management...not so much on "should they be here", or "isn't it neat they are here" etc.
Gonna be rough while a balance is achieved and I'm no biologist but I like my wilderness as wild as possible. Isn't that what makes alaska awesome?
It's the wilderness, not a game farm, anyone else have this perspective?
With all this talk about gut shooting every wolf you see it seems strange coming from a group that shares the same background as me.
I accept that wolves have returned, they need managed, and like all other wildlife (including predators) hunters need to demonstrate that we can play an important role in conserving/managing them. Any hunter who speaks publicly of SSS, gut shooting, or poaching wolves is being counterproductive to their de-listing and proper management in the future...whether hunters "welcome" recovery or loathe the idea that wolves are in Washington we should be able to agree on those facts. :twocents:
Agreed. I think a lot of the apparent blind hate for wolves just motivates the anti hunters that much more. We need to show constructive criticism and solutions rather than the "gut shoot em all" rhetoric. Might work out for us better.
I think WDFW created most of this problem. They rarely used any input from hunters/ranchers and forced a wolf plan on WA with 50% higher wolf numbers than other states and then told everyone in NE that we are stuck until there are wolves in the whole state, don't matter what the impact, they will have to study it before any action will be taken. Seems like they brought this attitude about themselves.
Post by: wildweeds on June 19, 2014, 11:02:34 PM
I'll probably get bum rushed here but are there any hunters out there that welcome the recovery of Washington wolves?
Gonna be rough while a balance is achieved and I'm no biologist but I like my wilderness as wild as possible. Isn't that what makes alaska awesome?
It's the wilderness, not a game farm, anyone else have this perspective?
With all this talk about gut shooting every wolf you see it seems strange coming from a group that shares the same background as me.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 19, 2014, 11:25:09 PM
idaho, you know better.I don't care what people do secretly...but publicly, no hunter should condone any poaching.
Most hunters are convinced that non native wolves introduced and allowed to roam our wild areas benefit only the giddy joy that city loving metrovironmentalist experience wet dreams over; wolves howling in the distance, and hunters losing opportunity. The wolf is their tool. They don't hunt, they don't want you to hunt. Show me the average wolf enthusiast who kills their own meat. You are amazed that hunters would secretly cheer over a wolf shot down?
wild·life
/ˈwīldˌlīf/ noun
1.wild animals collectively; the native fauna (and sometimes flora) of a region.
I find this thread very interesting...folks really like to bash wdfw, wolves etc...but we had Bob Ferris, Executive Director of the environmental group leading the petition to effectively end lethal removal of wolves as a tool in cases of depredation (and you can darn well bet if they succeed in not allowing lethal take for depredation, there is 0 chance there will EVER be any hunting of wolves or lethal take if elk numbers decline because of wolves!) over on one of the hoof rot threads doing a little tap dance...and I was practically the only person really taking him to task over his absurd petition. :bash: :bash: Those of you who think I am some pro-wolfer...why don't you go look at some of what I asked Mr. Ferris to respond to regarding his wolf petition. http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,154835.125.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,154835.125.html) better yet...maybe ask ol' Bob if he could explain under what circumstances we should expect his group to support lethal wolf removal in the future.
Post by: bearpaw on June 20, 2014, 05:50:39 AM
idaho, you know better.I don't care what people do secretly...but publicly, no hunter should condone any poaching.
Most hunters are convinced that non native wolves introduced and allowed to roam our wild areas benefit only the giddy joy that city loving metrovironmentalist experience wet dreams over; wolves howling in the distance, and hunters losing opportunity. The wolf is their tool. They don't hunt, they don't want you to hunt. Show me the average wolf enthusiast who kills their own meat. You are amazed that hunters would secretly cheer over a wolf shot down?
wild·life
/ˈwīldˌlīf/ noun
1.wild animals collectively; the native fauna (and sometimes flora) of a region.
I find this thread very interesting...folks really like to bash wdfw, wolves etc...but we had Bob Ferris, Executive Director of the environmental group leading the petition to effectively end lethal removal of wolves as a tool in cases of depredation (and you can darn well bet if they succeed in not allowing lethal take for depredation, there is 0 chance there will EVER be any hunting of wolves or lethal take if elk numbers decline because of wolves!) over on one of the hoof rot threads doing a little tap dance...and I was practically the only person really taking him to task over his absurd petition. :bash: :bash: Those of you who think I am some pro-wolfer...why don't you go look at some of what I asked Mr. Ferris to respond to regarding his wolf petition. http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,154835.125.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,154835.125.html) better yet...maybe ask ol' Bob if he could explain under what circumstances we should expect his group to support lethal wolf removal in the future.
All I did was state the facts, please show how I was not factual, it was WDFW that forced the wolf plan through, every option they offered provided for 15 bp's.... FACT
Post by: bearpaw on June 20, 2014, 06:05:27 AM
WDFW stood in front of the people of Stevens County and told us that even if herds declined it would take several years to study the problem, management would not happen right away. That is my biggest problem with WDFW in a nutshell. They really don't care what happens to the herds, especially in NE WA. One way or another they are going to get their 15 BP's, no matter at what expense.
Post by: grundy53 on June 20, 2014, 06:19:42 AM
sent from my typewriter
Post by: grundy53 on June 20, 2014, 06:21:45 AM
I definitely don't trust Bob Ferris and have called him out on that thread. I also said I was against working with his group.idaho, you know better.I don't care what people do secretly...but publicly, no hunter should condone any poaching.
Most hunters are convinced that non native wolves introduced and allowed to roam our wild areas benefit only the giddy joy that city loving metrovironmentalist experience wet dreams over; wolves howling in the distance, and hunters losing opportunity. The wolf is their tool. They don't hunt, they don't want you to hunt. Show me the average wolf enthusiast who kills their own meat. You are amazed that hunters would secretly cheer over a wolf shot down?
wild·life
/ˈwīldˌlīf/ noun
1.wild animals collectively; the native fauna (and sometimes flora) of a region.
I find this thread very interesting...folks really like to bash wdfw, wolves etc...but we had Bob Ferris, Executive Director of the environmental group leading the petition to effectively end lethal removal of wolves as a tool in cases of depredation (and you can darn well bet if they succeed in not allowing lethal take for depredation, there is 0 chance there will EVER be any hunting of wolves or lethal take if elk numbers decline because of wolves!) over on one of the hoof rot threads doing a little tap dance...and I was practically the only person really taking him to task over his absurd petition. :bash: :bash: Those of you who think I am some pro-wolfer...why don't you go look at some of what I asked Mr. Ferris to respond to regarding his wolf petition. http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,154835.125.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,154835.125.html) better yet...maybe ask ol' Bob if he could explain under what circumstances we should expect his group to support lethal wolf removal in the future.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: Special T on June 20, 2014, 06:42:28 AM
“the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Sun Tsu
Post by: AspenBud on June 20, 2014, 07:23:04 AM
I'll probably get bum rushed here but are there any hunters out there that welcome the recovery of Washington wolves?
Gonna be rough while a balance is achieved and I'm no biologist but I like my wilderness as wild as possible. Isn't that what makes alaska awesome?
It's the wilderness, not a game farm, anyone else have this perspective?
With all this talk about gut shooting every wolf you see it seems strange coming from a group that shares the same background as me.
If I'm out grouse hunting and my bird dog gets run down and killed by one or more wolves how welcome do you think I'll see them? I don't even legally have the option to defend my dog without a lot of hassle.
Bearpaw is right, a lot of the resentment has been brought on by Federal and WDFW rules that leave people helpless to do anything when a bad situation arises. The lake states have griped about that for a lot longer than Washington and it's one reason they opened seasons on them. All of the restrictions were actually hurting wolves.
Post by: KFhunter on June 20, 2014, 09:45:37 AM
While you're all talking about it an SSS'r is managing a wolf.Sadly, you may be correct. Certainly you would agree that poachers are scumbags who should be subject to prosecution though?? I really hope you don't condone poaching wildlife.
So continue to talk about it until you're blue and in the end the SSS'r will be the only one in the woods actually doing something about it.
:twocents:
Poachers are scumbags unless they're poaching wolves, then they're DIY wildlife managers. :chuckle:
I've come to the conclusion that WA is a wolf sanctuary state and legal means of management will be .nil
DIY wildlife management is the only option left on the table. This is what angers me; that otherwise law abiding hunters will be reduced to poaching, folks who'd never dream of taking any other animal out of season, folks who stop fishing when they reach their limit, folks who make sure to use a single barbless hook in a selective gear rules area, folks who have six copies of the fish and game regulations scattered through their house and hunting rigs, folks who wouldn't even shoot a grouse from the highway....I know plenty of folks like that, but if they see a wolf they're going to take a shot at it, if they see one on the highway they're going to swerve to hit it, not miss it.
Post by: AspenBud on June 20, 2014, 10:14:32 AM
While you're all talking about it an SSS'r is managing a wolf.Sadly, you may be correct. Certainly you would agree that poachers are scumbags who should be subject to prosecution though?? I really hope you don't condone poaching wildlife.
So continue to talk about it until you're blue and in the end the SSS'r will be the only one in the woods actually doing something about it.
:twocents:
Poachers are scumbags unless they're poaching wolves, then they're DIY wildlife managers.
I've come to the conclusion that WA is a wolf sanctuary state and legal means of management will be .nil
DIY wildlife management is the only option left on the table. This is what angers me; that otherwise law abiding hunters will be reduced to poaching, folks who'd never dream of taking any other animal out of season, folks who stop fishing when they reach their limit, folks who make sure to use a single barbless hook in a selective gear rules area, folks who have six copies of the fish and game regulations scattered through their house and hunting rigs, folks who wouldn't even shoot a grouse from the highway....I know plenty of folks like that, but if they see a wolf they're going to take a shot at it, if they see one on the highway they're going to swerve to hit it, not miss it.
I don't think it's unfair to say that a lot of those people were planning on doing that from day one, management or not. I know more than a couple of guys here west of the mountains who have said if they ever see a wolf it's dying and the body will take a trip down the river. A lot of it is driven by fear and essentially they just don't want the dogs here, period. It's why I don't really buy into the "you're forcing us to poach" argument. People were going to poach them no matter, the lack of management is just often used as a red herring to justify it. The state's management policies, or lack of it, just magnified that inevitable fact as it built more resentment to their presence than was already there.
Post by: jasnt on June 20, 2014, 10:14:51 AM
I'll probably get bum rushed here but are there any hunters out there that welcome the recovery of Washington wolves?I find it best to focus on current and future management...not so much on "should they be here", or "isn't it neat they are here" etc.
Gonna be rough while a balance is achieved and I'm no biologist but I like my wilderness as wild as possible. Isn't that what makes alaska awesome?
It's the wilderness, not a game farm, anyone else have this perspective?
With all this talk about gut shooting every wolf you see it seems strange coming from a group that shares the same background as me.
I accept that wolves have returned, they need managed, and like all other wildlife (including predators) hunters need to demonstrate that we can play an important role in conserving/managing them. Any hunter who speaks publicly of SSS, gut shooting, or poaching wolves is being counterproductive to their de-listing and proper management in the future...whether hunters "welcome" recovery or loathe the idea that wolves are in Washington we should be able to agree on those facts. :twocents:
Agreed. I think a lot of the apparent blind hate for wolves just motivates the anti hunters that much more. We need to show constructive criticism and solutions rather than the "gut shoot em all" rhetoric. Might work out for us better.
I think WDFW created most of this problem. They rarely used any input from hunters/ranchers and forced a wolf plan on WA with 50% higher wolf numbers than other states and then told everyone in NE that we are stuck until there are wolves in the whole state, don't matter what the impact, they will have to study it before any action will be taken. Seems like they brought this attitude about themselves.
This is exactly how I feel
Post by: idahohuntr on June 20, 2014, 10:15:34 AM
Nope. A poacher is a poacher. Just because you follow all the other rules does not entitle you to poach wildlife. As frustrating as it may be, we have laws in this country for a reason. If you don't like them, then work to change them. Poaching wolves simply ramps up the rhetoric for the anti's...I hope any wolf poachers at this fragile point in wolf management get the book thrown at them...take their guns, truck, make them serve jail time and invoke a lifetime hunting license ban :tup:While you're all talking about it an SSS'r is managing a wolf.Sadly, you may be correct. Certainly you would agree that poachers are scumbags who should be subject to prosecution though?? I really hope you don't condone poaching wildlife.
So continue to talk about it until you're blue and in the end the SSS'r will be the only one in the woods actually doing something about it.
:twocents:
Poachers are scumbags unless they're poaching wolves, then they're DIY wildlife managers.
I've come to the conclusion that WA is a wolf sanctuary state and legal means of management will be .nil
DIY wildlife management is the only option left on the table. This is what angers me; that otherwise law abiding hunters will be reduced to poaching, folks who'd never dream of taking any other animal out of season, folks who stop fishing when they reach their limit, folks who make sure to use a single barbless hook in a selective gear rules area, folks who have six copies of the fish and game regulations scattered through their house and hunting rigs, folks who wouldn't even shoot a grouse from the highway....I know plenty of folks like that, but if they see a wolf they're going to take a shot at it, if they see one on the highway they're going to swerve to hit it, not miss it.
Post by: jasnt on June 20, 2014, 11:44:19 AM
Post by: GameHunter1959 on June 21, 2014, 02:05:45 AM
Post by: wolfbait on June 21, 2014, 11:47:15 AM
While you're all talking about it an SSS'r is managing a wolf.Sadly, you may be correct. Certainly you would agree that poachers are scumbags who should be subject to prosecution though?? I really hope you don't condone poaching wildlife.
So continue to talk about it until you're blue and in the end the SSS'r will be the only one in the woods actually doing something about it.
:twocents:
Poachers are scumbags unless they're poaching wolves, then they're DIY wildlife managers.
I've come to the conclusion that WA is a wolf sanctuary state and legal means of management will be .nil
DIY wildlife management is the only option left on the table. This is what angers me; that otherwise law abiding hunters will be reduced to poaching, folks who'd never dream of taking any other animal out of season, folks who stop fishing when they reach their limit, folks who make sure to use a single barbless hook in a selective gear rules area, folks who have six copies of the fish and game regulations scattered through their house and hunting rigs, folks who wouldn't even shoot a grouse from the highway....I know plenty of folks like that, but if they see a wolf they're going to take a shot at it, if they see one on the highway they're going to swerve to hit it, not miss it.
IMO WDFW is just another money grubbing environmental group, the only difference is hunters pay WDFW for doing a crappy job, look at their past/present history. WDFW refuse to manage predators that are not endangered, refuse to confirm wolf predation on livestock unless forced to do so, forcing ranchers to break laws in order to protect their livestock. WDFW fail to acknowledge the impact wolves are having on the game herds, refuse to confirm wolf packs, all because WDFW has turned into just another environmental group. We have now watched for six years as WDFW pretend to manage WA's wildlife.
Just like Ed Bang's and the USFWS, WDFW released wolves in several different parts of WA and then and still today pretend there are no wolves in those areas that people report. The same techniques the USFWS used to flood ID, MT and WY with wolves are being use by WDFW, the only difference is the terminology, migrating wolves have replaced wolf introduction, wolf releases.
KFHunter is correct the only wolf management will come from the public, which unfortunately has already been proven in Idaho does not work, just not enough people in the woods shooting.
Jasnt has a good idea also, but as we recently seen with the wolves in McFarland CR, WDFW will just go ahead with whatever lie fits their agenda, the wolf/wolves are part of the lookout pack etc..
WDFW is going to manage WA right out of hunting.
Post by: KFhunter on June 21, 2014, 12:24:11 PM
Nope. A poacher is a poacher. Just because you follow all the other rules does not entitle you to poach wildlife. As frustrating as it may be, we have laws in this country for a reason. If you don't like them, then work to change them. Poaching wolves simply ramps up the rhetoric for the anti's...I hope any wolf poachers at this fragile point in wolf management get the book thrown at them...take their guns, truck, make them serve jail time and invoke a lifetime hunting license ban :tup:While you're all talking about it an SSS'r is managing a wolf.Sadly, you may be correct. Certainly you would agree that poachers are scumbags who should be subject to prosecution though?? I really hope you don't condone poaching wildlife.
So continue to talk about it until you're blue and in the end the SSS'r will be the only one in the woods actually doing something about it.
:twocents:
Poachers are scumbags unless they're poaching wolves, then they're DIY wildlife managers.
I've come to the conclusion that WA is a wolf sanctuary state and legal means of management will be .nil
DIY wildlife management is the only option left on the table. This is what angers me; that otherwise law abiding hunters will be reduced to poaching, folks who'd never dream of taking any other animal out of season, folks who stop fishing when they reach their limit, folks who make sure to use a single barbless hook in a selective gear rules area, folks who have six copies of the fish and game regulations scattered through their house and hunting rigs, folks who wouldn't even shoot a grouse from the highway....I know plenty of folks like that, but if they see a wolf they're going to take a shot at it, if they see one on the highway they're going to swerve to hit it, not miss it.
Don't personalize this to mean me, not sure if that's your intent when you use the word "You"; I'm guilty of that doing that myself but I need to distance myself from this meaning me personally.
I don't advocate poaching at all in any form, even wolves.
I also disagree that the wolf recovery is "fragile" at this point, and I'll take the word of WDFW for that over yours.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/faq.html#12 (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/faq.html#12)
Quote
Is WDFW concerned that killing wolves will set back the statewide recovery effort?
No.Wolves are very adaptable animals that can thrive in a variety of habitats so long as they have adequate food and are not exterminated through indiscriminant killing. Thousands of wolves have been killed in the Rocky Mountain states in recent decades, yet the species continues to recover in that region.
A model developed by Washington State University in conjunction with the authors of Washington’s wolf plan found that removing wolves pose a very low risk to the statewide recovery objectives once population levels reach numbers currently documented in the eastern Washington recovery region. The real danger to recovery is if people lose confidence in WDFW’s ability to manage wolves and take matters into their own hands.
WDFW's Q&A statement I quoted above is very conflicting, I believe they just threw in the part about "indiscriminate" killing to thwart poaching - It's hogwash. No amount of poaching is going to hamper the wolf recovery effort. As proven in Idaho, there just isn't enough poaching to be had even when the state government green lights it. WA will be less effective than WA in this regard.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 21, 2014, 04:51:03 PM
On the comments I made regarding the "fragile point in wolf management"...as I have consistently noted time and again, it is not biological fragility that I am talking about...I have no doubt gray wolves are well beyond recovered in the Northern Rocky Mountain states and will continue to expand in Washington. I am speaking about the much more fragile point in WOLF MANAGEMENT...as in the people side of things...the de-listing, lethal/harvest potential, etc...we are still at a very fragile point since they are listed on the state ESA in E. Wa. We need to show folks who are less educated that wdfw and hunters can conserve and manage wolves just like all the other wildlife in this state. How things play out in the next 5-10 years will be critical to setting the stage for wolf management in Washington for decades to come...thats what I mean by fragile.
The last sentence in that Q&A you posted is very intriguing: The real danger to recovery is if people lose confidence in WDFW’s ability to manage wolves and take matters into their own hands.
I think what they actually mean is the real danger is to de-listing process, not biological recovery...meaning if people keep poaching wolves it makes it harder to de-list wolves...which will make it harder for wdfw to manage wolves. Something for all those "DIY wildlife managers" to think about :chuckle:
Post by: KFhunter on June 22, 2014, 12:00:30 AM
Not you "personally"...but when you called wolf poachers DIY wildlife managers you seemed to be suggesting they weren't poachers in some way. :dunno: A poacher is a poacher :tup:
yes, a poacher is a poacher is a poacher. I guess you don't want to see my point that an otherwise lawful person will turn to poaching for lack of faith in WDFW to manage wolves. The polls don't lie. I also think that the hunters that make up Hunting-Washington.com are far more lawful and ethical than the average hunter that don't even know about this website. What would the polls look like if you asked the average hunter out in the woods who doesn't belong to this site?
On the comments I made regarding the "fragile point in wolf management"...as I have consistently noted time and again, it is not biological fragility that I am talking about...I have no doubt gray wolves are well beyond recovered in the Northern Rocky Mountain states and will continue to expand in Washington.
At least you agree there is a bunch of wolves and they're in no danger of going away any time soon.
I am speaking about the much more fragile point in WOLF MANAGEMENT...as in the people side of things...the de-listing, lethal/harvest potential, etc...we are still at a very fragile point since they are listed on the state ESA in E. Wa.
The bureaucracy is fragile, not the species. Seriously is that your argument? Weak position to be in, as there is no science in bureaucracy, only money and power. E.WA don't give a crap about what Olympia wants.
We need to show folks who are less educated that wdfw
ya, we're all knuckle draggers :rolleyes:
and hunters can conserve and manage wolves just like all the other wildlife in this state. How things play out in the next 5-10 years will be critical to setting the stage for wolf management in Washington for decades to come...thats what I mean by fragile.
blah blah - WDFW is never going to win the hearts and minds of E.WA - especially with all the shenanigans they've pulled and continue to pull. THAT's the fragle part isn't it, trying to get folks to tolerate wolves. Ain't gonna happen buddy, WDFW lost that one. You can thank them.
The last sentence in that Q&A you posted is very intriguing: The real danger to recovery is if people lose confidence in WDFW’s ability to manage wolves and take matters into their own hands.
I think what they actually mean is the real danger is to de-listing process, not biological recovery...meaning if people keep poaching wolves it makes it harder to de-list wolves...which will make it harder for wdfw to manage wolves. Something for all those "DIY wildlife managers" to think about :chuckle:
The lynch pin to the wolf recovery is tolerance, that's the fragile part in which they speak and you as well. We all know this it's no secret. I submit that WDFW has lost this battle before it even began; they lost it in the wolf meetings when they were condescending and haughty, they lost it when they wouldn't verify wolf kills, they continue to loose it every day.
Post by: AspenBud on June 22, 2014, 07:07:35 AM
Not you "personally"...but when you called wolf poachers DIY wildlife managers you seemed to be suggesting they weren't poachers in some way. :dunno: A poacher is a poacher :tup:
yes, a poacher is a poacher is a poacher. I guess you don't want to see my point that an otherwise lawful person will turn to poaching for lack of faith in WDFW to manage wolves. The polls don't lie. I also think that the hunters that make up Hunting-Washington.com are far more lawful and ethical than the average hunter that don't even know about this website. What would the polls look like if you asked the average hunter out in the woods who doesn't belong to this site?
On the comments I made regarding the "fragile point in wolf management"...as I have consistently noted time and again, it is not biological fragility that I am talking about...I have no doubt gray wolves are well beyond recovered in the Northern Rocky Mountain states and will continue to expand in Washington.
At least you agree there is a bunch of wolves and they're in no danger of going away any time soon.
I am speaking about the much more fragile point in WOLF MANAGEMENT...as in the people side of things...the de-listing, lethal/harvest potential, etc...we are still at a very fragile point since they are listed on the state ESA in E. Wa.
The bureaucracy is fragile, not the species. Seriously is that your argument? Weak position to be in, as there is no science in bureaucracy, only money and power. E.WA don't give a crap about what Olympia wants.
We need to show folks who are less educated that wdfw
ya, we're all knuckle draggers :rolleyes:
and hunters can conserve and manage wolves just like all the other wildlife in this state. How things play out in the next 5-10 years will be critical to setting the stage for wolf management in Washington for decades to come...thats what I mean by fragile.
blah blah - WDFW is never going to win the hearts and minds of E.WA - especially with all the shenanigans they've pulled and continue to pull. THAT's the fragle part isn't it, trying to get folks to tolerate wolves. Ain't gonna happen buddy, WDFW lost that one. You can thank them.
The last sentence in that Q&A you posted is very intriguing: The real danger to recovery is if people lose confidence in WDFW’s ability to manage wolves and take matters into their own hands.
I think what they actually mean is the real danger is to de-listing process, not biological recovery...meaning if people keep poaching wolves it makes it harder to de-list wolves...which will make it harder for wdfw to manage wolves. Something for all those "DIY wildlife managers" to think about :chuckle:
The lynch pin to the wolf recovery is tolerance, that's the fragile part in which they speak and you as well. We all know this it's no secret. I submit that WDFW has lost this battle before it even began; they lost it in the wolf meetings when they were condescending and haughty, they lost it when they wouldn't verify wolf kills, they continue to loose it every day.
I think they knew it was lost from the beginning. There were many who wanted wolves shot on sight right from the start, before a single wolf set foot here, and there was no reasoning with them. I suspect that if they come across as haughty and condescending it's because they know the tune isn't going to change because it was playing before wolves got here.
Post by: KFhunter on June 22, 2014, 10:28:41 AM
We're pro-management, we can argue on the quantity that's viable for WA; but we're all pro-wolf in that regard. I've never said kill em all, I've always said maintain them and keep numbers low - especially in low herd Elk density areas like the NE. Even before the wolf I was calling for restricted Elk hunting in the NE and herd building, so when the wolf came I was even more frustrated for the Elk.
You and Idahohntr should be railing for management and calling for special means for managing wolves before the whole state turns into anti-wolfers.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on June 22, 2014, 11:09:34 AM
I think a lot of the apparent blind hate for wolves just motivates the anti hunters that much more. We need to show constructive criticism and solutions rather than the "gut shoot em all" rhetoric. Might work out for us better.
Let me get this straight.
You feel that anti hunters are motivated by the hate that hunters may have for wolves.
You feel that we will win over the anti hunters by showing constructive criticism and "solutions".
What are you smoking? If you were a hunter, you would probably know by now that "anti hunters" are just that....anti hunters. They could care less what we think, it is what we do that bothers them.
Will they hate us less if we adopt their mindset? Yes. Yes they would like us more if we stopped killing all their forest friends and eating them.
Are you a hunter? Have you shared your thoughts on this topic before?
What big mouthed SSSers will do is give anti hunters ammunition to denigrate all hunters and marginalize us when it comes to management and influence.
Something like "See, those hunting fools just want to illegally kill anything they can" They are nothing but a bunch of criminal, poaching, bloodthirsty, animals and their opinion means nothing". "We don't need to include them in any management solutions because they don't want reasonable management."
Post by: washelkhunter on June 22, 2014, 11:29:27 AM
Post by: cougarbart on June 22, 2014, 11:30:29 AM
Post by: h2ofowlr on June 22, 2014, 11:38:36 AM
Gonna be rough while a balance is achieved and I'm no biologist but I like my wilderness as wild as possible. Isn't that what makes alaska awesome?
I think I see your point,but having a balance with wolves here in the western states is really not going to happen with so much livestock and people.
Alaska is more wild and can handle a balance of wolves.
Alaska allows everyone to hunt them and also does arieal control of them. Probably easier to see especial on tundra areas. It will be difficult to hunt here with thick vegetation. They will become a huge issue before this is over.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on June 22, 2014, 11:39:54 AM
Post by: washelkhunter on June 22, 2014, 11:53:05 AM
Post by: singleshot12 on June 22, 2014, 12:06:39 PM
Sometimes i really do believe the master plan is to phase out hunting here in Washington state. Too many animal rights groups with more money than us have become way too powerful and politically involved.
Post by: KFhunter on June 22, 2014, 12:23:46 PM
I think a lot of the apparent blind hate for wolves just motivates the anti hunters that much more. We need to show constructive criticism and solutions rather than the "gut shoot em all" rhetoric. Might work out for us better.
Let me get this straight.
You feel that anti hunters are motivated by the hate that hunters may have for wolves.
You feel that we will win over the anti hunters by showing constructive criticism and "solutions".
What are you smoking? If you were a hunter, you would probably know by now that "anti hunters" are just that....anti hunters. They could care less what we think, it is what we do that bothers them.
Will they hate us less if we adopt their mindset? Yes. Yes they would like us more if we stopped killing all their forest friends and eating them.
Are you a hunter? Have you shared your thoughts on this topic before?
What big mouthed SSSers will do is give anti hunters ammunition to denigrate all hunters and marginalize us when it comes to management and influence.
Something like "See, those hunting fools just want to illegally kill anything they can" They are nothing but a bunch of criminal, poaching, bloodthirsty, animals and their opinion means nothing". "We don't need to include them in any management solutions because they don't want reasonable management."
That's a mute point, future management by WDFW isn't going to happen after the wedge wolf deal (they've stated as such) and there is no legal means for sportsmen/women to do it.
SSS is the only avenue left.
Post by: GameHunter1959 on June 22, 2014, 04:44:36 PM
Post by: clockwork on June 22, 2014, 07:24:41 PM
Just wanted to test the waters about how people really felt because it seems to be the cool thing to spew the antiwolf rhetoric which, you gotta admit can get out of hand. Fear of wolf attacks, conspiracy theories, "Canadian greys" and so on. If a wolf attacks your dog, shoot it, if it attacks you, shoot it and then buy a lottery ticket cause it's next to unheard of.
Like the thread about the bowhunter who thought he heard wolves and stayed in the treestand. Seems like a risk you take when you go in the woods to me.
Post by: wolfbait on June 22, 2014, 08:58:18 PM
IMO- It wouldn't matter what the WSDFW does in regards to the whole wolf issue. Either way it wouldn't be good enough for anyone that is already second guessing every decision they make. They will never change the minds of those, who already have it out for them.
I think most people would be happy if WDFW started doing the job they are suppose to do. The people I have talk with want wolves managed.
What do you think makes anti-wolf people, or as you say people who have it in for WDFW? WDFW dumping wolves on rural folks and then lying about it? Wolves attacking rural landowners dogs? Refusing to confirm livestock killed by wolves, when everyone involved knows damn well it was wolves? Refusing to acknowledge wolf sightings when the same people have reported them time and again? WDFW refusing to confirm known wolf packs? Rural people watch as wolves slaughter the deer, and WDFW refuse to acknowledge the impact uncontrolled predators/wolves are having on the deer herds. WDFW running to the news papers and baldfaced lying to the people of WA?
So far WDFW have not been honest with the people of WA where wolves are concerned, they have messed their own sheets, and now they will just have to lie in it till they gain peoples trust again. Do you see that happening any time soon?
Post by: GameHunter1959 on June 22, 2014, 09:31:44 PM
IMO- It wouldn't matter what the WSDFW does in regards to the whole wolf issue. Either way it wouldn't be good enough for anyone that is already second guessing every decision they make. They will never change the minds of those, who already have it out for them.
I think most people would be happy if WDFW started doing the job they are suppose to do. The people I have talk with want wolves managed.
What do you think makes anti-wolf people, or as you say people who have it in for WDFW? WDFW dumping wolves on rural folks and then lying about it? Wolves attacking rural landowners dogs? Refusing to confirm livestock killed by wolves, when everyone involved knows damn well it was wolves? Refusing to acknowledge wolf sightings when the same people have reported them time and again? WDFW refusing to confirm known wolf packs? Rural people watch as wolves slaughter the deer, and WDFW refuse to acknowledge the impact uncontrolled predators/wolves are having on the deer herds. WDFW running to the news papers and baldfaced lying to the people of WA?
So far WDFW have not been honest with the people of WA where wolves are concerned, they have messed their own sheets, and now they will just have to lie in it till they gain peoples trust again. Do you see that happening any time soon?
Have a good night
Post by: idahohuntr on June 22, 2014, 09:38:38 PM
Good responses in this thread. I am a hunter. I hunt coyotes, deer, bear, upland, waterfowl etc and would hunt wolves too if they had a stable populations and season (yeah I know a lot of people think they're overpopulated already).Looks like you've got it figured out. The anti-wolf stuff often gets ridiculous...usually from the same small crowd who don't take the time to understand how wolves have to be managed in this state or how wolf management has worked in other states.
Just wanted to test the waters about how people really felt because it seems to be the cool thing to spew the antiwolf rhetoric which, you gotta admit can get out of hand. Fear of wolf attacks, conspiracy theories, "Canadian greys" and so on. If a wolf attacks your dog, shoot it, if it attacks you, shoot it and then buy a lottery ticket cause it's next to unheard of.
Like the thread about the bowhunter who thought he heard wolves and stayed in the treestand. Seems like a risk you take when you go in the woods to me.
Post by: bearpaw on June 23, 2014, 07:55:10 AM
Good responses in this thread. I am a hunter. I hunt coyotes, deer, bear, upland, waterfowl etc and would hunt wolves too if they had a stable populations and season (yeah I know a lot of people think they're overpopulated already).Looks like you've got it figured out. The anti-wolf stuff often gets ridiculous...usually from the same small crowd who don't take the time to understand how wolves have to be managed in this state or how wolf management has worked in other states.
Just wanted to test the waters about how people really felt because it seems to be the cool thing to spew the antiwolf rhetoric which, you gotta admit can get out of hand. Fear of wolf attacks, conspiracy theories, "Canadian greys" and so on. If a wolf attacks your dog, shoot it, if it attacks you, shoot it and then buy a lottery ticket cause it's next to unheard of.
Like the thread about the bowhunter who thought he heard wolves and stayed in the treestand. Seems like a risk you take when you go in the woods to me.
You need to quit calling everyone who doesn't want unmanaged wolf numbers the "anti-wolf crowd". I've heard so much whining from you and others about being referenced as "wolf lovers" I would have thought you would catch on by now how hypocritical you are being by continuing to call everyone names who opposes the current state of "un-management". Just because many of us want wolves managed does not mean we want wolves wiped off the face of the earth. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on June 23, 2014, 07:57:11 AM
Post by: RG on June 23, 2014, 08:18:14 AM
I'll probably get bum rushed here but are there any hunters out there that welcome the recovery of Washington wolves?
Gonna be rough while a balance is achieved and I'm no biologist but I like my wilderness as wild as possible. Isn't that what makes alaska awesome?
It's the wilderness, not a game farm, anyone else have this perspective?
With all this talk about gut shooting every wolf you see it seems strange coming from a group that shares the same background as me.
Clearly you have never lived or made your living in ranch country or wild country. I'm going to have to say you're wrong about sharing the same background as me at least.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 23, 2014, 09:32:24 AM
Bearpaw, with all due respect you are off base here. I am not calling everyone anti-wolf, not you, and in fact I don't even know where all of this whining about name calling has been coming from. Like you, I have corrected people who have called me "pro-wolf"...but I get called lots of things and I really don't care...I do set the record straight when people try to discredit me by suggesting I'm not a hunter...I can't remember if you were part of that bandwagon a while back or not...its a mute point now though.Good responses in this thread. I am a hunter. I hunt coyotes, deer, bear, upland, waterfowl etc and would hunt wolves too if they had a stable populations and season (yeah I know a lot of people think they're overpopulated already).Looks like you've got it figured out. The anti-wolf stuff often gets ridiculous...usually from the same small crowd who don't take the time to understand how wolves have to be managed in this state or how wolf management has worked in other states.
Just wanted to test the waters about how people really felt because it seems to be the cool thing to spew the antiwolf rhetoric which, you gotta admit can get out of hand. Fear of wolf attacks, conspiracy theories, "Canadian greys" and so on. If a wolf attacks your dog, shoot it, if it attacks you, shoot it and then buy a lottery ticket cause it's next to unheard of.
Like the thread about the bowhunter who thought he heard wolves and stayed in the treestand. Seems like a risk you take when you go in the woods to me.
You need to quit calling everyone who doesn't want unmanaged wolf numbers the "anti-wolf crowd". I've heard so much whining from you and others about being referenced as "wolf lovers" I would have thought you would catch on by now how hypocritical you are being by continuing to call everyone names who opposes the current state of "un-management". Just because many of us want wolves managed does not mean we want wolves wiped off the face of the earth. :twocents:
What I said was very true, the anti-wolf stuff often gets ridiculous...the conspiracies, the intricate felonies being committed by WDFW etc...it is nothing short of ridiculous and it is damaging to future wolf management efforts. I call a spade a spade...some people don't like that. Maybe you should wander over to the hoof rot turned wolf debate thread...see what I had to say to Bob Ferris, Executive Director of Cascadia Wildlands regarding their petition to basically eliminate lethal options for wolf control...then maybe you can see that I am fair in my calling out of ridiculousness...it is absolutely just as ridiculous for a group to demand no lethal wolf control as it is to suggest wdfw is engaged in felony conspiracies to plant wolves around the state...again, in these controversial and complex management problems I see no problem with calling out the ridiculous stuff. Frankly, I bet the folks who post some of the more absurd things about wolves probably prefer the "anti-wolf" identity.
Post by: bearpaw on June 23, 2014, 10:01:26 AM
Bearpaw, with all due respect you are off base here. I am not calling everyone anti-wolf, not you, and in fact I don't even know where all of this whining about name calling has been coming from. Like you, I have corrected people who have called me "pro-wolf"...but I get called lots of things and I really don't care...I do set the record straight when people try to discredit me by suggesting I'm not a hunter...I can't remember if you were part of that bandwagon a while back or not...its a mute point now though.Good responses in this thread. I am a hunter. I hunt coyotes, deer, bear, upland, waterfowl etc and would hunt wolves too if they had a stable populations and season (yeah I know a lot of people think they're overpopulated already).Looks like you've got it figured out. The anti-wolf stuff often gets ridiculous...usually from the same small crowd who don't take the time to understand how wolves have to be managed in this state or how wolf management has worked in other states.
Just wanted to test the waters about how people really felt because it seems to be the cool thing to spew the antiwolf rhetoric which, you gotta admit can get out of hand. Fear of wolf attacks, conspiracy theories, "Canadian greys" and so on. If a wolf attacks your dog, shoot it, if it attacks you, shoot it and then buy a lottery ticket cause it's next to unheard of.
Like the thread about the bowhunter who thought he heard wolves and stayed in the treestand. Seems like a risk you take when you go in the woods to me.
You need to quit calling everyone who doesn't want unmanaged wolf numbers the "anti-wolf crowd". I've heard so much whining from you and others about being referenced as "wolf lovers" I would have thought you would catch on by now how hypocritical you are being by continuing to call everyone names who opposes the current state of "un-management". Just because many of us want wolves managed does not mean we want wolves wiped off the face of the earth. :twocents:
What I said was very true, the anti-wolf stuff often gets ridiculous...the conspiracies, the intricate felonies being committed by WDFW etc...it is nothing short of ridiculous and it is damaging to future wolf management efforts. I call a spade a spade...some people don't like that. Maybe you should wander over to the hoof rot turned wolf debate thread...see what I had to say to Bob Ferris, Executive Director of Cascadia Wildlands regarding their petition to basically eliminate lethal options for wolf control...then maybe you can see that I am fair in my calling out of ridiculousness...it is absolutely just as ridiculous for a group to demand no lethal wolf control as it is to suggest wdfw is engaged in felony conspiracies to plant wolves around the state...again, in these controversial and complex management problems I see no problem with calling out the ridiculous stuff. Frankly, I bet the folks who post some of the more absurd things about wolves probably prefer the "anti-wolf" identity.
Perhaps you have not been one of the specific members to complain about "wolf lover". But, I don't think I'm off base, I've heard complaining from numerous members about the term "wolf lover" which I have been guilty of using in the past. The complaint is that the term is used by the "anti-wolf crowd" to paint anyone who opposes them as "wolf lovers". I'm acknowledging that the term probably does cause a conversation to degenerate. So, I'm asking the ones who say they are the victims of name calling and insults to play by the same rules. I don't appreciate being referred to as anti-wolf when in fact I am "pro-management"!
I also disagree with the condescending remarks and attitudes displayed that seem to insinuate some members are more intelligent than others, these sort of insults do nothing to improve the quality of conversations. No, I am not off base, we all need to take the higher road and refrain from name calling, insults, ego's, and condescending attitudes. That includes you, myself, and many others who have participated in these wolf discussions and other polarizing topics.
Post by: bearpaw on June 23, 2014, 10:16:30 AM
IMO- It wouldn't matter what the WSDFW does in regards to the whole wolf issue. Either way it wouldn't be good enough for anyone that is already second guessing every decision they make. They will never change the minds of those, who already have it out for them.
I think you are painting with a very wide brush. The truth is that numerous members on this forum have written messages to WDFW thanking them for taking out the wedge pack. Numerous members of this forum have sent messages in support of numerous other actions taken by WDFW or in support of WDFW policies they agree with.
Many members simply do not rubberstamp everything that WDFW does, I see nothing wrong with opposing what you may consider to be poor decisions, policy, or management.
Post by: Gringo31 on June 23, 2014, 10:21:20 AM
Congrats to Clockwork for stirring the mud. Yes, he's definitely a troll and you guys think there is value discussing this with him. :bash:
Post by: idahohuntr on June 23, 2014, 10:55:55 AM
I completely agree on the personal nature of comments...I am as guilty of anyone as being sucked into sharper than necessary responses...I believe we should all focus on the problem, the ideas, the theories, the solutions etc...and way less on the actual people. I am dumbfounded at how many times people want to know who I am, who I work for etc in these controversial threads...don't focus on the people...focus on the problem. In that vein, I think it is still very reasonable to point out ridiculous ideas, solutions that simply won't work, statements that are not supported by any credible evidence etc. etc...focus on the issues, not the people. Thats why Im just not a big fan of these witch hunts that occassionaly happen to determine if someone is a hunter or not...it shouldn't matter if we are focused on the ideas being presented and not the people. :twocents:Bearpaw, with all due respect you are off base here. I am not calling everyone anti-wolf, not you, and in fact I don't even know where all of this whining about name calling has been coming from. Like you, I have corrected people who have called me "pro-wolf"...but I get called lots of things and I really don't care...I do set the record straight when people try to discredit me by suggesting I'm not a hunter...I can't remember if you were part of that bandwagon a while back or not...its a mute point now though.Good responses in this thread. I am a hunter. I hunt coyotes, deer, bear, upland, waterfowl etc and would hunt wolves too if they had a stable populations and season (yeah I know a lot of people think they're overpopulated already).Looks like you've got it figured out. The anti-wolf stuff often gets ridiculous...usually from the same small crowd who don't take the time to understand how wolves have to be managed in this state or how wolf management has worked in other states.
Just wanted to test the waters about how people really felt because it seems to be the cool thing to spew the antiwolf rhetoric which, you gotta admit can get out of hand. Fear of wolf attacks, conspiracy theories, "Canadian greys" and so on. If a wolf attacks your dog, shoot it, if it attacks you, shoot it and then buy a lottery ticket cause it's next to unheard of.
Like the thread about the bowhunter who thought he heard wolves and stayed in the treestand. Seems like a risk you take when you go in the woods to me.
You need to quit calling everyone who doesn't want unmanaged wolf numbers the "anti-wolf crowd". I've heard so much whining from you and others about being referenced as "wolf lovers" I would have thought you would catch on by now how hypocritical you are being by continuing to call everyone names who opposes the current state of "un-management". Just because many of us want wolves managed does not mean we want wolves wiped off the face of the earth. :twocents:
What I said was very true, the anti-wolf stuff often gets ridiculous...the conspiracies, the intricate felonies being committed by WDFW etc...it is nothing short of ridiculous and it is damaging to future wolf management efforts. I call a spade a spade...some people don't like that. Maybe you should wander over to the hoof rot turned wolf debate thread...see what I had to say to Bob Ferris, Executive Director of Cascadia Wildlands regarding their petition to basically eliminate lethal options for wolf control...then maybe you can see that I am fair in my calling out of ridiculousness...it is absolutely just as ridiculous for a group to demand no lethal wolf control as it is to suggest wdfw is engaged in felony conspiracies to plant wolves around the state...again, in these controversial and complex management problems I see no problem with calling out the ridiculous stuff. Frankly, I bet the folks who post some of the more absurd things about wolves probably prefer the "anti-wolf" identity.
Perhaps you have not been one of the specific members to complain about "wolf lover". But, I don't think I'm off base, I've heard complaining from numerous members about the term "wolf lover" which I have been guilty of using in the past. The complaint is that the term is used by the "anti-wolf crowd" to paint anyone who opposes them as "wolf lovers". I'm acknowledging that the term probably does cause a conversation to degenerate. So, I'm asking the ones who say they are the victims of name calling and insults to play by the same rules. I don't appreciate being referred to as anti-wolf when in fact I am "pro-management"!
I also disagree with the condescending remarks and attitudes displayed that seem to insinuate some members are more intelligent than others, these sort of insults do nothing to improve the quality of conversations. No, I am not off base, we all need to take the higher road and refrain from name calling, insults, ego's, and condescending attitudes. That includes you, myself, and many others who have participated in these wolf discussions and other polarizing topics.
I would also like to see this respect carried beyond just the members who post here...all of the wdfw bashing needs to be curbed. I have no problem with calling out specific issues/mismanagement whatever...all very necessary. But there is an awful lot of "broad brush" painting of WDFW staff and management that I find very unnecessary and not helpful. In fact, some folks call out specific wdfw staff who really can't defend themselves...its one thing to call out someone on here who can provide a rebuttal...I think its a little below the belt to attack wdfw staffers personally. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on June 23, 2014, 02:21:30 PM
I completely agree on the personal nature of comments...I am as guilty of anyone as being sucked into sharper than necessary responses...I believe we should all focus on the problem, the ideas, the theories, the solutions etc...and way less on the actual people. I am dumbfounded at how many times people want to know who I am, who I work for etc in these controversial threads...don't focus on the people...focus on the problem. In that vein, I think it is still very reasonable to point out ridiculous ideas, solutions that simply won't work, statements that are not supported by any credible evidence etc. etc...focus on the issues, not the people. Thats why Im just not a big fan of these witch hunts that occassionaly happen to determine if someone is a hunter or not...it shouldn't matter if we are focused on the ideas being presented and not the people. :twocents:Bearpaw, with all due respect you are off base here. I am not calling everyone anti-wolf, not you, and in fact I don't even know where all of this whining about name calling has been coming from. Like you, I have corrected people who have called me "pro-wolf"...but I get called lots of things and I really don't care...I do set the record straight when people try to discredit me by suggesting I'm not a hunter...I can't remember if you were part of that bandwagon a while back or not...its a mute point now though.Good responses in this thread. I am a hunter. I hunt coyotes, deer, bear, upland, waterfowl etc and would hunt wolves too if they had a stable populations and season (yeah I know a lot of people think they're overpopulated already).Looks like you've got it figured out. The anti-wolf stuff often gets ridiculous...usually from the same small crowd who don't take the time to understand how wolves have to be managed in this state or how wolf management has worked in other states.
Just wanted to test the waters about how people really felt because it seems to be the cool thing to spew the antiwolf rhetoric which, you gotta admit can get out of hand. Fear of wolf attacks, conspiracy theories, "Canadian greys" and so on. If a wolf attacks your dog, shoot it, if it attacks you, shoot it and then buy a lottery ticket cause it's next to unheard of.
Like the thread about the bowhunter who thought he heard wolves and stayed in the treestand. Seems like a risk you take when you go in the woods to me.
You need to quit calling everyone who doesn't want unmanaged wolf numbers the "anti-wolf crowd". I've heard so much whining from you and others about being referenced as "wolf lovers" I would have thought you would catch on by now how hypocritical you are being by continuing to call everyone names who opposes the current state of "un-management". Just because many of us want wolves managed does not mean we want wolves wiped off the face of the earth. :twocents:
What I said was very true, the anti-wolf stuff often gets ridiculous...the conspiracies, the intricate felonies being committed by WDFW etc...it is nothing short of ridiculous and it is damaging to future wolf management efforts. I call a spade a spade...some people don't like that. Maybe you should wander over to the hoof rot turned wolf debate thread...see what I had to say to Bob Ferris, Executive Director of Cascadia Wildlands regarding their petition to basically eliminate lethal options for wolf control...then maybe you can see that I am fair in my calling out of ridiculousness...it is absolutely just as ridiculous for a group to demand no lethal wolf control as it is to suggest wdfw is engaged in felony conspiracies to plant wolves around the state...again, in these controversial and complex management problems I see no problem with calling out the ridiculous stuff. Frankly, I bet the folks who post some of the more absurd things about wolves probably prefer the "anti-wolf" identity.
Perhaps you have not been one of the specific members to complain about "wolf lover". But, I don't think I'm off base, I've heard complaining from numerous members about the term "wolf lover" which I have been guilty of using in the past. The complaint is that the term is used by the "anti-wolf crowd" to paint anyone who opposes them as "wolf lovers". I'm acknowledging that the term probably does cause a conversation to degenerate. So, I'm asking the ones who say they are the victims of name calling and insults to play by the same rules. I don't appreciate being referred to as anti-wolf when in fact I am "pro-management"!
I also disagree with the condescending remarks and attitudes displayed that seem to insinuate some members are more intelligent than others, these sort of insults do nothing to improve the quality of conversations. No, I am not off base, we all need to take the higher road and refrain from name calling, insults, ego's, and condescending attitudes. That includes you, myself, and many others who have participated in these wolf discussions and other polarizing topics.
I would also like to see this respect carried beyond just the members who post here...all of the wdfw bashing needs to be curbed. I have no problem with calling out specific issues/mismanagement whatever...all very necessary. But there is an awful lot of "broad brush" painting of WDFW staff and management that I find very unnecessary and not helpful. In fact, some folks call out specific wdfw staff who really can't defend themselves...its one thing to call out someone on here who can provide a rebuttal...I think its a little below the belt to attack wdfw staffers personally. :twocents:
It is a known fact that anti-hunters, anti-gunners, and pro-wolfers pose as gun owners and hunters to further their agenda and we have seen that on this forum which we were able to 100% verify. I've also seen it on numerous other venues. If a non-hunter wants to make a post that is fine, they are entitled to their opinion, as long as they do not represent themselves as a hunter. Most hunters I know are opposed to unmanaged numbers of wolves, some of us find it hard to believe a hunter would support unmanaged numbers of wolves, that's likely the reason when someone supports WDFW's policies that are not popular with hunters (especially policies which do not include management of wolves) you see questions arise.
Quote
Respect
1. a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.
"the director had a lot of respect for Douglas as an actor"
synonyms: esteem, regard, high opinion, admiration, reverence, deference, honor More
Respect for WDFW
Every human deserves some common respect. But does WDFW get any less respect than Obama, Bush, or Congress? My point is that there is probably very few people who don't criticize one of those people and that is tied to their performance and the viewpoints of the people they impact. Respect is something that is earned (see definition) and it's a lot like politics, few people ever have 100% respect by 100% of the people. I think it's safe to say there are certain persons in any walk of life who are more respected and those who are less respected, the amount of respect anyone receives is directly related to the actions of that person. If a person has little respect I would say it's probably for a reason. We cannot force respect, nobody can simply say "you must respect WDFW" and respect will happen, WDFW must gain respect by their own actions.
Post by: jasnt on June 23, 2014, 02:38:38 PM
Post by: Bob33 on June 23, 2014, 02:43:48 PM
Respect for WDFWThat’s an interesting perspective.
Every human deserves some common respect. But does WDFW get any less respect than Obama, Bush, or Congress? My point is that there is probably very few people who don't criticize one of those people and that is tied to their performance and the viewpoints of the people they impact. Respect is something that is earned (see definition) and it's a lot like politics, few people ever have 100% respect by 100% of the people. I think it's safe to say there are certain persons in any walk of life who are more respected and those who are less respected, the amount of respect anyone receives is directly related to the actions of that person. If a person has little respect I would say it's probably for a reason. We cannot force respect, nobody can simply say "you must respect WDFW" and respect will happen, WDFW must gain respect by their own actions.
Do you see WDFW being as harmful to firearms owners and hunters as Obama?
The country is pretty evenly split in support of, or in opposition to the President’s policies. I doubt that criticism of the President by Hunt WA members has much effect on his policies and actions. By contrast, in Washington about three percent of the population hunts, and the other 97 percent does not. When that three percent becomes fractured, and works actively and particularly in a derogatory manner towards the only organization responsible for managing our wildlife I believe it hurts, more than helps the cause. Certainly, they need to be aware of hunter concerns, and held accountable to the best of our abilities.
There is a difference between having respect for a person or organization, and treating the person or organization respectfully. If you met the President, would you sneer at him or call him names? What would that accomplish, besides getting yourself in the news and maybe feeling good about it?
Post by: KFhunter on June 23, 2014, 03:11:43 PM
Post by: JJB11B on June 23, 2014, 05:29:43 PM
Coming from a guy who the closest he has ever been to killing one of the three was hitting a cougar in a truck outside Walla Walla...At night...On a Date....In August :bash:
Post by: KFhunter on June 23, 2014, 05:36:38 PM
My Vote......You should have to fill one Wolf/Bear/Cougar tag before you get issued a Deer or Elk tag :IBCOOL: :sry:
Great minds........
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,134715.msg1823128.html#msg1823128 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,134715.msg1823128.html#msg1823128)
Post by: rim_runner on June 23, 2014, 05:44:33 PM
Post by: KFhunter on June 23, 2014, 05:49:19 PM
Can we get partial credit for coyotes?
Heck ya, and welcome to Hunting Washington :tup:
Post by: Bob33 on June 23, 2014, 05:54:27 PM
My Vote......You should have to fill one Wolf/Bear/Cougar tag before you get issued a Deer or Elk tag :IBCOOL: :sry:It got that far from Pullman?
Coming from a guy who the closest he has ever been to killing one of the three was hitting a cougar in a truck outside Walla Walla...At night...On a Date....In August :bash:
Post by: JJB11B on June 23, 2014, 09:06:10 PM
you mean from the bar in walla walla?My Vote......You should have to fill one Wolf/Bear/Cougar tag before you get issued a Deer or Elk tag :IBCOOL: :sry:It got that far from Pullman?
Coming from a guy who the closest he has ever been to killing one of the three was hitting a cougar in a truck outside Walla Walla...At night...On a Date....In August :bash:
Post by: bearpaw on June 23, 2014, 09:24:33 PM
Respect for WDFWThat’s an interesting perspective.
Every human deserves some common respect. But does WDFW get any less respect than Obama, Bush, or Congress? My point is that there is probably very few people who don't criticize one of those people and that is tied to their performance and the viewpoints of the people they impact. Respect is something that is earned (see definition) and it's a lot like politics, few people ever have 100% respect by 100% of the people. I think it's safe to say there are certain persons in any walk of life who are more respected and those who are less respected, the amount of respect anyone receives is directly related to the actions of that person. If a person has little respect I would say it's probably for a reason. We cannot force respect, nobody can simply say "you must respect WDFW" and respect will happen, WDFW must gain respect by their own actions.
Do you see WDFW being as harmful to firearms owners and hunters as Obama?
The country is pretty evenly split in support of, or in opposition to the President’s policies. I doubt that criticism of the President by Hunt WA members has much effect on his policies and actions. By contrast, in Washington about three percent of the population hunts, and the other 97 percent does not. When that three percent becomes fractured, and works actively and particularly in a derogatory manner towards the only organization responsible for managing our wildlife I believe it hurts, more than helps the cause. Certainly, they need to be aware of hunter concerns, and held accountable to the best of our abilities.
There is a difference between having respect for a person or organization, and treating the person or organization respectfully. If you met the President, would you sneer at him or call him names? What would that accomplish, besides getting yourself in the news and maybe feeling good about it?
If you read my first sentence I stated that "Every human deserves some common respect." When I meet or talk on the phone with members of WDFW I show them the same respect anyone should receive. Does that mean I have to agree with every one of them all the time, NO! Does it mean that I think they are all doing everything they can to improve hunting and fishing opportunities in Washington, NO. Does it mean I view each person in WDFW the same, NO, definitely not. Does it mean I have no respect, of course not, but I could have greater respect if: there had been a fair field of options with the wolf plan rather than WDFW forcing 15 BP's on eastern Washington residents without even offering an option for fewer BP's, if predators were managed more effectively, if hunter education was available for all who want to take it, if WDFW was taking more steps to make game herds more productive in Washington, if WDFW hired knowledgeable trappers to verify wolf numbers, and many other issues that I will refrain from mentioning.
Does this mean that I think WDFW is not doing anything right, of course not, but as a whole I feel the agency has somewhat forgotten that hunters, fishers, gun owners and sporting goods buyers are responsible for the lion's share of their budget and wildlife management. I am not going to sugar coat that to make anyone feel better, WDFW needs to know that people are unhappy and they need to know why. The agency needs to shift their priorities a bit and work harder to improve hunting and fishing opportunities, then greater respect will have been earned.
Post by: RG on June 24, 2014, 07:21:57 AM
Respect for WDFWThat’s an interesting perspective.
Every human deserves some common respect. But does WDFW get any less respect than Obama, Bush, or Congress? My point is that there is probably very few people who don't criticize one of those people and that is tied to their performance and the viewpoints of the people they impact. Respect is something that is earned (see definition) and it's a lot like politics, few people ever have 100% respect by 100% of the people. I think it's safe to say there are certain persons in any walk of life who are more respected and those who are less respected, the amount of respect anyone receives is directly related to the actions of that person. If a person has little respect I would say it's probably for a reason. We cannot force respect, nobody can simply say "you must respect WDFW" and respect will happen, WDFW must gain respect by their own actions.
Do you see WDFW being as harmful to firearms owners and hunters as Obama?
The country is pretty evenly split in support of, or in opposition to the President’s policies. I doubt that criticism of the President by Hunt WA members has much effect on his policies and actions. By contrast, in Washington about three percent of the population hunts, and the other 97 percent does not. When that three percent becomes fractured, and works actively and particularly in a derogatory manner towards the only organization responsible for managing our wildlife I believe it hurts, more than helps the cause. Certainly, they need to be aware of hunter concerns, and held accountable to the best of our abilities.
There is a difference between having respect for a person or organization, and treating the person or organization respectfully. If you met the President, would you sneer at him or call him names? What would that accomplish, besides getting yourself in the news and maybe feeling good about it?
If you read my first sentence I stated that "Every human deserves some common respect." When I meet or talk on the phone with members of WDFW I show them the same respect anyone should receive. Does that mean I have to agree with every one of them all the time, NO! Does it mean that I think they are all doing everything they can to improve hunting and fishing opportunities in Washington, NO. Does it mean I view each person in WDFW the same, NO, definitely not. Does it mean I have no respect, of course not, but I could have greater respect if: there had been a fair field of options with the wolf plan rather than WDFW forcing 15 BP's on eastern Washington residents without even offering an option for fewer BP's, if predators were managed more effectively, if hunter education was available for all who want to take it, if WDFW was taking more steps to make game herds more productive in Washington, if WDFW hired knowledgeable trappers to verify wolf numbers, and many other issues that I will refrain from mentioning.
Does this mean that I think WDFW is not doing anything right, of course not, but as a whole I feel the agency has somewhat forgotten that hunters, fishers, gun owners and sporting goods buyers are responsible for the lion's share of their budget and wildlife management. I am not going to sugar coat that to make anyone feel better, WDFW needs to know that people are unhappy and they need to know why. The agency needs to shift their priorities a bit and work harder to improve hunting and fishing opportunities, then greater respect will have been earned.
You are right. I have a tremendous amount of respect for most of the WDFW employees who wear boots in the field. They work really hard and are absolutely understaffed. They do a lot of work and earn every penny they are paid. My complaint, and maybe I am more outspoken than I should be but I've seen the difference, is when decisions affecting the entire wildlife resource in Washington get made based upon politics and special interest rather than science. I started following my father on hunting and fishing trips in Washington in the 1950's and have been a very active fisherman and hunter since then. I've also been a professional guide in other states and one Canadian province and owned a sporting goods store which allowed me to make my living in the fishing, hunting, and backcountry horse packing industry. I say all this to qualify my opinion not to try to make myself seem special. I love these activities and it hurts me to see changes that negatively affect the sportsmen and women of our state and our children and grandchildren when those changes are based upon special interest or the political influence of somebody like Senator Ranker from the San Juan Islands rather than the scientific knowledge and research of our own state biologists. I've communicated for years and years with people on the inside of our game department and those of other states and I'm pretty sure I'm accurate on my opinion. Not every time but often, the information developed by our biologists is pushed under the table, modified, or even replaced before it ever makes it to the decision making table.
Our government, both at the state level and nationally has become so slick at managing by back room deals and special interest that it no longer listens to the wants and needs of the constituents. They pat us on the head and smile then turn their back on us and develop policy. Over the decades people have become lulled into believing what they are told instead of coming up with their own opinion and we are becoming a nation of suckers and dupes.
All I, and most people, ask for is straight up honesty and transparency in government. It's too bad it's even something to talk about because one would think that would be a given when a person enters public service.
Post by: bearpaw on June 25, 2014, 07:07:02 AM
Post by: wolfbait on June 25, 2014, 07:59:29 AM
:yeah: RG, I totally agree with everything you just wrote, that was very well detailed and accurate. I do think we also have some good managers if they would get back to managing by unbiased science. It's getting tougher and tougher to find unbiased science. It's not good enough to just say that we need to manage by science, all of the anti-hunting and wolf groups are employing their own biologists and even some biologists working for F&G agencies seem to have an agenda other than providing for plentiful wildlife numbers of all species and greater opportunities for users of all types. What is the science, that is the new battlefield, groups claim they want management by science while at the same time attempting to skew the science to fit their agendas.
x2 :tup:
Post by: RG on June 25, 2014, 10:01:29 AM
:yeah: RG, I totally agree with everything you just wrote, that was very well detailed and accurate. I do think we also have some good managers if they would get back to managing by unbiased science. It's getting tougher and tougher to find unbiased science. It's not good enough to just say that we need to manage by science, all of the anti-hunting and wolf groups are employing their own biologists and even some biologists working for F&G agencies seem to have an agenda other than providing for plentiful wildlife numbers of all species and greater opportunities for users of all types. What is the science, that is the new battlefield, groups claim they want management by science while at the same time attempting to skew the science to fit their agendas.
x2 :tup:
As I "contemplate the universe" it seems that somewhere we developed a shortage of people who are willing to step out from the group and say "I believe in doing what's is right, honest, and ethical even if it isn't popular". All the political correctness and niceness and other agendas have brought about a serious herd bound mentality it seems. Nobody wants to be that guy and go against the grain and have to wear the labels they put on you if you don't go with the herd. It's too bad because that is supposed to be what America is about. I appreciate people who do the cliche "right thing at the right time for the right reason" even if it means they bring opposition on themselves. We have taught the masses to be afraid of people like that.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 25, 2014, 10:35:40 AM
Nobody wants to be that guy and go against the grain and have to wear the labels they put on you if you don't go with the herd. It's too bad because that is supposed to be what America is about.:hello: :chuckle:
Post by: mountainman on June 25, 2014, 11:29:09 AM
:yeah::yeah: RG, I totally agree with everything you just wrote, that was very well detailed and accurate. I do think we also have some good managers if they would get back to managing by unbiased science. It's getting tougher and tougher to find unbiased science. It's not good enough to just say that we need to manage by science, all of the anti-hunting and wolf groups are employing their own biologists and even some biologists working for F&G agencies seem to have an agenda other than providing for plentiful wildlife numbers of all species and greater opportunities for users of all types. What is the science, that is the new battlefield, groups claim they want management by science while at the same time attempting to skew the science to fit their agendas.well said sir :tup:
x2 :tup:
As I "contemplate the universe" it seems that somewhere we developed a shortage of people who are willing to step out from the group and say "I believe in doing what's is right, honest, and ethical even if it isn't popular". All the political correctness and niceness and other agendas have brought about a serious herd bound mentality it seems. Nobody wants to be that guy and go against the grain and have to wear the labels they put on you if you don't go with the herd. It's too bad because that is supposed to be what America is about. I appreciate people who do the cliche "right thing at the right time for the right reason" even if it means they bring opposition on themselves. We have taught the masses to be afraid of people like that.
Post by: jasnt on June 25, 2014, 12:39:34 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 25, 2014, 07:34:05 PM
http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No.%20%2033%20%20Mar%202009-%20%20Anything%20but%20Science.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No.%20%2033%20%20Mar%202009-%20%20Anything%20but%20Science.pdf)