Post by: goosegetter79 on October 13, 2014, 06:59:36 PM
Post by: boneaddict on October 13, 2014, 07:01:30 PM
No packs involved, just passing thru :chuckle:
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on October 13, 2014, 07:04:51 PM
Post by: KFhunter on October 13, 2014, 07:05:03 PM
I bet it doesn't break $10,000....any wagers on what the reward will be?
Post by: goosegetter79 on October 13, 2014, 07:08:26 PM
First poaching incident. Really?
No packs involved, just passing thru :chuckle:
Yep first....lol
In the comments supposedly there have been sightings of more down by Almota.
Post by: boneaddict on October 13, 2014, 07:09:53 PM
Post by: HornHoarder on October 13, 2014, 07:15:12 PM
Post by: KFhunter on October 13, 2014, 07:24:50 PM
Wouldn't think there would be much of a reward if he called and told them.
:DOH:
Thanks, I went back and read it again :chuckle:
Post by: KFhunter on October 13, 2014, 07:25:33 PM
new wager, how bad is this guy going to get crucified :yike:
Post by: HornHoarder on October 13, 2014, 07:27:44 PM
Post by: cmiller85 on October 13, 2014, 07:28:22 PM
Post by: grousefether on October 13, 2014, 07:33:08 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 13, 2014, 07:41:55 PM
OKby WDFW or the other huggers?
new wager, how bad is this guy going to get crucified :yike:
Post by: jjhunter on October 13, 2014, 07:46:39 PM
The environment just seems to be hard on 'em.
Post by: grousefether on October 13, 2014, 08:16:06 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on October 13, 2014, 08:27:02 PM
Post by: csaaphill on October 13, 2014, 08:52:07 PM
Post by: X-Force on October 13, 2014, 08:54:52 PM
Did they use a jump to conclusion mat?
Post by: Dan-o on October 13, 2014, 09:19:12 PM
It had to be passing through, because WDFW says there aren't any packs there.
Besides, that wolf didn't deserve to die. He was just out there looking for a sick or old deer. Without wolves, how would you restore balance??
Post by: Watimberghost on October 13, 2014, 09:24:03 PM
Why are you guys stuck on the fact that this wolf was passing through?:chuckle:
It had to be passing through, because WDFW says there aren't any packs there.
Besides, that wolf didn't deserve to die. He was just out there looking for a sick or old deer. Without wolves, how would you restore balance??
Post by: RadSav on October 13, 2014, 09:45:10 PM
Post by: AspenBud on October 14, 2014, 07:27:57 AM
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2014/oct/13/wolf-shot-whitman-county-charges-pending/ (http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2014/oct/13/wolf-shot-whitman-county-charges-pending/)
Post by: Axle on October 14, 2014, 07:47:16 AM
Quote
Why are you guys stuck on the fact that this wolf was passing through?
I think what they are trying to say is - that particular wolf was just passing through from this life to the next. Somebody decided to help the poor critter along at a faster pace. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: andersonjk4 on October 14, 2014, 07:52:45 AM
I don't think we ever have to worry about a wolf pack getting established in Whitman County.
The environment just seems to be hard on 'em.
:yeah: :chuckle:
Post by: Special T on October 14, 2014, 07:55:02 AM
Is it possible that this farmer turned himself in so that he has legal standing in a lawsuit with the state? There are no federal charges just state charges for a not so endangered animal. Not sure what the penalty is but I would bet the cattlemen associations would fork out some $. Most bad law stays bad because everyone tries to NOT be the one going to court. Some farmers have just had enough and their necks are a little stiff. Just a different take on this.
Post by: KFhunter on October 14, 2014, 07:57:10 AM
As I've said previously who can trust WDFW to allow that a wolf be shot under their stupid "caught in the act" rule when they lie?
Quote
“The shooting does not appear to have been associated with a defense-of-life action,” Pamplin said.
The shooting did not appear “to take place under the statutory authority to shoot and kill a wolf that is caught in the act of attacking livestock in the Eastern Washington recovery zone,” he added.
“No citations have been issued as this is an active investigation,” said Steve Crown, state Fish and Wildlife police chief in Olympia. “We will not be releasing the suspect’s information until the investigation is complete and the case has been submitted to prosecutor.”
Scattered wolf sightings have been reported in Whitman County for years and wolf tracks were confirmed near Rock Lake in November 2013.
Washington has 14 confirmed wolf packs, none of which is in Whitman County.
Pamplin said he was not aware of any incidents with wolves and livestock or pets in 2014. None was confirmed in previous years.
How can Pamplin be such a fool as to say no livestock or pets were killed in 2014? helooo :DOH:
I'd sure like to hear the farmers story....I bet it's a bit different than the WDFW's version.
Post by: Houndhunter on October 14, 2014, 08:02:40 AM
This stuck out to me as well, is his meaning only in the whitman county or the whole state? The way it looks to me is that his statement is portrayed to mean the whole state which is complete bs. But maybe i'm just read it wrong?
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 14, 2014, 08:06:46 AM
Post by: KFhunter on October 14, 2014, 08:11:27 AM
It's still obscuring the truth and shows us what Mr. Pamplin is all about.
I have zero faith that WDFW is objectively looking at this from all angles. They're rubbing their hands with glee to finally have someone to make an example of.
remember they failed to get their Stevens CO poacher with $22,500 reward, so they need someone to hang!
Post by: Stein on October 14, 2014, 08:12:03 AM
Post by: KFhunter on October 14, 2014, 08:15:30 AM
A few things strike me. He chased the wolf in his truck. Dumb. Also, this is not the first poaching investigation. We know of the Twisp incident and subsequent charges. And, there aren't any wolf packs in Whitman Co. The WDFW says so. Why would Steve Crown lie about that? :rolleyes: If a wolf is killed where the WDFW says there aren't any wolf packs, that should be a defense. "I thought the coyote was pretty big but since there are no wolves here,..." This "passing through" garbage is BS. What do you want to bet a pack is acknowledged there within two months.
Chasing it off with his truck sounds to me like someone trying to haze a wolf from eating their livestock/pets etc. I can totally see that.
Doesn't sound like a poacher to me, what poacher would go tearing through a field chasing his prey? They'd do it quiet then shut up.
A poacher also isn't "very cooperative with WDFW agents" and they don't go calling them telling them they poached a wolf.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 14, 2014, 08:34:26 AM
Post by: boneaddict on October 14, 2014, 08:55:10 AM
does it work the other way too.
"I'm not aware of any wolves in Whitman county so this must have been a hybrid which can be shot on sight....."
Post by: MR5x5 on October 14, 2014, 08:55:23 AM
Post by: KFhunter on October 14, 2014, 09:55:36 AM
I'll be watching how it plays out, it could very well be a battle between WDFW,wolf conservation groups and other pro-wolfers VS ranchers/farmers and others negatively affected by wolves.
Once the farmer is named after charges are filed we'll be off to the races :bash:
I just urge folks to not believe everything they read about this guy until his story is made clear, WDFW is setting the stage and swinging public opinion against this guy.
Post by: bobcat on October 14, 2014, 10:01:43 AM
If it was attacking livestock that would be different. Maybe it was? I don't know, but from what we know, he made a big mistake, and a very stupid one at that.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 14, 2014, 10:08:33 AM
Post by: buckfvr on October 14, 2014, 10:09:09 AM
DNA testing should be required and wdfw needs to be truthful about wolves so instances like this can be avoided.
Post by: wolfbait on October 14, 2014, 10:15:31 AM
It's a bit early yet, but I think this guy might end up being a good candidate for a go fund me account for his defense.
I'll be watching how it plays out, it could very well be a battle between WDFW,wolf conservation groups and other pro-wolfers VS ranchers/farmers and others negatively affected by wolves.
Once the farmer is named after charges are filed we'll be off to the races :bash:
I just urge folks to not believe everything they read about this guy until his story is made clear, WDFW is setting the stage and swinging public opinion against this guy.
:yeah:
Post by: KFhunter on October 14, 2014, 10:21:23 AM
He broke the law and admitted to it. I don't understand what's left to debate. If he had chased a moose in his truck and then shot it, would any of you support him?
If it was attacking livestock that would be different. Maybe it was? I don't know, but from what we know, he made a big mistake, and a very stupid one at that.
stupid? really??
If this wolf was threatening this farmers animals then chasing it off with a truck was a good decision. The farmer was hazing the wolf with the tools available to him. Did WDFW issue free rubber bullets and bear banger's or bean bags to everyone with livestock?? NO, so how do you suggest that livestock owners haze wolves and defend their animals?
If I seen a wolf threatening my animals I'd probably chase it with an ATV, I've done that with domestic dogs..it would seem the natural thing to do if you didn't just want to shoot it right away.
What happens if the wolf won't be deterred? It keeps coming back intent on killing the farmers animal? Well he decided to shoot it then report to the WDFW in good faith.
WDFW say's we can shoot a wolf "caught in the act" but this farmer didn't want to wait until the wolf killed his animal, nor would I.
WDFW betrayed his trust and instead leveled poaching charges against the farmer.
I'd bet you a beer it played out just like that.
Post by: Special T on October 14, 2014, 10:34:17 AM
Perfect politician. Mislead with claims/propaganda without actually "lieing".
does it work the other way too.
"I'm not aware of any wolves in Whitman county so this must have been a hybrid which can be shot on sight....."
And perhaps the farmer should get a DNA sample to check if it does have "dog blood" in it...
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 14, 2014, 10:51:08 AM
Perfect politician. Mislead with claims/propaganda without actually "lieing".
does it work the other way too.
"I'm not aware of any wolves in Whitman county so this must have been a hybrid which can be shot on sight....."
And perhaps the farmer should get a DNA sample to check if it does have "dog blood" in it...
I'm betting that's already been requested. Good catch, ST.
Post by: bobcat on October 14, 2014, 10:55:09 AM
But then I don't know the guy, maybe he's got millions of dollars laying around and nothing better to do with it than try to test the waters and see how serious the state is when you kill an animal that's listed on the endangered species list. :dunno:
Post by: mulehunter on October 14, 2014, 10:57:07 AM
Post by: KFhunter on October 14, 2014, 11:50:15 AM
KF, yes I would say it was stupid, and I bet the guy who did it is thinking the same thing about now. Unless he just enjoys giving thousands of dollars to attorneys and a substantial amount in the form of fines to the government.
But then I don't know the guy, maybe he's got millions of dollars laying around and nothing better to do with it than try to test the waters and see how serious the state is when you kill an animal that's listed on the endangered species list. :dunno:
I'd say he was honest to a fault.
If being honest and telling WDFW he shot a wolf that was threatening his livestock under the 'caught in the act' rule is stupid.......hmmm I see your point Bobcat.
touche
Post by: AspenBud on October 14, 2014, 01:14:16 PM
KF, yes I would say it was stupid, and I bet the guy who did it is thinking the same thing about now. Unless he just enjoys giving thousands of dollars to attorneys and a substantial amount in the form of fines to the government.
But then I don't know the guy, maybe he's got millions of dollars laying around and nothing better to do with it than try to test the waters and see how serious the state is when you kill an animal that's listed on the endangered species list. :dunno:
I'd say he was honest to a fault.
If being honest and telling WDFW he shot a wolf that was threatening his livestock under the 'caught in the act' rule is stupid.......hmmm I see your point Bobcat.
touche
Has that been determined? Last time I was in Pullman all I saw was wheat and lentils being farmed. He'll have no defense if he was defending plants.
Post by: jrebel on October 14, 2014, 01:25:39 PM
KF, yes I would say it was stupid, and I bet the guy who did it is thinking the same thing about now. Unless he just enjoys giving thousands of dollars to attorneys and a substantial amount in the form of fines to the government.
But then I don't know the guy, maybe he's got millions of dollars laying around and nothing better to do with it than try to test the waters and see how serious the state is when you kill an animal that's listed on the endangered species list. :dunno:
I'd say he was honest to a fault.
If being honest and telling WDFW he shot a wolf that was threatening his livestock under the 'caught in the act' rule is stupid.......hmmm I see your point Bobcat.
touche
Has that been determined? Last time I was in Pullman all I saw was wheat and lentils being farmed. He'll have no defense if he was defending plants.
I know a lot of people in Pullman that have; cows, horses, chickens, lamas, cats, dogs, children, wives, husbands and other small farm animals that I am sure I forgot. :twocents:
Post by: Bob33 on October 14, 2014, 01:33:13 PM
Post by: AspenBud on October 14, 2014, 01:34:15 PM
KF, yes I would say it was stupid, and I bet the guy who did it is thinking the same thing about now. Unless he just enjoys giving thousands of dollars to attorneys and a substantial amount in the form of fines to the government.
But then I don't know the guy, maybe he's got millions of dollars laying around and nothing better to do with it than try to test the waters and see how serious the state is when you kill an animal that's listed on the endangered species list. :dunno:
I'd say he was honest to a fault.
If being honest and telling WDFW he shot a wolf that was threatening his livestock under the 'caught in the act' rule is stupid.......hmmm I see your point Bobcat.
touche
Has that been determined? Last time I was in Pullman all I saw was wheat and lentils being farmed. He'll have no defense if he was defending plants.
I know a lot of people in Pullman that have; cows, horses, chickens, lamas, cats, dogs, children, wives, husbands and other small farm animals that I am sure I forgot. :twocents:
Hey, the Ag department or WSU VetMed doesn't count!
Seriously though, I know that's true. I'm just saying this guy better hope he has a leg to stand on and isn't just a PO'd wheat farmer. I would not want to be in his shoes.
Post by: AspenBud on October 14, 2014, 01:35:32 PM
Lots of cougars in Pullman that need protection also.
Actually this incident makes a lot more sense. Probably a Cougar taking out a Dawg! :IBCOOL:
Post by: Special T on October 14, 2014, 01:43:51 PM
http://www.goskagit.com/all_access/fencing-farm-fields/article_d7a336f7-1918-536a-b2cd-0516f88e1846.html (http://www.goskagit.com/all_access/fencing-farm-fields/article_d7a336f7-1918-536a-b2cd-0516f88e1846.html)
Not sure this is the result of the court case or even if it is related..
Its POSSIBLE this farmer shot the wolf so that he could have standing in court to fight some portion of this wolf fiasco. Perhaps Bobcat he doesnt need millions... Just a local judge and some one to back him like the Cattlemens association.
Just a thought. :twocents:
Post by: buglebrush on October 14, 2014, 02:37:39 PM
:sry:
Post by: cougarbart on October 14, 2014, 03:05:44 PM
Post by: longrangekiller on October 14, 2014, 03:38:25 PM
ill bet they either hit him with the hammer or this will be one of the cases that fall off the face of the earth.
Post by: csaaphill on October 14, 2014, 09:20:12 PM
but ya sounds more like people snitched him off rather than him turning himself in.
too bad those that can go to that meeting and pitch for a hunting season on them.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on October 14, 2014, 09:21:27 PM
Post by: nwwanderer on October 14, 2014, 09:26:28 PM
Post by: James Fell on October 14, 2014, 09:50:38 PM
This a true story because I read it in the paper today.
but ya sounds more like people snitched him off rather than him turning himself in.
too bad those that can go to that meeting and pitch for a hunting season on them.
The gentleman who wrote the article in the spokesman had several factual errors whether on purpose or not, he said they were turned in via a tip. They called and reported it themselves. The officials came and ended the Wolf's life. :bash: Someone is either selectively leaking information or the reporter is selectively reporting the information.
I wonder why a outdoor newspaper writer and blogger who has been very pro wolf would leave out all the pertinent information in his article that would lead to people siding with the farmer??? :dunno:
Post by: villageidiot on October 14, 2014, 10:19:17 PM
This happened near my house so I know some of the missing details. This wolf was about thirty yards from highway 195. about a half mile from Pullman. Let me repeat that, a half mile from Pullman. It was walking in between 3 houses all with young toddler children or grand children that are often outside playing, one of the places is a horse boarding facility with over 30 high value horses and some cattle and dogs. It was not simply walking through the area. it was seen in the same area the night before. The farmer was protecting his kids, property, livestock and his business.
The only reason it was chased was because it was skyline when they wanted to shoot it and they had to drive a few road miles to get to a spot to see it. The wolf was not killed by the farmer, it was injured and once they saw it was no longer a threat they called the game officials. The officials then came out and ended the wolf's life.
Wolves do not belong this close to a city. If any of you saw a wolf that close to where your kids play in their yard, let alone their livestock and horses, you would do the same. I am thankful It was not me, and that I did not have to take this upon my shoulders. But I assure you I would have done the same thing in a second had I seen it first. Everyone needs to get behind this man and his family.
[/quote
When they file charges on this man they couldn't care less if it was near his kids or house. Their absolute number one without a shadow of a doubt purpose of filing charges is to get a conviction. They will throw multiple charges at him and he will go through tens of thousands of dollars paying lawyers fees and then they will make him a plea bargain deal that might not even be true but it will cost him a ton less than going to court. Even though there is a good chance a jury would throw it out his attorney will tell him that there is also a chance he would be convicted. So the man will go down as a wolf poacher and general skum of the earth even though all he was doing is keeping his grandkids safe from a wolf. Nobody will ever know about the real truth because the press will not report the true facts because nearly all of the media is liberal wolf worshipping idiots.
Post by: timberfaller on October 14, 2014, 10:37:45 PM
:tup:
I refer to them as "willing participants" in the propaganda machines! Haven't you all seen what "eagerness" they have taken the monies from the likes of Bloomie and others?? TRUTH is NOT in their mindsets!
Post by: h2ofowlr on October 14, 2014, 10:45:35 PM
Post by: PA BEN on October 15, 2014, 06:12:08 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 15, 2014, 06:28:02 AM
This happened near my house so I know some of the missing details. This wolf was about thirty yards from highway 195. about a half mile from Pullman. Let me repeat that, a half mile from Pullman. It was walking in between 3 houses all with young toddler children or grand children that are often outside playing, one of the places is a horse boarding facility with over 30 high value horses and some cattle and dogs. It was not simply walking through the area. it was seen in the same area the night before. The farmer was protecting his kids, property, livestock and his business.
The only reason it was chased was because it was skyline when they wanted to shoot it and they had to drive a few road miles to get to a spot to see it. The wolf was not killed by the farmer, it was injured and once they saw it was no longer a threat they called the game officials. The officials then came out and ended the wolf's life.
Wolves do not belong this close to a city. If any of you saw a wolf that close to where your kids play in their yard, let alone their livestock and horses, you would do the same. I am thankful It was not me, and that I did not have to take this upon my shoulders. But I assure you I would have done the same thing in a second had I seen it first. Everyone needs to get behind this man and his family.
I agree with you and the farmer. The law does not. If you were attacked by a human or that human were stalking your children, you have the right to do what's necessary to protect yourself and your family against the imminent danger of attack. However, if you chase that human away and shoot him after he's run, you're no longer protecting your family from imminent danger. You're guilty of manslaughter. The same goes for wolves under the law. Had he shot the wolf between the houses and said he did so while it was stalking one of his kids or his livestock, he'd have a defense. It's not right. We shouldn't have wolves 1/2 mile from a heavily populated area. Welcome to the wolf plan. :bash:
Post by: jasnt on October 15, 2014, 06:33:17 AM
Somebody with know how should start a defence fund for this guy. I would donate to it.
He should have called an attorney first. Then let his attorney make the call to authority's. I dout this will turn out well.
Post by: boneaddict on October 15, 2014, 06:37:31 AM
This happened near my house so I know some of the missing details. This wolf was about thirty yards from highway 195. about a half mile from Pullman. Let me repeat that, a half mile from Pullman. It was walking in between 3 houses all with young toddler children or grand children that are often outside playing, one of the places is a horse boarding facility with over 30 high value horses and some cattle and dogs. It was not simply walking through the area. it was seen in the same area the night before. The farmer was protecting his kids, property, livestock and his business.
The only reason it was chased was because it was skyline when they wanted to shoot it and they had to drive a few road miles to get to a spot to see it. The wolf was not killed by the farmer, it was injured and once they saw it was no longer a threat they called the game officials. The officials then came out and ended the wolf's life.
Wolves do not belong this close to a city. If any of you saw a wolf that close to where your kids play in their yard, let alone their livestock and horses, you would do the same. I am thankful It was not me, and that I did not have to take this upon my shoulders. But I assure you I would have done the same thing in a second had I seen it first. Everyone needs to get behind this man and his family.
I figured there was more to the story. We will likely only see it here.
Post by: goosegetter79 on October 15, 2014, 07:10:20 AM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on October 15, 2014, 07:16:39 AM
Post by: bigtex on October 15, 2014, 01:23:00 PM
If you are found guilty of shooting a wolf (or any endangered species) in this area you face a mandatory $4,000 civil fine that a judge cannot suspend or reduce. In addition since taking an endangered species is a gross misdemeanor you then face up to 364 days in jail and/or up to a $5,000 criminal fine.
Post by: Special T on October 15, 2014, 01:27:04 PM
Post by: mburrows on October 15, 2014, 01:37:22 PM
It was a wolf from Idaho trespassing, simply.
I think you're right, I used to work on a farm in Pullman while at WSU and the farmer said he would see them every now and then, especially when the Idaho hunting season picked up and the pressure would push them out of where they typically stayed.
Post by: Sumpnneedskillin on October 15, 2014, 06:53:41 PM
A few more details about the wolf shooting in Whitman County on Sunday from Steve Crown, chief of enforcement with the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife:
They still are not releasing the name of the farmer involved, but the case is still under investigation.
The dead wolf has been sent to a laboratory under contract with Fish & Wildlife for a necropsy and testing.
More information won't be released until test results are forwarded to the Whitman County prosecutor in about two to three weeks.
The incident happened about 9 o'clock Sunday near Highway 195 southwest of Pullman. Witnesses were present.
The wolf was an adult male, black coat with a white muzzle
Post by: JJB11B on October 15, 2014, 07:00:56 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 16, 2014, 07:34:19 AM
A guy I know took pictures of one by colfax earlier this year....The story about the guy chasing it down with a truck taking pics...."No wolves in Whitman County....STFU WDFW" about as credible as the obama admin.
"Let me be clear. We have complete control over the wolves (ebola). Wolves (ebola) are easily controlled and we're using the strictest and most modern methods to do so. There is no danger to the general population from wolves (ebola). We're the government and we're here to help (you lose your occupation to wolves, health to ebola)."
Post by: Snakeriver10 on October 16, 2014, 09:45:38 AM
Post by: James Fell on October 16, 2014, 10:00:12 AM
I believe this happened on Rimrock road which is no where remotely within a half mile of Pullman at all..............Correct me if I am wrong, but pretty sure it didn't really happen close to Pullman.
You are wrong. The wolf was first seen 30 yards from highway 195 South of Pullman. Half a mile from Pullman city limits. It was shot a few hills over because it was skyline when by the highway with a house behind it. It was shot between Wilburn rd. and the Highway.
Post by: denali on October 16, 2014, 01:15:00 PM
I will give wolf advocates advise they have not asked for. - If you truly care about wolves LONG term in WA. Shoehorning wolves into the Palouse when so much wolf habitat is nu-occupied is a big FAIL.
If you press the issue and demand that he be made an example of, you pretty much destroy any chance that the few fence sitting stockman/farmers/sportsmen will support you.
Post by: KFhunter on October 16, 2014, 01:51:56 PM
gotta agree
wolf huggers should be glad someone will stand up and keep the wolves out of areas they don't belong, even at great personal risk if needed. First time a wolf runs off with a toddler in their mouth they'll see a huge shift in tolerance levels for wolves.
Far as I'm concerned the wolf advocates have won the wolf war in the west, if they keep jamming them down everyone's throat even though they're more than fully recovered when considering the western states/Canada; then tolerance will plummet.
We got to be able to protect our livestock and keep them out of residential areas, even semi-rural residential.
Post by: Gringo31 on October 16, 2014, 03:33:03 PM
Still can't get my head around calling it in after it's been wounded. Must have been too many witnesses to just let be?
Post by: WSU on October 16, 2014, 03:39:48 PM
Post by: Snakeriver10 on October 16, 2014, 03:51:32 PM
Post by: Snakeriver10 on October 16, 2014, 04:02:56 PM
Post by: bigtex on October 16, 2014, 04:30:44 PM
I spoke with a friend who farms/ranches very close to where the wolf was shot, He said that the farmer has the support of the Farm Bureau, Cattleman’s and neighbors. He also thought this may well end up being a “test case”.It'll be interesting to see how the Whitman County Prosecutor's Office handles the case. We all know there is a lot of anger/hate right now from the local government's in the NE corner due to wolves. However, Whitman County hasn't really been on the forefront of the wolf "battle" until now. A wolf case in Whitman County may be handled differently then one in say Stevens County.
Post by: MarkyMark on October 16, 2014, 04:50:07 PM
Post by: JJB11B on October 16, 2014, 04:55:10 PM
Post by: Snakeriver10 on October 16, 2014, 05:08:16 PM
Post by: KFhunter on October 16, 2014, 05:21:09 PM
Interesting how many non-ethical hunters we have on this site............
What's hunting got to do with it :dunno:
Post by: buckman202 on October 16, 2014, 05:32:18 PM
Post by: JJB11B on October 16, 2014, 06:33:03 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on October 16, 2014, 06:43:59 PM
Your half mile is completely wrong, my parents live less than a mile where it was shot at. They live 10 miles from Pullman. If you support driving around with loaded guns blasting anything in site, then you shall support this, other wise this is completely and utterly unethical!
Driving around with loaded guns, I think not. Don't start something you have no proof of...........
Post by: JJB11B on October 16, 2014, 06:54:02 PM
Post by: zackmioli on October 16, 2014, 07:17:13 PM
Post by: grousefether on October 17, 2014, 07:51:53 AM
pretty easy to drop a round into the open bolt of a Rem 700 and slam the bolt home in a hurry, Ask me how I know :chuckle:
Hold on........... let me grab a beer :party1:
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 17, 2014, 08:07:19 AM
Interesting how many non-ethical hunters we have on this site............
This has nothing to do with hunting. It has to do with wolf/human conflict resolution. It has about as much to do with hunting as rounding up stray dogs in a neighborhood. Many people here who are advocating the killing of problem animals do so as ranchers and farmers exposed to losses from animals which are inappropriately dispersed around our state. It's a question of survival, not ethics.
The word you were looking for is unethical. Some would argue that pandering to pro-wolf groups to devise a wolf plan which is outrageous in its goals, a plan which ignores the land rights of ranchers and farmers, a plan which will most likely result in less hunting opportunity for the people who are paying to implement it (hunters), a plan that allows wolves to propagate and proliferate in a section of the state which is and has been for 100+ years entirely agricultural, is the most unethical act conceivable. Although, as a hunter I don't support poaching of any animal, I can find no fault or unethical behavior in the actions of someone who kills a wolf in defense of themselves, their family, their home, or their property, including pets and livestock as property.
Post by: wolfbait on October 17, 2014, 08:28:09 AM
Interesting how many non-ethical hunters we have on this site............
This has nothing to do with hunting. It has to do with wolf/human conflict resolution. It has about as much to do with hunting as rounding up stray dogs in a neighborhood. Many people here who are advocating the killing of problem animals do so as ranchers and farmers exposed to losses from animals which are inappropriately dispersed around our state. It's a question of survival, not ethics.
The word you were looking for is unethical. Some would argue that pandering to pro-wolf groups to devise a wolf plan which is outrageous in its goals, a plan which ignores the land rights of ranchers and farmers, a plan which will most likely result in less hunting opportunity for the people who are paying to implement it (hunters), a plan that allows wolves to propagate and proliferate in a section of the state which is and has been for 100+ years entirely agricultural, is the most unethical act conceivable. Although, as a hunter I don't support poaching of any animal, I can find no fault or unethical behavior in the actions of someone who kills a wolf in defense of themselves, their family, their home, or their property, including pets and livestock as property.
:yeah:
Post by: Snakeriver10 on October 17, 2014, 09:08:56 AM
Post by: headshot5 on October 17, 2014, 09:12:52 AM
Quote
What happens if the Wolf was in no way a harm to there "livestock" or humans or such? This wolf wasn't in an offensive mode as it was being chased for miles by pickups across fields. As far as the loaded gun comments, then please do come to my parents any time and as what was happening across from there house and why the game wardens came out a couple of years ago, then you will understand why I said what I said.
I'm confused. Unless someone has a time machine, how would what happened in this situation (with the wolf), have anything to do with game wardens at your parents house a couple of years ago?
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 17, 2014, 09:17:51 AM
What happens if the Wolf was in no way a harm to there "livestock" or humans or such? This wolf wasn't in an offensive mode as it was being chased for miles by pickups across fields. As far as the loaded gun comments, then please do come to my parents any time and as what was happening across from there house and why the game wardens came out a couple of years ago, then you will understand why I said what I said.
Wolves no more belong in the Palouse than they do in New York City. It is entirely inappropriate to have wolves living in an area which is almost entirely agricultural. Killing a wolf roaming the Palouse is preventative. Sooner or later, that wolf is going to do harm to a landowner or his family or property. This is one of the main problems with the outrageous wolf plan. There is no distinction given as to appropriate habitat. It's one of the reasons that the farmers and ranchers have been FORCED to manage the wildlife on their own. The WDFW is unwilling to confront the environmentalist wacko groups with which they formerly collaborated to take a firm stand that wolves belong in some places and not in others. To anyone who knows the area and has any sense of proper wildlife management whatsoever, the Palouse is one of the "not" places.
Post by: Snakeriver10 on October 17, 2014, 09:20:43 AM
Post by: jasnt on October 17, 2014, 10:04:30 AM
Please, for the sake of humanity, stay away from the Palouse...........first an invitation to your parents then you ask him to stay away :chuckle: :dunno:
Post by: jasnt on October 17, 2014, 10:07:01 AM
seems to be a lot versions to this story :chuckle:
weather this wolf had bad intentions or not it has no place amongst homes. I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune if this wolf was traveling threw where your kids play.
Post by: Snakeriver10 on October 17, 2014, 10:20:24 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 17, 2014, 10:30:58 AM
Please, for the sake of humanity, stay away from the Palouse...........
And for sake of working people's livelihoods, please stay away from having anything to do with the wolf program.
Post by: jasnt on October 17, 2014, 10:53:07 AM
A mile from where my family farm is, please do tell me how Deer Park is closer?
I never said it was closer. This guys place was closer. So let me get this straight, it doesn't make you nervous that this wolf was a mile from where your kids play. But what if the next day it was passing threw your yard, or your neighbors yard. Maybe even stolking your pets or livestock. I'd bet if it was a grizzly you'd be nervous. My self I don't tolerate any predators near my kids,pets, or livestock. I would have shot it too. Wolf,grizz, cougar or coyote.
Post by: James Fell on October 17, 2014, 11:57:59 AM
Let's make this simple for you because for all I know you may be in middle school. A wolf was stalking a farmers Home, not a ranch, their personal residence just outside the city, that farmer owns a gun, and defended their family (including their families pets and livestock). End of story. Nothing to do with hunting. Whitman county has no habitat that would provide for a wolf to live their safely without being a danger to communities.
Everything you have said is completely made up conjecture. You are trying to suggest what the wolf was thinking??? :bash: That it wasn't hungry? :bash: Are you kidding me? :bash: You are calling out other posters for not living in Pullman, yet you obviously do not live their either, your parents apparently might....But you nor your parents saw this wolf and do not know any of the circumstances around this incident. with the exception of maybe this happening a mile from their house that sounds like it is near Rim Rock Rd which is nowhere near where any of this happened!
Please go back to your day job, which based on what we have seen is probably mowing lawns. :hello:
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 17, 2014, 01:14:20 PM
What happens if the Wolf was in no way a harm to there "livestock" or humans or such? This wolf wasn't in an offensive mode as it was being chased for miles by pickups across fields. As far as the loaded gun comments, then please do come to my parents any time and as what was happening across from there house and why the game wardens came out a couple of years ago, then you will understand why I said what I said.
Uh-oh, some bad person was firing off guns across from the family farm. I bet that was scary. Just out of interest, how many generations has your family owned this "farm"? How much livestock is raised there? How many very small children do you have running around outside? What is it you grow on this farm? I'm asking because there aren't a lot of farmers in E.WA who are complaining about a someone creating a good wolf. It'd be interesting to know.
Post by: Northway on October 17, 2014, 02:15:45 PM
Interesting how many non-ethical hunters we have on this site............
It's always been an easy decision for me anytime I've ever been offered the opportunity to poach. I've heard rationalizations for poaching almost everything that walks, swims, or flies and has a season at one time or another.
It was a liberal hunting & trapping season that started to bring wolves under management in Idaho, not poaching. I'd bet money on it.
Post by: buckman202 on October 17, 2014, 02:20:14 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 17, 2014, 02:26:07 PM
Post by: washelkhunter on October 17, 2014, 02:28:40 PM
He was actually biting the truck's tires.
Given what tires cost these days I'd say justified! :chuckle:
Post by: buckman202 on October 17, 2014, 02:31:31 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on October 17, 2014, 02:36:15 PM
Post by: JJB11B on October 17, 2014, 02:37:51 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on October 17, 2014, 02:39:28 PM
He wasnt poachingThat is very possible...the investigation is not complete.
Post by: jrebel on October 17, 2014, 02:53:22 PM
The only person that really knows what happened is the farmer that pulled the trigger. I tend to believe that wolves have little value in our ecosystem and should be managed aggressively. I don't begrudge the farmer for making the decision he did. I also don't believe that this makes me any less of a hunter. It darn sure does not make me a "Skumbag."
I appreciate if people believe he was in the wrong....but try and put yourself in his shoes; do you rally want a wolf around your house? Would you tolerate it and if not what would you do about it? Maybe run it off, maybe call the game dept. or maybe make a decision to protect your family, livestock and livelihood. I wasn't there so I don't know what I would do.....but I can't guarantee I wouldn't have shot the wolf either. Very situational and my guess is very stressful. He made a decision and now he has to live with the consequences. I personally hope he is exonerated....and this thing goes away. :twocents: To think our government would value a wolf over the safety of a human, human's livelihood, or land is sickening.
Post by: wolfbait on October 17, 2014, 02:59:29 PM
Snakeriver you seem a little confused. :dunno:
seems to be a lot versions to this story :chuckle:
weather this wolf had bad intentions or not it has no place amongst homes. I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune if this wolf was traveling threw where your kids play.
Maybe Snakeriver doesn't know much about the USFWS's wolves yet?
WOLF ATTACKS ON HUMANS http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html (http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html)
Will N. Graves to USFWS Wolf-Carried Diseases – October 3, 1993
http://wolfeducationinternational.com/letter-will-n-graves-to-usfws-wolf-carried-diseases-october-3-1993/ (http://wolfeducationinternational.com/letter-will-n-graves-to-usfws-wolf-carried-diseases-october-3-1993/)
"Why so many attacks in Asia and so few in North America?"
Two factors must be considered:
1. The Philosophy of Conservation - Our forefathers always believed that they had the right and obligation to protect their livelihoods. Considerable distance was necessary between man and wolf for the wolf to survive.
2. Firearms - Inexpensive, efficient weapons gave man the upper hand in the protection of his livelihood and for the taking of wolves.
Milton P. Skinner in his book, “The Yellowstone Nature Book” (published 1924) wrote, "Most of the stories we hear of the ferocity of these animals... come from Europe. There, they are dangerous because they do not fear man, since they are seldom hunted except by the lords of the manor. In America, the wolves are the same kind, but they have found to their bitter cost that practically every man and boy carries a rifle..."
Skinner was correct. The areas of Asia where wolf attacks occur on humans are the same areas where the people have no firearms or other effective means of predator control.
But ... "Biologists claim there are no documented cases of healthy wild wolves attacking humans."
What they really mean is there are no "documented" cases by their criteria which excludes historical accounts. Here's an example.
Rabid wolves were a frightening experience in the early years due to their size and the seriousness of being bit, especially before a vaccine was developed. The bitten subject usually died a slow, miserable death. There are numerous accounts of rabid wolves and their activities. Early Army forts have medical records of rabid wolves coming into the posts and biting several people before being killed. Most of the people bitten died slow, horrible deaths. Additionally, early historical writings relate personal accounts. This author recalls one historical account telling of a man being tied to a tree and left to die because of his violent behavior with rabies after being bitten by a wolf. Such deaths left profound impressions on eyewitnesses of those events.
Dr. David Mech, USFWS wolf biologist, states there are no "documented" cases of rabid wolves below the fifty seventh latitude north (near Whitehorse, Yukon Territory). When asked what "documented" meant, he stated, "The head of the wolf must be removed, sent to a lab for testing and found to be rabid."
Those requirements for documentation negate all historical records!
As with rabid wolves, the biologist can say, "There are no `documented' cases of wild healthy wolves attacking humans." In order to be "documented" these unreasonable criteria must be met:
1. The wolf has to be killed, examined and found to be healthy.
2. It must be proven that the wolf was never kept in captivity in its entire life.
3. There must be eyewitnesses to the attack.
4. The person must die from their wounds (bites are generally not considered attacks according to the biologists).
That is a "documented" attack.
Such criteria make it very difficult to document any historical account of a wolf attack on a human!
Biologists assume when a wolf attacks a human, that there must be something wrong with the wolf. It's either been in captivity or it's sick or whatever. They don't examine the evidence in an unbiased manner or use historical tests.
Historically, there are four reasons for wolf attacks on humans:
1. Disease such as rabies.
2. Extreme hunger.
3. Familiarity/Disposition - This is an either/or situation. Familiarity is the zoo setting, captive wolves, etc. Disposition is a particularly aggressive wolf which may not fear man as most wolves do.
4. In the heat of the chase and kill - This is where a hiker, trapper or whoever disturbs a fresh chase and kill by wolves. The person walks into the scene only to be attacked by the wolves.
It is our belief that a predator's fear of man is both instinctive and learned behavior. For example, wolves raised as pets or in zoos are well documented to attack and kill humans.
Alyshia Berzyck, of Minnesota, was attacked and killed by a wolf on a chain on June 3, 1989. The wolf tore up her kidney, liver and bit a hole through her aorta. One month later, on July 1, 1989, Peter Lemke, 5, lost 12 inches of his intestine and colon and suffered bites to his stomach, neck, legs, arms and back in another wolf attack in Kenyon, Minnesota. (Reports on file and available upon request.)
Zoos carry abundant records of wolf attacks on people, particularly children. The child climbs the enclosure fence to pet the "dog" and is attacked.
Zoos and domestic settings are unnatural in that they place man and wolf in close proximity and they become accustomed to each other. Consequently attacks occur.
Today predator control is very restricted in scope, and as a result, attacks on humans by predators are becoming more common. In recent years, healthy coyotes in Yellowstone Park have attacked humans. Similar attacks have occurred in the National Parks of Canada.
On January 14, 1991, a healthy mountain lion attacked and killed an eighteen-year-old high school senior, Scott Lancaster, in Idaho Springs, Colorado. The boy was jogging on a jogging path within the city limits of the town when the lion attacked and killed him. (Report on file at Abundant Wildlife Society of North America)
Copyright 1995, 2000, T. R. Mader, Research Director
Permission granted to disseminate and/or reprint if credit is given to the source.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml)
Post by: JJB11B on October 17, 2014, 03:00:52 PM
Keep it civil guys. This is a real problem that is effecting hunters everyone in the northwest. Most of us are very passionate about the wolf topic (Pro or Against)....but we shouldn't be attacking each other with name calling.Well said! If we don't stop bickering all those west side yuppy hippy wolf loving liberals win :) I'm kidding. We as sportsman need to agree to disagree civilly on this wolf issue but come together as a group to protect our outdoor heritage. I for one would have little to live for if I was stripped of my ability to enjoy Gods creation and ultimate beauty. The situation as of late is terribly depressing and has me thinking about relocating to another state just to get away from this BS.
The only person that really knows what happened is the farmer that pulled the trigger. I tend to believe that wolves have little value in our ecosystem and should be managed aggressively. I don't begrudge the farmer for making the decision he did. I also don't believe that this makes me any less of a hunter. It darn sure does not make me a "Skumbag."
I appreciate if people believe he was in the wrong....but try and put yourself in his shoes; do you rally want a wolf around your house? Would you tolerate it and if not what would you do about it? Maybe run it off, maybe call the game dept. or maybe make a decision to protect your family, livestock and livelihood. I wasn't there so I don't know what I would do.....but I can't guarantee I wouldn't have shot the wolf either. Very situational and my guess is very stressful. He made a decision and now he has to live with the consequences. I personally hope he is exonerated....and this thing goes away. :twocents: To think our government would value a wolf over the safety of a human, human's livelihood, or land is sickening.
Post by: washelkhunter on October 17, 2014, 03:07:01 PM
Poachers = scumbags. Pretty simple. Those who want to defend poaching...go for it...just don't call yourselves hunters. :twocents:
You know I fail to recall that hunters were asked for their opinions or vote on the forced reintroduction of wolves into our present ecosystem. I kinda think that if your shooting a wolf in Wa. today for whatever reason as like submitting a late ballot. Bang! Vote recorded.
Post by: JJB11B on October 17, 2014, 03:20:57 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 17, 2014, 03:29:32 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on October 17, 2014, 03:40:03 PM
Hunters are not the only members of public who own the wildlife in Washington state...and there was not a "forced reintroduction". It is a natural expansion of a species that is increasing in population size.Poachers = scumbags. Pretty simple. Those who want to defend poaching...go for it...just don't call yourselves hunters. :twocents:
You know I fail to recall that hunters were asked for their opinions or vote on the forced reintroduction of wolves into our present ecosystem. I kinda think that if your shooting a wolf in Wa. today for whatever reason as like submitting a late ballot. Bang! Vote recorded.
Keep it civil guys. This is a real problem that is effecting hunters everywher in the northwest. Most of us are very passionate about the wolf topic (Pro or Against)....but we shouldn't be attacking each other with name calling.I stand by my statement that poachers are scumbags. This guy has not been convicted of poaching. If he is, then he is a scumbag. If he was protecting his family or livestock...he did good. If the reports that he saw a wolf and chased it several miles in a vehicle and shot it are true...he poached and he is a scumbag. I have no idea what happened so I will wait to see the evidence that is presented like everyone else. Folks can rationalize things however they want, blatant violations of wildlife laws (e.g., killing a protected species or shooting an elk out of season) should not be tolerated by anyone who calls themselves a hunter. There are plenty of wildlife laws I disagree with in this state; and I believe I have sound justification for why they should be repealed...that does not entitle me (or others) to violate them.
The only person that really knows what happened is the farmer that pulled the trigger. I tend to believe that wolves have little value in our ecosystem and should be managed aggressively. I don't begrudge the farmer for making the decision he did. I also don't believe that this makes me any less of a hunter. It darn sure does not make me a "Skumbag."
I appreciate if people believe he was in the wrong....but try and put yourself in his shoes; do you rally want a wolf around your house? Would you tolerate it and if not what would you do about it? Maybe run it off, maybe call the game dept. or maybe make a decision to protect your family, livestock and livelihood. I wasn't there so I don't know what I would do.....but I can't guarantee I wouldn't have shot the wolf either. Very situational and my guess is very stressful. He made a decision and now he has to live with the consequences. I personally hope he is exonerated....and this thing goes away. :twocents: To think our government would value a wolf over the safety of a human, human's livelihood, or land is sickening.
Post by: wolfbait on October 17, 2014, 05:04:31 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on October 17, 2014, 05:23:09 PM
Post by: wolfbait on October 17, 2014, 05:32:02 PM
Actually, your statement is false and made with absolutely no supporting evidence. :tinfoil:
Actually once agin you don't know what you are talking about.
Court Allows Transplants – Then Orders Removal
Readers who actively opposed the FWS option to import Canadian wolves may recall the following events:
In 1994 the Farm Bureau, Audubon Society and other plaintiffs asked the Wyoming Federal District Court to halt wolf introduction because it could not legally occur where naturally occurring wolves already existed per the 10J Rule. But instead of issuing an injunction to halt the process while the arguments were presented, Judge Downes allowed FWS to go ahead and transplant Canadian wolves into Central Idaho and Yellowstone Park for three years until he issued his ruling in December of 1997.
Then after setting aside the final wolf introduction rules as unlawful, Judge Downes ordered FWS to remove all Canadian wolves and their progeny from both experimental population areas. This ruling was met with loud criticism by the wolf activists, including the state and federal wildlife agencies who apparently believed they could get by with ignoring both state and federal laws when it suited their agenda.
http://tomremington.com/2012/07/20/dna-studies-smaller-native-wolves-existed-in-northern-rockies-before-canadian-wolf-transplant/ (http://tomremington.com/2012/07/20/dna-studies-smaller-native-wolves-existed-in-northern-rockies-before-canadian-wolf-transplant/)
Post by: idahohuntr on October 17, 2014, 05:45:55 PM
I know you hate when pesky facts get in the way of your good conspiracies :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on October 17, 2014, 05:51:52 PM
Hunters are not the only members of public who own the wildlife in Washington state...and there was not a "forced reintroduction". It is a natural expansion of a species that is increasing in population size.Poachers = scumbags. Pretty simple. Those who want to defend poaching...go for it...just don't call yourselves hunters. :twocents:
You know I fail to recall that hunters were asked for their opinions or vote on the forced reintroduction of wolves into our present ecosystem. I kinda think that if your shooting a wolf in Wa. today for whatever reason as like submitting a late ballot. Bang! Vote recorded.
Absolutely False: Non-native wolves were released in Idaho and YNP as an experimental population (those are the words used by USFWS). We hunters had no choice in the matter.Keep it civil guys. This is a real problem that is effecting hunters everywher in the northwest. Most of us are very passionate about the wolf topic (Pro or Against)....but we shouldn't be attacking each other with name calling.I stand by my statement that poachers are scumbags. This guy has not been convicted of poaching. If he is, then he is a scumbag. If he was protecting his family or livestock...he did good. If the reports that he saw a wolf and chased it several miles in a vehicle and shot it are true...he poached and he is a scumbag. I have no idea what happened so I will wait to see the evidence that is presented like everyone else. Folks can rationalize things however they want, blatant violations of wildlife laws (e.g., killing a protected species or shooting an elk out of season) should not be tolerated by anyone who calls themselves a hunter. There are plenty of wildlife laws I disagree with in this state; and I believe I have sound justification for why they should be repealed...that does not entitle me (or others) to violate them.
The only person that really knows what happened is the farmer that pulled the trigger. I tend to believe that wolves have little value in our ecosystem and should be managed aggressively. I don't begrudge the farmer for making the decision he did. I also don't believe that this makes me any less of a hunter. It darn sure does not make me a "Skumbag."
I appreciate if people believe he was in the wrong....but try and put yourself in his shoes; do you rally want a wolf around your house? Would you tolerate it and if not what would you do about it? Maybe run it off, maybe call the game dept. or maybe make a decision to protect your family, livestock and livelihood. I wasn't there so I don't know what I would do.....but I can't guarantee I wouldn't have shot the wolf either. Very situational and my guess is very stressful. He made a decision and now he has to live with the consequences. I personally hope he is exonerated....and this thing goes away. :twocents: To think our government would value a wolf over the safety of a human, human's livelihood, or land is sickening.
Your statement is totally off base, this person was not hunting and he never claimed to be hunting, he was protecting his property. This has zero to do with hunting or poaching, this is a totally unrelated issue to hunting.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 17, 2014, 05:59:51 PM
Bearpaw, I agree we do not yet know whether this is a poaching case or not. The investigation will reveal the facts and this guy may or may not be charged as A POACHER!. :dunno:Hunters are not the only members of public who own the wildlife in Washington state...and there was not a "forced reintroduction". It is a natural expansion of a species that is increasing in population size.Poachers = scumbags. Pretty simple. Those who want to defend poaching...go for it...just don't call yourselves hunters. :twocents:
You know I fail to recall that hunters were asked for their opinions or vote on the forced reintroduction of wolves into our present ecosystem. I kinda think that if your shooting a wolf in Wa. today for whatever reason as like submitting a late ballot. Bang! Vote recorded.
Absolutely False: Non-native wolves were released in Idaho and YNP as an experimental population (those are the words used by USFWS). We hunters had no choice in the matter.Keep it civil guys. This is a real problem that is effecting hunters everywher in the northwest. Most of us are very passionate about the wolf topic (Pro or Against)....but we shouldn't be attacking each other with name calling.I stand by my statement that poachers are scumbags. This guy has not been convicted of poaching. If he is, then he is a scumbag. If he was protecting his family or livestock...he did good. If the reports that he saw a wolf and chased it several miles in a vehicle and shot it are true...he poached and he is a scumbag. I have no idea what happened so I will wait to see the evidence that is presented like everyone else. Folks can rationalize things however they want, blatant violations of wildlife laws (e.g., killing a protected species or shooting an elk out of season) should not be tolerated by anyone who calls themselves a hunter. There are plenty of wildlife laws I disagree with in this state; and I believe I have sound justification for why they should be repealed...that does not entitle me (or others) to violate them.
The only person that really knows what happened is the farmer that pulled the trigger. I tend to believe that wolves have little value in our ecosystem and should be managed aggressively. I don't begrudge the farmer for making the decision he did. I also don't believe that this makes me any less of a hunter. It darn sure does not make me a "Skumbag."
I appreciate if people believe he was in the wrong....but try and put yourself in his shoes; do you rally want a wolf around your house? Would you tolerate it and if not what would you do about it? Maybe run it off, maybe call the game dept. or maybe make a decision to protect your family, livestock and livelihood. I wasn't there so I don't know what I would do.....but I can't guarantee I wouldn't have shot the wolf either. Very situational and my guess is very stressful. He made a decision and now he has to live with the consequences. I personally hope he is exonerated....and this thing goes away. :twocents: To think our government would value a wolf over the safety of a human, human's livelihood, or land is sickening.
Your statement is totally off base, this person was not hunting and he never claimed to be hunting, he was protecting his property. This has zero to do with hunting or poaching, this is a totally unrelated issue to hunting.
I agree he was not hunting. If he is charged and convicted of illegally killing a wolf he is a poacher. Illegally killing wildlife is poaching...I don't know what you call it bearpaw, but illegal wildlife harvest is poaching. You can twist it however you want. Poaching is poaching. :twocents:
Post by: wolfbait on October 17, 2014, 06:08:24 PM
Perhaps you should read your own article, particularly the part where the 10th circuit appeals court reversed the wyoming district court ruling that FWS was illegal in their wolf reintroduction.
I know you hate when pesky facts get in the way of your good conspiracies :chuckle:
Actually it was still illegal, the same crooks that brought the wolves in got to make the rules, and as we are seeing WDFW are running their wolf program after the same model as the USFWS.
The appeals court admitted that the evidence showed native irremotus wolves already existed when the larger Canadian wolves were introduced, but said FWS had the authority to determine what constituted a population. - See more at: http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/category/canada-hunting-news/#sthash.hney1b6V.dpuf (http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/category/canada-hunting-news/#sthash.hney1b6V.dpuf)
Post by: 300rum on October 17, 2014, 06:18:22 PM
I think I know which one I agree with.
Post by: bearpaw on October 17, 2014, 06:28:46 PM
When someone comes on your property and robs you of something is it called poaching or hunting when you act in self defense?
This is really an issue of rural citizens against big government and urban environmentalists who themselves refuse to live with wolves!
As a rural landowner who has neighbors who have had wolf attacks on their pets within a few miles of my home, I fully support the exoneration of this rancher who was simply protecting his property. As a rural resident I would gladly donate to his legal defense and I am sure many others would as well.
This wolf experiment is failing, wolves are not adaptable to most of eastern Washington, with continued attacks on livestock and pets I am not as worried about wolves over populating as I once was. This whole wolf fiasco is proving to be just that, a giant fiasco to waste millions of taxpayer money. Most of Washington is too human populated and wolves will continue to get in trouble, this is only the beginning, many more wolves will be getting themselves in trouble and will be killed by ranchers or by the WDFW employees for attacking livestock and pets or stalking humans. Or they will breed with dogs and need to be eliminated from the wild. Look at the record of WA wolves so far, wolves are obviously not fitting in, wait till there are more wolves and more problems, wolves will be getting killed on a regular basis both by authorities and by people who will not report it at all. What about the wolves that breed with dogs and don't get neutered, soon we will have a bunch of wild dogs "muts" roaming WA. I have stated this before, wolves need to be kept to national parks and wilderness areas, when they venture into human populated areas they should be shot on site, WY had it right.
Post by: KFhunter on October 17, 2014, 06:40:13 PM
Slinging a slanderous label around like "POACHER" is nothing more than an attempt to apply public pressure to WDFW to seek a conviction. A conviction as some kind of revenge for the slaying of this harmless animal who has a right to exist; and exist anywhere it chooses regardless of human habitation or livestock. :rolleyes:
It's nothing more than dirty politics and public smearing of a semi-rural citizen who dared defend his property and neighborhood kids from a wolf before it could become a marauding wolf.
What's the difference between a wolf that's never preyed on livestock and one that has? - time and opportunity, nothing more.
Post by: bigtex on October 17, 2014, 07:28:35 PM
Can I shoot every deer and elk that walks through my yard because they might eat the rose bushes? I'm protecting my property right?Your statement is totally off base, this person was not hunting and he never claimed to be hunting, he was protecting his property. This has zero to do with hunting or poaching, this is a totally unrelated issue to hunting.Hunters are not the only members of public who own the wildlife in Washington state...and there was not a "forced reintroduction". It is a natural expansion of a species that is increasing in population size.Poachers = scumbags. Pretty simple. Those who want to defend poaching...go for it...just don't call yourselves hunters. :twocents:You know I fail to recall that hunters were asked for their opinions or vote on the forced reintroduction of wolves into our present ecosystem. I kinda think that if your shooting a wolf in Wa. today for whatever reason as like submitting a late ballot. Bang! Vote recorded.
Absolutely False: Non-native wolves were released in Idaho and YNP as an experimental population (those are the words used by USFWS). We hunters had no choice in the matter.Keep it civil guys. This is a real problem that is effecting hunters everywher in the northwest. Most of us are very passionate about the wolf topic (Pro or Against)....but we shouldn't be attacking each other with name calling.I stand by my statement that poachers are scumbags. This guy has not been convicted of poaching. If he is, then he is a scumbag. If he was protecting his family or livestock...he did good. If the reports that he saw a wolf and chased it several miles in a vehicle and shot it are true...he poached and he is a scumbag. I have no idea what happened so I will wait to see the evidence that is presented like everyone else. Folks can rationalize things however they want, blatant violations of wildlife laws (e.g., killing a protected species or shooting an elk out of season) should not be tolerated by anyone who calls themselves a hunter. There are plenty of wildlife laws I disagree with in this state; and I believe I have sound justification for why they should be repealed...that does not entitle me (or others) to violate them.
The only person that really knows what happened is the farmer that pulled the trigger. I tend to believe that wolves have little value in our ecosystem and should be managed aggressively. I don't begrudge the farmer for making the decision he did. I also don't believe that this makes me any less of a hunter. It darn sure does not make me a "Skumbag."
I appreciate if people believe he was in the wrong....but try and put yourself in his shoes; do you rally want a wolf around your house? Would you tolerate it and if not what would you do about it? Maybe run it off, maybe call the game dept. or maybe make a decision to protect your family, livestock and livelihood. I wasn't there so I don't know what I would do.....but I can't guarantee I wouldn't have shot the wolf either. Very situational and my guess is very stressful. He made a decision and now he has to live with the consequences. I personally hope he is exonerated....and this thing goes away. :twocents: To think our government would value a wolf over the safety of a human, human's livelihood, or land is sickening.
Every couple years there is someone who shoots a bear on their property screaming "self defense" in WA and it turns out the bear was simply walking through their property and the guy decided to shoot it.
Can I walk down the street and shoot someone because they might harm me?
Truth is, we don't know the 100% truth/facts about this incident. Was the wolf simply out in a field and the landowner decided to go after it? Or was the animal creeping in on livestock, people, etc?
We have a bunch of people supposedly "in the know" about the incident yet they can't even agree on similar stories.
How about we wait for the investigation to conclude and the Whitman County Prosecutor to say something (which in this case they will) before we decide if this was a life/property threat or someone who saw a wolf and went after it. :twocents:
Post by: washelkhunter on October 17, 2014, 07:32:05 PM
Hunters are not the only members of public who own the wildlife in Washington state...and there was not a "forced reintroduction". It is a natural expansion of a species that is increasing in population size.
Actually hunters nor anyone else can own wildlife here in Wa. and that's a good thing. There may or may not have been a deliberate re-intro of the wolf into Wa. but we are surely being "forced" to accept it. What I find disturbing is that the word you love so much; "scumbag" isn't on the auto bleep list. Every time I read idahohuntr now i'm gonna think, scumbag. :dunno:
Post by: jasnt on October 17, 2014, 07:36:52 PM
There's no legal definition of "poacher" so no, he's not a poacher as there's no such thing.
Slinging a slanderous label around like "POACHER" is nothing more than an attempt to apply public pressure to WDFW to seek a conviction. A conviction as some kind of revenge for the slaying of this harmless animal who has a right to exist; and exist anywhere it chooses regardless of human habitation or livestock. :rolleyes:
It's nothing more than dirty politics and public smearing of a semi-rural citizen who dared defend his property and neighborhood kids from a wolf before it could become a marauding wolf.
What's the difference between a wolf that's never preyed on livestock and one that has? - time and opportunity, nothing more.
:yeah:
I don't understand how any animal could be protected of human life or lively hood. Its completely ridicules. There should be no question about it. If a person or his family or his property is in danger in anyway its his right to protect it.
Post by: jrebel on October 17, 2014, 07:41:08 PM
Can I shoot every deer and elk that walks through my yard because they might eat the rose bushes? I'm protecting my property right?Your statement is totally off base, this person was not hunting and he never claimed to be hunting, he was protecting his property. This has zero to do with hunting or poaching, this is a totally unrelated issue to hunting.Hunters are not the only members of public who own the wildlife in Washington state...and there was not a "forced reintroduction". It is a natural expansion of a species that is increasing in population size.Poachers = scumbags. Pretty simple. Those who want to defend poaching...go for it...just don't call yourselves hunters. :twocents:You know I fail to recall that hunters were asked for their opinions or vote on the forced reintroduction of wolves into our present ecosystem. I kinda think that if your shooting a wolf in Wa. today for whatever reason as like submitting a late ballot. Bang! Vote recorded.
Absolutely False: Non-native wolves were released in Idaho and YNP as an experimental population (those are the words used by USFWS). We hunters had no choice in the matter.Keep it civil guys. This is a real problem that is effecting hunters everywher in the northwest. Most of us are very passionate about the wolf topic (Pro or Against)....but we shouldn't be attacking each other with name calling.I stand by my statement that poachers are scumbags. This guy has not been convicted of poaching. If he is, then he is a scumbag. If he was protecting his family or livestock...he did good. If the reports that he saw a wolf and chased it several miles in a vehicle and shot it are true...he poached and he is a scumbag. I have no idea what happened so I will wait to see the evidence that is presented like everyone else. Folks can rationalize things however they want, blatant violations of wildlife laws (e.g., killing a protected species or shooting an elk out of season) should not be tolerated by anyone who calls themselves a hunter. There are plenty of wildlife laws I disagree with in this state; and I believe I have sound justification for why they should be repealed...that does not entitle me (or others) to violate them.
The only person that really knows what happened is the farmer that pulled the trigger. I tend to believe that wolves have little value in our ecosystem and should be managed aggressively. I don't begrudge the farmer for making the decision he did. I also don't believe that this makes me any less of a hunter. It darn sure does not make me a "Skumbag."
I appreciate if people believe he was in the wrong....but try and put yourself in his shoes; do you rally want a wolf around your house? Would you tolerate it and if not what would you do about it? Maybe run it off, maybe call the game dept. or maybe make a decision to protect your family, livestock and livelihood. I wasn't there so I don't know what I would do.....but I can't guarantee I wouldn't have shot the wolf either. Very situational and my guess is very stressful. He made a decision and now he has to live with the consequences. I personally hope he is exonerated....and this thing goes away. :twocents: To think our government would value a wolf over the safety of a human, human's livelihood, or land is sickening.
Every couple years there is someone who shoots a bear on their property screaming "self defense" in WA and it turns out the bear was simply walking through their property and the guy decided to shoot it.
Can I walk down the street and shoot someone because they might harm me?
Truth is, we don't know the 100% truth/facts about this incident. Was the wolf simply out in a field and the landowner decided to go after it? Or was the animal creeping in on livestock, people, etc?
We have a bunch of people supposedly "in the know" about the incident yet they can't even agree on similar stories.
How about we wait for the investigation to conclude and the Whitman County Prosecutor to say something (which in this case they will) before we decide if this was a life/property threat or someone who saw a wolf and went after it. :twocents:
Deer eating a rose bush.... :chuckle: :chuckle: Never seen or heard of deer eating cattle, sheep, children, cats, dogs, etc. etc. etc. Reaching for straws and comparing apples to oranges. Sorry, I found that statement very funny.
I agree that no one has all the fact and your right the prosecuting attorney will say something. Unfortunately WDFW's popularity when it comes to conducting a non biased investigation has been skewed by years of mistruths and flat out lies. When the ruling is made and the investigation is complete, there will likely be discrepancies......two sides to the story and the truth will lie somewhere in between. I am sure all the wolf lovers and state bureaucrats will take and bend the finding to fit their agenda......regardless of guilt vs. innocence.
Post by: KFhunter on October 17, 2014, 07:58:34 PM
Can I shoot every deer and elk that walks through my yard because they might eat the rose bushes? I'm protecting my property right?
Every couple years there is someone who shoots a bear on their property screaming "self defense" in WA and it turns out the bear was simply walking through their property and the guy decided to shoot it.
Can I walk down the street and shoot someone because they might harm me?
Truth is, we don't know the 100% truth/facts about this incident. Was the wolf simply out in a field and the landowner decided to go after it? Or was the animal creeping in on livestock, people, etc?
We have a bunch of people supposedly "in the know" about the incident yet they can't even agree on similar stories.
How about we wait for the investigation to conclude and the Whitman County Prosecutor to say something (which in this case they will) before we decide if this was a life/property threat or someone who saw a wolf and went after it. :twocents:
Deer? Rosebush?
Is that like timber companies slaughtering bears by the 1000's because they're peeling trees? WDFW allows that..
Every year someone is prosecuted for shooting a bear, WDFW arm chair QB's those decisions. They don't take into account if that person really and truly felt threatened but rather charge based on what they see at the scene, the bear corpse and totality of the circumstances. They can't soul search and make a determination that "YA, this person thought they were going to die" It's impossible. So it is possible some of those people really did think they were going to die or be seriously hurt, or that the bear might seriously hurt a loved one or pet, or livestock in the near future. WDFW doesn't and can't take that into account. Much like the farmer that this thread is about, killing that wolf in Pullman. What did the farmer truly feel at the time this incident took place? Only the farmer and one's who believe him will know. WDFW will only look at the wolf, the evidence and totality of the circumstances and like all cases arm chair QB it and choose to send the evidence forward or not - in this case they did; but that does not mean we'll ever really know what was in the heart of this farmer when he pulled the trigger on that wolf.
If I'm walking down the street and someone pulls a gun on me must I wait until they harm me? Must I wait until the bullet impacts my chest?
What we have is a bunch of people each looking through their own lens at this case, some will jump to the farmers side and some will jump to the wolf huggers side having landed on what ever side of the fence they've landed on long ago.
Post by: VarmintVentilator on October 17, 2014, 08:35:14 PM
Post by: KFhunter on October 17, 2014, 08:46:20 PM
I personally have no use for wolves at all. But after reading 6 pages of the good, the bad and the ugly, I can see why the wolf lovers are winning the war. :twocents:
They're winning the war because they have the full backing of the state and federal government.
Do you have anything else to enlighten this thread with besides a snarky comment?
Post by: wolfbait on October 17, 2014, 09:09:08 PM
I personally have no use for wolves at all. But after reading 6 pages of the good, the bad and the ugly, I can see why the wolf lovers are winning the war. :twocents:
They're winning the war because they have the full backing of the state and federal government.
Do you have anything else to enlighten this thread with besides a snarky comment?
Plus the fact that Mainstream media will not report the truth about wolves.
Post by: VarmintVentilator on October 17, 2014, 09:19:17 PM
Do you have anything else to enlighten this thread with besides a snarky comment?
[/quote]
Nope, you proved my point. Besides you're the one that said the wolf lovers have won the war back on page 4
Post by: wolfbait on October 17, 2014, 09:55:41 PM
Can I shoot every deer and elk that walks through my yard because they might eat the rose bushes? I'm protecting my property right?Your statement is totally off base, this person was not hunting and he never claimed to be hunting, he was protecting his property. This has zero to do with hunting or poaching, this is a totally unrelated issue to hunting.Hunters are not the only members of public who own the wildlife in Washington state...and there was not a "forced reintroduction". It is a natural expansion of a species that is increasing in population size.Poachers = scumbags. Pretty simple. Those who want to defend poaching...go for it...just don't call yourselves hunters. :twocents:You know I fail to recall that hunters were asked for their opinions or vote on the forced reintroduction of wolves into our present ecosystem. I kinda think that if your shooting a wolf in Wa. today for whatever reason as like submitting a late ballot. Bang! Vote recorded.
Absolutely False: Non-native wolves were released in Idaho and YNP as an experimental population (those are the words used by USFWS). We hunters had no choice in the matter.Keep it civil guys. This is a real problem that is effecting hunters everywher in the northwest. Most of us are very passionate about the wolf topic (Pro or Against)....but we shouldn't be attacking each other with name calling.I stand by my statement that poachers are scumbags. This guy has not been convicted of poaching. If he is, then he is a scumbag. If he was protecting his family or livestock...he did good. If the reports that he saw a wolf and chased it several miles in a vehicle and shot it are true...he poached and he is a scumbag. I have no idea what happened so I will wait to see the evidence that is presented like everyone else. Folks can rationalize things however they want, blatant violations of wildlife laws (e.g., killing a protected species or shooting an elk out of season) should not be tolerated by anyone who calls themselves a hunter. There are plenty of wildlife laws I disagree with in this state; and I believe I have sound justification for why they should be repealed...that does not entitle me (or others) to violate them.
The only person that really knows what happened is the farmer that pulled the trigger. I tend to believe that wolves have little value in our ecosystem and should be managed aggressively. I don't begrudge the farmer for making the decision he did. I also don't believe that this makes me any less of a hunter. It darn sure does not make me a "Skumbag."
I appreciate if people believe he was in the wrong....but try and put yourself in his shoes; do you rally want a wolf around your house? Would you tolerate it and if not what would you do about it? Maybe run it off, maybe call the game dept. or maybe make a decision to protect your family, livestock and livelihood. I wasn't there so I don't know what I would do.....but I can't guarantee I wouldn't have shot the wolf either. Very situational and my guess is very stressful. He made a decision and now he has to live with the consequences. I personally hope he is exonerated....and this thing goes away. :twocents: To think our government would value a wolf over the safety of a human, human's livelihood, or land is sickening.
Every couple years there is someone who shoots a bear on their property screaming "self defense" in WA and it turns out the bear was simply walking through their property and the guy decided to shoot it.
Can I walk down the street and shoot someone because they might harm me?
Truth is, we don't know the 100% truth/facts about this incident. Was the wolf simply out in a field and the landowner decided to go after it? Or was the animal creeping in on livestock, people, etc?
We have a bunch of people supposedly "in the know" about the incident yet they can't even agree on similar stories.
How about we wait for the investigation to conclude and the Whitman County Prosecutor to say something (which in this case they will) before we decide if this was a life/property threat or someone who saw a wolf and went after it. :twocents:
Don't you think it's kind of stupid to compare deer or elk to a wolf/wolves knowing what we do now? Maybe that comparison would work for those who still believe the sweet wolf lies told by CNW, DoW, etc..
People shouldn't have to put up with wolves killing their livestock/pets or wondering through neighborhoods, after all aren't the wolves suppose to be wild?
David Mech said that over protection of wolves would hurt wolf recovery the most, I can see where that is coming true in WA at a rather rapid rate.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 17, 2014, 10:52:49 PM
:rolleyes:
Can I shoot every deer and elk that walks through my yard because they might eat the rose bushes? I'm protecting my property right?
Every couple years there is someone who shoots a bear on their property screaming "self defense" in WA and it turns out the bear was simply walking through their property and the guy decided to shoot it.
Can I walk down the street and shoot someone because they might harm me?
Truth is, we don't know the 100% truth/facts about this incident. Was the wolf simply out in a field and the landowner decided to go after it? Or was the animal creeping in on livestock, people, etc?
We have a bunch of people supposedly "in the know" about the incident yet they can't even agree on similar stories.
How about we wait for the investigation to conclude and the Whitman County Prosecutor to say something (which in this case they will) before we decide if this was a life/property threat or someone who saw a wolf and went after it. :twocents:
Deer? Rosebush?
Is that like timber companies slaughtering bears by the 1000's because they're peeling trees? WDFW allows that..
Every year someone is prosecuted for shooting a bear, WDFW arm chair QB's those decisions. They don't take into account if that person really and truly felt threatened but rather charge based on what they see at the scene, the bear corpse and totality of the circumstances. They can't soul search and make a determination that "YA, this person thought they were going to die" It's impossible. So it is possible some of those people really did think they were going to die or be seriously hurt, or that the bear might seriously hurt a loved one or pet, or livestock in the near future. WDFW doesn't and can't take that into account. Much like the farmer that this thread is about, killing that wolf in Pullman. What did the farmer truly feel at the time this incident took place? Only the farmer and one's who believe him will know. WDFW will only look at the wolf, the evidence and totality of the circumstances and like all cases arm chair QB it and choose to send the evidence forward or not - in this case they did; but that does not mean we'll ever really know what was in the heart of this farmer when he pulled the trigger on that wolf.
If I'm walking down the street and someone pulls a gun on me must I wait until they harm me? Must I wait until the bullet impacts my chest?
What we have is a bunch of people each looking through their own lens at this case, some will jump to the farmers side and some will jump to the wolf huggers side having landed on what ever side of the fence they've landed on long ago.
Bigtex, I'm with you on this one...an animal walking across the landscape in and of itself does not mean it is automatically a defense of life/property situation. Simply seeing a wolf or a bear or a cougar does not mean you are going to be attacked or your livestock/pets/children/neighbors/grandma/whatever are going to be attacked. Lets see the evidence presented. If this farmer was truly protecting life/property, then he did good and I support him 100%. If the evidence shows that he chased the wolf down in a vehicle for several miles and shot it when there was never any danger to life/property he is a poacher.
"There's no legal definition of "poacher" so no, he's not a poacher as there's no such thing." - KF Hunter
Care to qualify or clarify that statement KF? I have pasted it here in its entirety. I must not be reading/interpreting it correctly when I see you write there is no such thing as a poacher? Surely that is not what you meant???
As BT points out, we'll see what the prosecutor determines. Based on WDFW statements to date it appears charges are likely. :dunno:
Post by: idahohuntr on October 17, 2014, 11:03:47 PM
Your wrong again. We all own the wildlife in this state. Hunters, non-hunters...we all own the wildlife. Its a very basic element of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation...you should check it out sometime. :tup:Hunters are not the only members of public who own the wildlife in Washington state...and there was not a "forced reintroduction". It is a natural expansion of a species that is increasing in population size.
Actually hunters nor anyone else can own wildlife here in Wa. and that's a good thing. There may or may not have been a deliberate re-intro of the wolf into Wa. but we are surely being "forced" to accept it. What I find disturbing is that the word you love so much; "scumbag" isn't on the auto bleep list. Every time I read idahohuntr now i'm gonna think, scumbag. :dunno:
I'm sorry that you find it disturbing that I equate poachers to scumbags. I will never understand why legal hunters would support poachers. As far as what you think of me...lets just say I won't be losing any sleep :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on October 18, 2014, 05:46:47 AM
Can I shoot every deer and elk that walks through my yard because they might eat the rose bushes? I'm protecting my property right?Your statement is totally off base, this person was not hunting and he never claimed to be hunting, he was protecting his property. This has zero to do with hunting or poaching, this is a totally unrelated issue to hunting.Hunters are not the only members of public who own the wildlife in Washington state...and there was not a "forced reintroduction". It is a natural expansion of a species that is increasing in population size.Poachers = scumbags. Pretty simple. Those who want to defend poaching...go for it...just don't call yourselves hunters. :twocents:You know I fail to recall that hunters were asked for their opinions or vote on the forced reintroduction of wolves into our present ecosystem. I kinda think that if your shooting a wolf in Wa. today for whatever reason as like submitting a late ballot. Bang! Vote recorded.
Absolutely False: Non-native wolves were released in Idaho and YNP as an experimental population (those are the words used by USFWS). We hunters had no choice in the matter.Keep it civil guys. This is a real problem that is effecting hunters everywher in the northwest. Most of us are very passionate about the wolf topic (Pro or Against)....but we shouldn't be attacking each other with name calling.I stand by my statement that poachers are scumbags. This guy has not been convicted of poaching. If he is, then he is a scumbag. If he was protecting his family or livestock...he did good. If the reports that he saw a wolf and chased it several miles in a vehicle and shot it are true...he poached and he is a scumbag. I have no idea what happened so I will wait to see the evidence that is presented like everyone else. Folks can rationalize things however they want, blatant violations of wildlife laws (e.g., killing a protected species or shooting an elk out of season) should not be tolerated by anyone who calls themselves a hunter. There are plenty of wildlife laws I disagree with in this state; and I believe I have sound justification for why they should be repealed...that does not entitle me (or others) to violate them.
The only person that really knows what happened is the farmer that pulled the trigger. I tend to believe that wolves have little value in our ecosystem and should be managed aggressively. I don't begrudge the farmer for making the decision he did. I also don't believe that this makes me any less of a hunter. It darn sure does not make me a "Skumbag."
I appreciate if people believe he was in the wrong....but try and put yourself in his shoes; do you rally want a wolf around your house? Would you tolerate it and if not what would you do about it? Maybe run it off, maybe call the game dept. or maybe make a decision to protect your family, livestock and livelihood. I wasn't there so I don't know what I would do.....but I can't guarantee I wouldn't have shot the wolf either. Very situational and my guess is very stressful. He made a decision and now he has to live with the consequences. I personally hope he is exonerated....and this thing goes away. :twocents: To think our government would value a wolf over the safety of a human, human's livelihood, or land is sickening.
Every couple years there is someone who shoots a bear on their property screaming "self defense" in WA and it turns out the bear was simply walking through their property and the guy decided to shoot it.
Can I walk down the street and shoot someone because they might harm me?
Truth is, we don't know the 100% truth/facts about this incident. Was the wolf simply out in a field and the landowner decided to go after it? Or was the animal creeping in on livestock, people, etc?
We have a bunch of people supposedly "in the know" about the incident yet they can't even agree on similar stories.
How about we wait for the investigation to conclude and the Whitman County Prosecutor to say something (which in this case they will) before we decide if this was a life/property threat or someone who saw a wolf and went after it. :twocents:
I appreciate your perspective but I do see some differences in the comparison of wolves attacking livestock and stalking people and with deer and elk impacting rose bushes or alfalfa fields as several others have explained.
I would remind you that in Washington when elk or deer are impacting fields or orchards farmers are given depredation tags to eliminate those deer/elk causing damage. Perhaps this case will be a stepping stone to more liberalized ability to protect ourselves against damage by wolves.
Something that many forget is that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I will consider the statements from the individual as being truthful until proven untruthful in a court of law. So until a court (not some biased investigator looking for a high profile case to benefit his resume) proves the statements by the man who shot the wolf to be false, until then I will side with the citizen who claims he was acting in self defense. Even if the court finds the man guilty considering the consequences of wolves and their track record in Eastern Washington, I may still side with the citizen and feel that the law itself is faulty. History has shown us that many laws are unfair, untested, and in time are changed or removed entirely. I think these laws regarding wolves will be changed as wolves continue to impact Washington. Fifty years from now it may be more commonly understood how unfair and misguided this forced introduction of non-native wolves really is.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 18, 2014, 06:54:59 AM
Post by: PA BEN on October 18, 2014, 07:08:36 AM
That night the Delventhals decided to sleep out under the stars. Young Zachariah was dreaming when he suddenly felt excruciating pain in his face. A lone wolf had bit him in the face and was dragging him from his sleeping bag. Zach screamed and Tracy, Zach's Mother, raced to his side and picked him up, saturating her thermal shirt with blood from Zach's wounds.
The wolf stood menacingly less than a yard away. Tracy yelled at her husband, Thom, who leapt from his sleeping bag and charged the wolf. The wolf retreated and then charged at Tracy and Zach. The charges were repeated. Finally the wolf left. Thom turned a flashlight on 11-year-old Zach and gasped "Oh, my God!" "The boy's face had been ripped open. His nose was crushed. Parts of his mouth and right cheek were torn and dangling. Blood gushed from puncture wounds below his eyes, and the lower part of his right ear was missing." Zach was taken to a hospital in Toronto where a plastic surgeon performed four hours of reconstructive surgery. Zach received more than 80 stitches in his face.
Canadian officials baited the Delventhals' campsite and captured and destroyed a 60-lb wild male wolf. No further attacks have occurred since. (Cook, Kathy; "Night of the Wolf" READER'S DIGEST, July 1997, pp. 114-119.)
Humans have been attacked by wolves in Alaska. The late David Tobuk carried scars on his face from a wolf attack on him as a small child. The incident occurred around the turn of the century in interior Alaska. David was playing in his village near a river. An old wolf came into the village and bit David in the face and started to carry him off. Other Eskimos saw the wolf dragging the child off and started yelling and screaming. The wolf dropped the child and was shot by an old Eskimo trapper who had a gun. (Interview with Frank Tobuk, brother, Bettles, Alaska, December 1988.)
Post by: wolfbait on October 18, 2014, 08:24:20 AM
Algonquin Provincial Park is one of several areas where people are encouraged to "howl" at the wolves in hopes of a response from the wild wolves in the area. In August, 1996, the Delventhal family of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, were spending a nine-day family vacation in Algonquin and joined a group of Scouts in "howling" at the wolves. They were answered by the howl of a solitary wolf. :bash:
That night the Delventhals decided to sleep out under the stars. Young Zachariah was dreaming when he suddenly felt excruciating pain in his face. A lone wolf had bit him in the face and was dragging him from his sleeping bag. Zach screamed and Tracy, Zach's Mother, raced to his side and picked him up, saturating her thermal shirt with blood from Zach's wounds.
The wolf stood menacingly less than a yard away. Tracy yelled at her husband, Thom, who leapt from his sleeping bag and charged the wolf. The wolf retreated and then charged at Tracy and Zach. The charges were repeated. Finally the wolf left. Thom turned a flashlight on 11-year-old Zach and gasped "Oh, my God!" "The boy's face had been ripped open. His nose was crushed. Parts of his mouth and right cheek were torn and dangling. Blood gushed from puncture wounds below his eyes, and the lower part of his right ear was missing." Zach was taken to a hospital in Toronto where a plastic surgeon performed four hours of reconstructive surgery. Zach received more than 80 stitches in his face.
Canadian officials baited the Delventhals' campsite and captured and destroyed a 60-lb wild male wolf. No further attacks have occurred since. (Cook, Kathy; "Night of the Wolf" READER'S DIGEST, July 1997, pp. 114-119.)
Humans have been attacked by wolves in Alaska. The late David Tobuk carried scars on his face from a wolf attack on him as a small child. The incident occurred around the turn of the century in interior Alaska. David was playing in his village near a river. An old wolf came into the village and bit David in the face and started to carry him off. Other Eskimos saw the wolf dragging the child off and started yelling and screaming. The wolf dropped the child and was shot by an old Eskimo trapper who had a gun. (Interview with Frank Tobuk, brother, Bettles, Alaska, December 1988.)
Sounds quite a bit worse then say elk or deer eating the rose bush in the yard.
Long before the illegal wolf introduction these concerns and others were brought forward and introduced to the USFWS, who then ignored them as they buddied up with pro-wolf groups like Defenders of Wildlife. The USFWS knowingly lied about the impact wolves would have on the game herds, livestock and the dangers to people through wolf attacks and diseases. Now here we are after watching the impact of wolves in ID, MT, and Wyoming for 18 plus years, having the same discussions, with the same kind of people buddied up with the same environmental groups as if the wolves change when they are introduced to a different states.
The environmentalists, USFWS and state game agencies brain-washed a whole generation of people, and after 18 years of lies exposed these same agencies are still telling the same lies, and mainstream media is still following them around publishing the same garbage. Amazing!
Post by: idahohuntr on October 18, 2014, 08:41:50 AM
What statements has this man made? I'm not aware of any. All I've seen are statements by WDFW. Can you please post this farmers statements about the events and what he claimed happened. I completely agree the guy is innocent until proven guilty, however, if guilty of violating wildlife laws then he is a poacher and he should be punished accordingly. We have to have laws, and just because you personally might not like them does not give you or others any sort of entitlement to not obey the laws. Gee...maybe I have decided this forced 3 pt. min on deer is unfair, untested, and in time will be changed or removed entirely. I think I should be able to shoot any buck. Oh, wait, I like this game. I also have decided the forced limited quota branch bull tag management in SE Wa is unfair...how do you justify which laws are ok to follow and which are not. What other wildlife laws do you support people violating? Party hunting? Spot lighting? Trespassing? Or any of it is ok as long as it involves a predator just not a deer or elk?
Something that many forget is that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I will consider the statements from the individual as being truthful until proven untruthful in a court of law. So until a court (not some biased investigator looking for a high profile case to benefit his resume) proves the statements by the man who shot the wolf to be false, until then I will side with the citizen who claims he was acting in self defense. Even if the court finds the man guilty considering the consequences of wolves and their track record in Eastern Washington, I may still side with the citizen and feel that the law itself is faulty. History has shown us that many laws are unfair, untested, and in time are changed or removed entirely. I think these laws regarding wolves will be changed as wolves continue to impact Washington.
Based on your statements, I think you should probably change your wording in the thread about illegal activities and wolves so that its a little more genuine and honest.
Hunting-Washington does not condone the illegal killing of wolves or any other wildlife. An organized and civilized society must have laws and those laws must be enforced for a society to remain organized.
I don't see hunters supporting poaching on this thread. I see hunters supporting ranchers and farmers in the right to protect their families and property. A wolf was killed by a farmer in a place where wolves will never belong and are inappropriate in any circumstance. The Palouse is farming and ranching country, mostly farming. Again, because of the short shortsightedness of the WDFW and Wildlife Commission to not designate and identify what is acceptable wolf habitat and what is not, they're being allowed to proliferate anywhere. Idahohntr, I'm aware of your great love for the wolves and I'm also aware that love has clouded your vision for any other veiwpoint. You're a rabid supporter of them without consideration of the people who are actually affected. This is the problem that we have in WA today with wildlife management by popularity instead of science. The people in Seattle got to apply the most pressure to have plans passed which will never affect them. And in deference and preference to those whiners, the WDFW pushed their ridiculous plan through, and the generations old ranches and farm families and businesses are the only ones to pay the price. That is, other than hunters paying most of the costs of the program itself.
I don't see hunters supporting poaching on this thread. I see hunters supporting ranchers and farmers in the right to protect their families and property. I agree all folks have the right to protect themselves. If the facts and evidence in this case shows that is what the farmer was doing, then he did well. However, if the evidence supports statements by WDFW that this is not a defense of life/property, well, then the guy is a poacher and should be punished accordingly. A wolf was killed by a farmer in a place where wolves will never belong and are inappropriate in any circumstance. The Palouse is farming and ranching country, mostly farming. Again, because of the short shortsightedness of the WDFW and Wildlife Commission to not designate and identify what is acceptable wolf habitat and what is not, they're being allowed to proliferate anywhere.
Your statements imply that WDFW can control where animals move at all times across the entire state. That is ridiculous. Wolves are highly migratory. It is not acceptable for any landowner to unilaterally decide what animal will and will not be allowed to cross his land.
Idahohntr, I'm aware of your great love for the wolves and I'm also aware that love has clouded your vision for any other veiwpoint. You're a rabid supporter of them without consideration of the people who are actually affected. Well, you still have it wrong. I don't love or support wolves. I love and support wildlife laws. So much so that I even follow the ones which I believe to be misguided and unfair until such time that I can change them. For you to suggest I have no consideration of people who are actually affected by wolves is grossly inaccurate. It would be akin to me saying you hate all wildlife and you hate all wildlife laws. You are a rabid supporter of poachers and your rabid support of poaching wildlife has clouded your view. Now how fair is that? This is the problem that we have in WA today with wildlife management by popularity instead of science. The people in Seattle got to apply the most pressure to have plans passed which will never affect them. And in deference and preference to those whiners, the WDFW pushed their ridiculous plan through, and the generations old ranches and farm families and businesses are the only ones to pay the price. That is, other than hunters paying most of the costs of the program itself. On this point I agree. That is why wolf management is so different in WA than in the other NRM states. You have to remember though, wildlife management is mostly social/people management and so things like acceptable predator numbers, elk numbers, harvest goals etc...those are social issues...not scientific. Wolf management has little to do with science. All wolf management is about managing the social aspects...the science part is quite easy. Wolves are here and they will not be going away. All that is left to sort out are the social issues. I always laugh when folks (on all sides of these controversial issues) say we need to use "science" when the issue is entirely social.
Post by: ICEMAN on October 18, 2014, 08:42:25 AM
Didn't read all.
Has anyone suggested a campaign to ask the Whitman county prosecutor to not charge the individual in this case?
Post by: bigtex on October 18, 2014, 08:54:00 AM
Has anyone suggested a campaign to ask the Whitman county prosecutor to not charge the individual in this case?Under state law if the county prosecutor declines to prosecute a case, the WA Attorney General's Office can step in and prosecute the case. While it is rare for this to happen, an endangered species take case would certainly be one that the AG's office would have to give a hard look at.
Post by: wolfbait on October 18, 2014, 08:58:09 AM
Has anyone suggested a campaign to ask the Whitman county prosecutor to not charge the individual in this case?Under state law if the county prosecutor declines to prosecute a case, the WA Attorney General's Office can step in and prosecute the case. While it is rare for this to happen, an endangered species take case would certainly be one that the AG's office would have to give a hard look at.
And the joke is, these wolves have never been endangered.
Post by: bearpaw on October 18, 2014, 09:30:26 AM
What statements has this man made? I'm not aware of any. All I've seen are statements by WDFW. Can you please post this farmers statements about the events and what he claimed happened. I completely agree the guy is innocent until proven guilty, however, if guilty of violating wildlife laws then he is a poacher and he should be punished accordingly. We have to have laws, and just because you personally might not like them does not give you or others any sort of entitlement to not obey the laws. Gee...maybe I have decided this forced 3 pt. min on deer is unfair, untested, and in time will be changed or removed entirely. I think I should be able to shoot any buck. Oh, wait, I like this game. I also have decided the forced limited quota branch bull tag management in SE Wa is unfair...how do you justify which laws are ok to follow and which are not. What other wildlife laws do you support people violating? Party hunting? Spot lighting? Trespassing? Or any of it is ok as long as it involves a predator just not a deer or elk?
Something that many forget is that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I will consider the statements from the individual as being truthful until proven untruthful in a court of law. So until a court (not some biased investigator looking for a high profile case to benefit his resume) proves the statements by the man who shot the wolf to be false, until then I will side with the citizen who claims he was acting in self defense. Even if the court finds the man guilty considering the consequences of wolves and their track record in Eastern Washington, I may still side with the citizen and feel that the law itself is faulty. History has shown us that many laws are unfair, untested, and in time are changed or removed entirely. I think these laws regarding wolves will be changed as wolves continue to impact Washington.
Not at all what I said, twisting the issue again to suit your agenda?
Based on your statements, I think you should probably change your wording in the thread about illegal activities and wolves so that its a little more genuine and honest.Hunting-Washington does not condone the illegal killing of wolves or any other wildlife. An organized and civilized society must have laws and those laws must be enforced for a society to remain organized.
You got me on that one. You are correct, perhaps I should update the language to more accurately reflect as follows?QuoteHunting-Washington does not condone the illegalkillinghunting of wolves or any other wildlife. An organized and civilized society must have laws and those laws must be enforced for a society to remain organized. It is recognized that citizens should have a right to defend themselves and property from rogue wildlife especially dangerous predators.
I may ask the mods what they think of this language improvement?I don't see hunters supporting poaching on this thread. I see hunters supporting ranchers and farmers in the right to protect their families and property. A wolf was killed by a farmer in a place where wolves will never belong and are inappropriate in any circumstance. The Palouse is farming and ranching country, mostly farming. Again, because of the short shortsightedness of the WDFW and Wildlife Commission to not designate and identify what is acceptable wolf habitat and what is not, they're being allowed to proliferate anywhere. Idahohntr, I'm aware of your great love for the wolves and I'm also aware that love has clouded your vision for any other veiwpoint. You're a rabid supporter of them without consideration of the people who are actually affected. This is the problem that we have in WA today with wildlife management by popularity instead of science. The people in Seattle got to apply the most pressure to have plans passed which will never affect them. And in deference and preference to those whiners, the WDFW pushed their ridiculous plan through, and the generations old ranches and farm families and businesses are the only ones to pay the price. That is, other than hunters paying most of the costs of the program itself.I don't see hunters supporting poaching on this thread. I see hunters supporting ranchers and farmers in the right to protect their families and property. I agree all folks have the right to protect themselves. If the facts and evidence in this case shows that is what the farmer was doing, then he did well. However, if the evidence supports statements by WDFW that this is not a defense of life/property, well, then the guy is a poacher and should be punished accordingly. A wolf was killed by a farmer in a place where wolves will never belong and are inappropriate in any circumstance. The Palouse is farming and ranching country, mostly farming. Again, because of the short shortsightedness of the WDFW and Wildlife Commission to not designate and identify what is acceptable wolf habitat and what is not, they're being allowed to proliferate anywhere.The science (statistics) is telling me that too many cattle, sheep, and pets are being attacked in human populated areas. To improve on these problems and create better acceptance wolves should be limited to wilderness areas and parks, anywhere outside those areas they should be considered vermin and shot on sight as the science (statistical facts) show they do not fit in well.
Your statements imply that WDFW can control where animals move at all times across the entire state. That is ridiculous. Wolves are highly migratory. It is not acceptable for any landowner to unilaterally decide what animal will and will not be allowed to cross his land.
I don't think he inferred WDFW could control where wolves go, I think he is saying they should not live among human populated areas due to their dangerous nature and should be treated as vermin in human populated areas.
Idahohntr, I'm aware of your great love for the wolves and I'm also aware that love has clouded your vision for any other veiwpoint. You're a rabid supporter of them without consideration of the people who are actually affected. Well, you still have it wrong. I don't love or support wolves. I love and support wildlife laws. So much so that I even follow the ones which I believe to be misguided and unfair until such time that I can change them. For you to suggest I have no consideration of people who are actually affected by wolves is grossly inaccurate. It would be akin to me saying you hate all wildlife and you hate all wildlife laws. You are a rabid supporter of poachers and your rabid support of poaching wildlife has clouded your view. Now how fair is that? This is the problem that we have in WA today with wildlife management by popularity instead of science. The people in Seattle got to apply the most pressure to have plans passed which will never affect them. And in deference and preference to those whiners, the WDFW pushed their ridiculous plan through, and the generations old ranches and farm families and businesses are the only ones to pay the price. That is, other than hunters paying most of the costs of the program itself. On this point I agree. That is why wolf management is so different in WA than in the other NRM states. You have to remember though, wildlife management is mostly social/people management and so things like acceptable predator numbers, elk numbers, harvest goals etc...those are social issues...not scientific. Wolf management has little to do with science. All wolf management is about managing the social aspects...the science part is quite easy. Wolves are here and they will not be going away. All that is left to sort out are the social issues. I always laugh when folks (on all sides of these controversial issues) say we need to use "science" when the issue is entirely social.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 18, 2014, 09:53:19 AM
And, your assertion that predator numbers, ungulate numbers, etc., are social issues is mind numbingly mentally challenged thinking. Wildlife is supposed to be managed according to scientific principles, using herd numbers and having the appropriate animals in the appropriate places according to habitat and wildlife/human conflict. The WDFW, more than any other state in the NRM, has exceeded to public pressure in opposition to common sense wildlife management with regards to many issues, especially the wolf plan. This is particularly illustrated by the unholy alliances they struck with environmentalist groups which are now biting them in the butt as they try to manage wolves and lawsuits at the same time. Had the wolf plan been formed using evidence from previous plans, like those in MT, ID, and WY, the scale would've been vastly different and there would have been consideration of acceptable habitat for the wolves. Instead, we have a blanket program which has gone out of control in several areas of the state, and farmers, ranchers, and communities who are being held hostage by special interests from protecting their livelihoods.
And, I do not support poaching. I would report poaching. But, I do support the effective control of wildlife occurring where there is a clear and present danger of human/wildlife conflict, as in the Palouse where there is zero habitat appropriate for wolves. If the WDFW is unable to effectively handle these problems then it is absolutely incumbent on the local citizenry to take matters into their own hands. It's being done in Stevens Co. where the residents have received near zero relief from the WDFW and now in the Palouse, where any reasonable individual can see that wolves will within a very short time, create a problem if left unmanaged.
Post by: KFhunter on October 18, 2014, 10:47:45 AM
Has anyone suggested a campaign to ask the Whitman county prosecutor to not charge the individual in this case?Under state law if the county prosecutor declines to prosecute a case, the WA Attorney General's Office can step in and prosecute the case. While it is rare for this to happen, an endangered species take case would certainly be one that the AG's office would have to give a hard look at.
This is what I been warning against with Stevens CO coming out with that resolution, didn't want people to interpret that as a green light. Given the disagreement between Olympia and Stevens CO over this I could see the state snapping up a case to prove their point.
Post by: KFhunter on October 18, 2014, 11:21:20 AM
:rolleyes:
Can I shoot every deer and elk that walks through my yard because they might eat the rose bushes? I'm protecting my property right?
Every couple years there is someone who shoots a bear on their property screaming "self defense" in WA and it turns out the bear was simply walking through their property and the guy decided to shoot it.
Can I walk down the street and shoot someone because they might harm me?
Truth is, we don't know the 100% truth/facts about this incident. Was the wolf simply out in a field and the landowner decided to go after it? Or was the animal creeping in on livestock, people, etc?
We have a bunch of people supposedly "in the know" about the incident yet they can't even agree on similar stories.
How about we wait for the investigation to conclude and the Whitman County Prosecutor to say something (which in this case they will) before we decide if this was a life/property threat or someone who saw a wolf and went after it. :twocents:
Deer? Rosebush?
Is that like timber companies slaughtering bears by the 1000's because they're peeling trees? WDFW allows that..
Every year someone is prosecuted for shooting a bear, WDFW arm chair QB's those decisions. They don't take into account if that person really and truly felt threatened but rather charge based on what they see at the scene, the bear corpse and totality of the circumstances. They can't soul search and make a determination that "YA, this person thought they were going to die" It's impossible. So it is possible some of those people really did think they were going to die or be seriously hurt, or that the bear might seriously hurt a loved one or pet, or livestock in the near future. WDFW doesn't and can't take that into account. Much like the farmer that this thread is about, killing that wolf in Pullman. What did the farmer truly feel at the time this incident took place? Only the farmer and one's who believe him will know. WDFW will only look at the wolf, the evidence and totality of the circumstances and like all cases arm chair QB it and choose to send the evidence forward or not - in this case they did; but that does not mean we'll ever really know what was in the heart of this farmer when he pulled the trigger on that wolf.
If I'm walking down the street and someone pulls a gun on me must I wait until they harm me? Must I wait until the bullet impacts my chest?
What we have is a bunch of people each looking through their own lens at this case, some will jump to the farmers side and some will jump to the wolf huggers side having landed on what ever side of the fence they've landed on long ago.
Bigtex, I'm with you on this one...an animal walking across the landscape in and of itself does not mean it is automatically a defense of life/property situation. Simply seeing a wolf or a bear or a cougar does not mean you are going to be attacked or your livestock/pets/children/neighbors/grandma/whatever are going to be attacked. Lets see the evidence presented. If this farmer was truly protecting life/property, then he did good and I support him 100%. If the evidence shows that he chased the wolf down in a vehicle for several miles and shot it when there was never any danger to life/property he is a poacher.
"There's no legal definition of "poacher" so no, he's not a poacher as there's no such thing." - KF Hunter
Care to qualify or clarify that statement KF? I have pasted it here in its entirety. I must not be reading/interpreting it correctly when I see you write there is no such thing as a poacher? Surely that is not what you meant???
As BT points out, we'll see what the prosecutor determines. Based on WDFW statements to date it appears charges are likely. :dunno:
"Poaching" is a personal term, to me poaching is the stereotypical poacher taking animals for personal gain. It could be a poacher in Africa killing a rhino for a horn to sell, or someone poaching bears to sell their galls to Asian markets, or someone taking Elk to sell to restaurant vendors. It's the guy road hunting in the middle of the night with a flashlight, tossing a deer in the back of the truck and racing off with his prize. I suspect your personal meaning of Poacher is very similar to mine.
"Poaching" does not encompass a farmer/rancher/concerned parent killing a dangerous animal to protect their loved ones or livestock. The farmer does not have anything to gain but a lot to loose in doing this. He's taken a stand and hasn't run from the consequences. Takes a lot of gumption to do that then turn yourself in knowing you probably won't get a fair shake by WDFW/Wolf huggers and certain HW members. Had the farmer shot a cougar would this have made HW and other media? Today it's wolves and tomorrow it'll be someone shooting a Grizzly in the WDFW's grizzly recovery zone.
Legally there is no definition of poacher, so the farmer will not be charged with "poaching" as you've stated. Your just attempting to slander the farmer by publicly branding him a POACHER!!! before his side of the story is even known. I also have my doubts the farmer will get a fair shake by WDFW given their history of deceit, hopefully there'll be some clear heads in the county court house.
Post by: MarkyMark on October 18, 2014, 09:42:13 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on October 18, 2014, 09:50:37 PM
Illegal wildlife harvest is poaching in my book. End of story. Your snide game of semantics is pointless. :tup:
Post by: bone collector 12 on October 18, 2014, 09:53:23 PM
Question: if the farmer is charged with a violation does that necessarily mean the county has to prosecute the case?It will depend on the prosocutors office,they may enter a plea deal or something along those lines
Post by: bigtex on October 19, 2014, 08:37:19 PM
:yeah:This is what I been warning against with Stevens CO coming out with that resolution, didn't want people to interpret that as a green light. Given the disagreement between Olympia and Stevens CO over this I could see the state snapping up a case to prove their point.Has anyone suggested a campaign to ask the Whitman county prosecutor to not charge the individual in this case?Under state law if the county prosecutor declines to prosecute a case, the WA Attorney General's Office can step in and prosecute the case. While it is rare for this to happen, an endangered species take case would certainly be one that the AG's office would have to give a hard look at.
Couldn't have said it better.
Post by: Landowner on October 21, 2014, 01:43:30 PM
Post by: Ice Cap on October 21, 2014, 02:08:19 PM
If a county prosecutor agrees to a very minimal penalty with a plea bargain does the state have any way of taking and trying the case in search of a harsher penalty?
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 21, 2014, 04:02:43 PM
Bigtex,
If a county prosecutor agrees to a very minimal penalty with a plea bargain does the state have any way of taking and trying the case in search of a harsher penalty?
If criminal charges are brought, this would be the State of WA v. Said Farmer. The county would have very little say in the matter.
Post by: Landowner on October 21, 2014, 11:09:43 PM
Post by: GameHunter1959 on October 22, 2014, 01:18:29 AM
Post by: LDennis24 on October 24, 2014, 10:09:23 AM
Post by: bigtex on October 24, 2014, 10:12:37 AM
:yeah:Bigtex,If criminal charges are brought, this would be the State of WA v. Said Farmer. The county would have very little say in the matter.
If a county prosecutor agrees to a very minimal penalty with a plea bargain does the state have any way of taking and trying the case in search of a harsher penalty?
However it is a county prosecutor, so a county employee, prosecuting the case.
Post by: denali on October 24, 2014, 04:13:03 PM
I hope to receive a pic?
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on October 24, 2014, 04:22:19 PM
Latest news I heard from people who know this guy. I'll just call him this guy. I know who it is and I'm not posting his name here. The WDFW isn't going to do a DNA test because they are afraid it will show that this wolf is a hybrid and not a purebred wolf which would make it a feral dog preying on livestock and they would have no case. This is what was told to them from an attorney. All hearsay at the moment but it might be true. :dunno:Well then ..if this is true then his lawyer should be demanding a DNA TEST :dunno:
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on October 24, 2014, 04:25:22 PM
:yeah: :tup::rolleyes:
Can I shoot every deer and elk that walks through my yard because they might eat the rose bushes? I'm protecting my property right?
Every couple years there is someone who shoots a bear on their property screaming "self defense" in WA and it turns out the bear was simply walking through their property and the guy decided to shoot it.
Can I walk down the street and shoot someone because they might harm me?
Truth is, we don't know the 100% truth/facts about this incident. Was the wolf simply out in a field and the landowner decided to go after it? Or was the animal creeping in on livestock, people, etc?
We have a bunch of people supposedly "in the know" about the incident yet they can't even agree on similar stories.
How about we wait for the investigation to conclude and the Whitman County Prosecutor to say something (which in this case they will) before we decide if this was a life/property threat or someone who saw a wolf and went after it. :twocents:
Deer? Rosebush?
Is that like timber companies slaughtering bears by the 1000's because they're peeling trees? WDFW allows that..
Every year someone is prosecuted for shooting a bear, WDFW arm chair QB's those decisions. They don't take into account if that person really and truly felt threatened but rather charge based on what they see at the scene, the bear corpse and totality of the circumstances. They can't soul search and make a determination that "YA, this person thought they were going to die" It's impossible. So it is possible some of those people really did think they were going to die or be seriously hurt, or that the bear might seriously hurt a loved one or pet, or livestock in the near future. WDFW doesn't and can't take that into account. Much like the farmer that this thread is about, killing that wolf in Pullman. What did the farmer truly feel at the time this incident took place? Only the farmer and one's who believe him will know. WDFW will only look at the wolf, the evidence and totality of the circumstances and like all cases arm chair QB it and choose to send the evidence forward or not - in this case they did; but that does not mean we'll ever really know what was in the heart of this farmer when he pulled the trigger on that wolf.
If I'm walking down the street and someone pulls a gun on me must I wait until they harm me? Must I wait until the bullet impacts my chest?
What we have is a bunch of people each looking through their own lens at this case, some will jump to the farmers side and some will jump to the wolf huggers side having landed on what ever side of the fence they've landed on long ago.
Bigtex, I'm with you on this one...an animal walking across the landscape in and of itself does not mean it is automatically a defense of life/property situation. Simply seeing a wolf or a bear or a cougar does not mean you are going to be attacked or your livestock/pets/children/neighbors/grandma/whatever are going to be attacked. Lets see the evidence presented. If this farmer was truly protecting life/property, then he did good and I support him 100%. If the evidence shows that he chased the wolf down in a vehicle for several miles and shot it when there was never any danger to life/property he is a poacher.
"There's no legal definition of "poacher" so no, he's not a poacher as there's no such thing." - KF Hunter
Care to qualify or clarify that statement KF? I have pasted it here in its entirety. I must not be reading/interpreting it correctly when I see you write there is no such thing as a poacher? Surely that is not what you meant???
As BT points out, we'll see what the prosecutor determines. Based on WDFW statements to date it appears charges are likely. :dunno:
"Poaching" is a personal term, to me poaching is the stereotypical poacher taking animals for personal gain. It could be a poacher in Africa killing a rhino for a horn to sell, or someone poaching bears to sell their galls to Asian markets, or someone taking Elk to sell to restaurant vendors. It's the guy road hunting in the middle of the night with a flashlight, tossing a deer in the back of the truck and racing off with his prize. I suspect your personal meaning of Poacher is very similar to mine.
"Poaching" does not encompass a farmer/rancher/concerned parent killing a dangerous animal to protect their loved ones or livestock. The farmer does not have anything to gain but a lot to loose in doing this. He's taken a stand and hasn't run from the consequences. Takes a lot of gumption to do that then turn yourself in knowing you probably won't get a fair shake by WDFW/Wolf huggers and certain HW members. Had the farmer shot a cougar would this have made HW and other media? Today it's wolves and tomorrow it'll be someone shooting a Grizzly in the WDFW's grizzly recovery zone.
Legally there is no definition of poacher, so the farmer will not be charged with "poaching" as you've stated. Your just attempting to slander the farmer by publicly branding him a POACHER!!! before his side of the story is even known. I also have my doubts the farmer will get a fair shake by WDFW given their history of deceit, hopefully there'll be some clear heads in the county court house.
Post by: James Fell on October 24, 2014, 04:57:39 PM
Just received a message that another wolf was spotted today in the same area.
I hope to receive a pic?
There have been daily wolf sightings on the outskirts of Pullman since this shooting. Last weekend a friend saw a Black wolf chasing a deer on Klemgard Rd near Ewartsville Grain elevator.
Post by: wolfbait on October 24, 2014, 05:34:39 PM
Just received a message that another wolf was spotted today in the same area.
I hope to receive a pic?
There have been daily wolf sightings on the outskirts of Pullman since this shooting. Last weekend a friend saw a Black wolf chasing a deer on Klemgard Rd near Ewartsville Grain elevator.
Someone needs to have a cow/cows etc. killed before WDFW can confirm a wolf pack, otherwise the wolves are just passin through.
Post by: Biggerhammer on October 26, 2014, 11:27:16 AM
Post by: buckfvr on October 26, 2014, 11:37:15 AM
Latest news I heard from people who know this guy. I'll just call him this guy. I know who it is and I'm not posting his name here. The WDFW isn't going to do a DNA test because they are afraid it will show that this wolf is a hybrid and not a purebred wolf which would make it a feral dog preying on livestock and they would have no case. This is what was told to them from an attorney. All hearsay at the moment but it might be true. :dunno:Well then ..if this is true then his lawyer should be demanding a DNA TEST :dunno:
[/quote
I believe first and foremost, that the state moving forward with any case should be pending a dna test. If it is a hybrid, no charges..............however, I can see the state NOT revealing the outcome if it doesnt support their agenda........and yes, this is all agenda driven.
Post by: KFhunter on October 26, 2014, 05:32:02 PM
Wouldn't be surprised if none of them were pure Canis lupus occidentalis.
I don't know at what level of DNA purity a wolf become a hybrid? 98%? I've seen "hybrids" being sold that boast 98% wolf DNA...which is really code speak for pure wolf being sold as hybrid to skirt the law.
Post by: MarkyMark on October 26, 2014, 09:37:30 PM
Post by: T-Dozzer on October 30, 2014, 07:29:40 PM
I don't think we ever have to worry about a wolf pack getting established in Whitman County.
The environment just seems to be hard on 'em.
:yeah:
This was bout 10 min from our farm JJ. I've wondered when some more would head our way. Just a matter of time.
Post by: Alchase on October 31, 2014, 12:49:31 PM
I was in Pullman all weekend I didn't see nothing but Cougars and some Vandals. Not a single wolf.
Did you shoot them?
I hear they are a detriment to society and need strict population controls :dunno:
Post by: jrebel on October 31, 2014, 12:58:42 PM
I was in Pullman all weekend I didn't see nothing but Cougars and some Vandals. Not a single wolf.
Did you shoot them?
I hear they are a detriment to society and need strict population controls :dunno:
The cougar population more than doubles one weekend a year. It is an AWESOME sight if you have never experienced it before. :chuckle:
Post by: cbond3318 on October 31, 2014, 01:00:53 PM
I was in Pullman all weekend I didn't see nothing but Cougars and some Vandals. Not a single wolf.
Did you shoot them?
I hear they are a detriment to society and need strict population controls :dunno:
The cougar population more than doubles one weekend a year. It is an AWESOME sight if you have never experienced it before. :chuckle:
It can become a real "slayfest" :sry:
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on October 31, 2014, 08:25:44 PM
Post by: TRD1911 on October 31, 2014, 08:39:11 PM
lone wolf just passing through?
Did they use a jump to conclusion mat?
I see what you did there :hello:
Post by: bearpaw on October 31, 2014, 10:49:28 PM
Post by: MarkyMark on October 31, 2014, 11:34:46 PM
Post by: bearpaw on November 01, 2014, 01:21:38 PM
Well it's true. The USC Trojans will be in Pullman this weekend.
That is fine to note when not put into the wrong context. ;)
Post by: goosegetter79 on November 14, 2014, 03:32:33 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on November 17, 2014, 10:32:04 AM
When they miss facts like that I throw the whole thing out as BS.
Post by: bearpaw on November 17, 2014, 10:41:43 AM
Post by: GameHunter1959 on November 17, 2014, 01:27:28 PM
Post by: turkeyfeather on November 17, 2014, 01:40:54 PM
Post by: VarmintVentilator on November 17, 2014, 01:50:52 PM
Post by: Stein on November 17, 2014, 01:57:32 PM
I still fail to see how they can go after him when everyone in that area has been repeatedly told "there are no wolves". He can honestly say he thought he shot a yote. This falls on WDFW shoulders and they are at fault for this. This guy is completely innocent in my book.
He is the only one responsible for the bullet once it leaves his gun.
Post by: turkeyfeather on November 17, 2014, 02:01:37 PM
How does that change the information he was givin? It doesn't.I still fail to see how they can go after him when everyone in that area has been repeatedly told "there are no wolves". He can honestly say he thought he shot a yote. This falls on WDFW shoulders and they are at fault for this. This guy is completely innocent in my book.
He is the only one responsible for the bullet once it leaves his gun.
Post by: idahohuntr on November 17, 2014, 02:13:16 PM
You'd have to be blind, deaf, and dumb to not think wolves might be near Pullman. More importantly, YOU are 100% responsible for positively identifying your target BEFORE pulling the trigger. If you are unsure of ANYTHING do not shoot!How does that change the information he was givin? It doesn't.I still fail to see how they can go after him when everyone in that area has been repeatedly told "there are no wolves". He can honestly say he thought he shot a yote. This falls on WDFW shoulders and they are at fault for this. This guy is completely innocent in my book.
He is the only one responsible for the bullet once it leaves his gun.
Post by: Stein on November 17, 2014, 02:15:21 PM
Post by: turkeyfeather on November 17, 2014, 02:26:57 PM
Your right about identifying your target. And all this guy has to say is it was a big coyote. WDFW told me there are no wolves in this area. That's not really a far stretch, they have been telling us all that for many years now. Personally I hope this guy gets off scott-free.You'd have to be blind, deaf, and dumb to not think wolves might be near Pullman. More importantly, YOU are 100% responsible for positively identifying your target BEFORE pulling the trigger. If you are unsure of ANYTHING do not shoot!How does that change the information he was givin? It doesn't.I still fail to see how they can go after him when everyone in that area has been repeatedly told "there are no wolves". He can honestly say he thought he shot a yote. This falls on WDFW shoulders and they are at fault for this. This guy is completely innocent in my book.
He is the only one responsible for the bullet once it leaves his gun.
Post by: Stein on November 17, 2014, 02:28:21 PM
Post by: turkeyfeather on November 17, 2014, 02:30:43 PM
Realistically, he could have claimed self defense.Exactly. Unless he says he shot it for the hell of it, they can't prove anything different. And again I say this falls on WDFW. If they weren't so incompetent this wouldn't even be a issue.
Post by: Curly on November 17, 2014, 03:08:28 PM
Quote
“They determined that the wolf had been shot by a farmer who had pursued the animal for several miles in his vehicle after seeing it near his farm,” said Nate Pamplin, the agency’s wildlife program director.
Not the smartest thing to kill a wolf on opening weekend of modern deer season. I think the guy is screwed unless he really does have a good defense. As far as I know, the only info that is out there is what WDFW has let out about the case. Hopefully the farmer has some good excuse for shooting the wolf.
I do hope the prosecutor goes easy on him, but I suspect he is going to be in a world of hurt. Damn wolves should be shot on sight in the eastern 1/3 of the state since they are federally delisted there........ :bash:
Post by: cougarbart on November 17, 2014, 03:16:22 PM
Post by: GameHunter1959 on November 17, 2014, 04:17:25 PM
He can claim he thought it was a coyote, but that's not going to work in court. That's like me going and shooting an elk and saying I thought it was a big buck, and made an honest mistake. Please let me off.
Classic example of a typical Eastern Washington self-entitled farmer, that thinks he is going to "show the state of Washington" how the good ole boys do it out in Pullman. Well the good ole boy better cash in some of that wheat. He is going to have a big bill to pay. Looks like we should have some nice fresh roads being built on the Westside; compliments of this farmers stupidity.
Post by: timberfaller on November 17, 2014, 04:27:33 PM
Classic example of a typical Eastern Washington self-entitled farmer,"
:dunno: YOU have a beef with "farmers"?? pun intended!
Don't remember the "dairy" fiasco's from the 80's(westside)?????? :o
Post by: ICEMAN on November 17, 2014, 04:29:51 PM
Post by: GameHunter1959 on November 17, 2014, 05:26:01 PM
Just saying; many Eastside folk seem to have the self-entitled, anti-Washington State, anti-WSDFW attitude. Some seem to think they can do what they want, when it comes to wolves, deer, elk, etc. I am guessing this farmer thought he would do what he wants, and it cost him. Considering he was being watched for his previous actions.
I have great relations with Eastside farmers. Hunt their farms every year, with no problems. I am very thankful for it.
In fact; my mother and father-in-law own a farm on the Eastside. A farm that I work on regularly throughout the year.
Post by: GameHunter1959 on November 17, 2014, 05:31:31 PM
Gamehunter, drop the moronic attempt at making this a west side versus east side issue. We are Washington hunters on this board. Lay off the inciting attitude.
And I believe it is against forum rules to name call or insinuate insults, such as "moronic", thus calling me a moron. So please refrain from this type of behavior. This is a family site. This kind of behavior WILL NOT be tolerated by Hunt Wa, and is immediate grounds to be banned.
Post by: idahohuntr on November 17, 2014, 05:51:46 PM
Back on topic...has there been any more details about this incident and the circumstances? Media reports are never super reliable so this "chasing in a vehicle" aspect is fairly important to whether a self defense claim is going to be legitimate imo. After Crown meets with prosecutor will there be more details? Or nothing until a charging decision is made?
Post by: T-Dozzer on November 17, 2014, 05:52:44 PM
Gamehunter, drop the moronic attempt at making this a west side versus east side issue. We are Washington hunters on this board. Lay off the inciting attitude.
And I believe it is against forum rules to name call or insinuate insults, such as "moronic", thus calling me a moron. So please refrain from this type of behavior. This is a family site. This kind of behavior WILL NOT be tolerated by Hunt Wa, and is immediate grounds to be banned.
Im with iceman on this one.
Post by: bigtex on November 17, 2014, 05:53:47 PM
I still fail to see how they can go after him when everyone in that area has been repeatedly told "there are no wolves". He can honestly say he thought he shot a yote. This falls on WDFW shoulders and they are at fault for this. This guy is completely innocent in my book.So if I am in King County and see a moose I can shoot it right? Its just a big elk, I mean there's no moose in King County...
Post by: Gringo31 on November 17, 2014, 05:58:12 PM
Quote
I still fail to see how they can go after him when everyone in that area has been repeatedly told "there are no wolves". He can honestly say he thought he shot a yote. This falls on WDFW shoulders and they are at fault for this. This guy is completely innocent in my book.
So if I am in King County and see a moose I can shoot it right? Its just a big elk, I mean there's no moose in King County...
Bigtex....
You're saying that wouldn't work! :yike: :chuckle:
Post by: turkeyfeather on November 17, 2014, 05:59:31 PM
Did WDFW tell you that there are no moose in King County. If not then your argument is idiotic and doesn't apply.I still fail to see how they can go after him when everyone in that area has been repeatedly told "there are no wolves". He can honestly say he thought he shot a yote. This falls on WDFW shoulders and they are at fault for this. This guy is completely innocent in my book.So if I am in King County and see a moose I can shoot it right? Its just a big elk, I mean there's no moose in King County...
Post by: denali on November 17, 2014, 06:24:47 PM
I still fail to see how they can go after him when everyone in that area has been repeatedly told "there are no wolves". He can honestly say he thought he shot a yote. This falls on WDFW shoulders and they are at fault for this. This guy is completely innocent in my book.So if I am in King County and see a moose I can shoot it right? Its just a big elk, I mean there's no moose in King County...
come on bigtex... they give out trapping/ hunting tags like candy at Halloween, moose draws are OIL.
Post by: bigtex on November 17, 2014, 06:34:30 PM
Before calling my statement idiotic you may want to read a WDFW website: http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/moose.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/moose.html)Did WDFW tell you that there are no moose in King County. If not then your argument is idiotic and doesn't apply.I still fail to see how they can go after him when everyone in that area has been repeatedly told "there are no wolves". He can honestly say he thought he shot a yote. This falls on WDFW shoulders and they are at fault for this. This guy is completely innocent in my book.So if I am in King County and see a moose I can shoot it right? Its just a big elk, I mean there's no moose in King County...
So yes according to WDFW there are no moose in King County
Post by: turkeyfeather on November 17, 2014, 06:38:36 PM
Your missing the point Tex. Did they tell YOU there are no moose there. Cause that is what they have been telling Palouse residents. These residents have been told that what they are seeing are just big coyote's.Before calling my statement idiotic you may want to read a WDFW website: http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/moose.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/moose.html)Did WDFW tell you that there are no moose in King County. If not then your argument is idiotic and doesn't apply.I still fail to see how they can go after him when everyone in that area has been repeatedly told "there are no wolves". He can honestly say he thought he shot a yote. This falls on WDFW shoulders and they are at fault for this. This guy is completely innocent in my book.So if I am in King County and see a moose I can shoot it right? Its just a big elk, I mean there's no moose in King County...
So yes according to WDFW there are no moose in King County
Post by: Curly on November 17, 2014, 07:44:12 PM
Post by: turkeyfeather on November 17, 2014, 07:56:49 PM
If I'm not mistaken, wdfw said there are no wolf packs in Whitman county. I don't believe they ever said there are no wolves there. An individual wolf could show up anywhere.As someone who lives on this side of the state and has family in the Palouse I can assure you that is what residents have been told.
Post by: jrebel on November 17, 2014, 08:07:34 PM
They have been watching this guy because of "previous activities" for a while now, just haven't been able to catch him. I think he had better get out his check book for this one. If it does go to court, the PA Denis Tracy just has to remember to take the right paper work with him when he goes to the court house. He has been known to make those types of goobers.
If you are going to make accusations such as this maybe you should back them up with facts. Otherwise this kind of accusation adds no value to the topic at hand. :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on November 17, 2014, 08:41:28 PM
Then you have been talking to the wrong people...the cashier that sells licenses at walmart or office clerk at the local wdfw office are not necessarily the best sources of information. I highly doubt you had a biologist tell you or any Palouse resident that no wolf could be near pullman...wolves have been on the Palouse for a long time...perhaps you could provide more details on who said what...are you just making a generalization about some rumors you heard from friends and relatives...or do you have specific names, dates, articles, etc. to prove what you keep repeating?If I'm not mistaken, wdfw said there are no wolf packs in Whitman county. I don't believe they ever said there are no wolves there. An individual wolf could show up anywhere.As someone who lives on this side of the state and has family in the Palouse I can assure you that is what residents have been told.
Post by: Landowner on November 17, 2014, 08:45:35 PM
No way should this guy get off. Especially being a farmer. I am sure he is more than aware of wolves being reintroduced into WA.
He can claim he thought it was a coyote, but that's not going to work in court. That's like me going and shooting an elk and saying I thought it was a big buck, and made an honest mistake. Please let me off.
Classic example of a typical Eastern Washington self-entitled farmer, that thinks he is going to "show the state of Washington" how the good ole boys do it out in Pullman. Well the good ole boy better cash in some of that wheat. He is going to have a big bill to pay. Looks like we should have some nice fresh roads being built on the Westside; compliments of this farmers stupidity.
Then again, maybe a jury will say the Eastsiders won't be paying for roads in W.WA. Never underestimate the local communities. Will be interesting to see.
Post by: T-Dozzer on November 17, 2014, 08:52:54 PM
Post by: Landowner on November 17, 2014, 08:57:07 PM
We have a farm and I grew up on the Palouse. I've known there are wolves around there for years. The small town of lacrosse even has the last sighting (picture) on the cover of the phone book. The thing that irritates locals is when they report a sighting it's often not taken seriously. I think the guy who shot this wolf will have some explaining, but if it goes to trial in Whitman county he might get some understanding jurors. Now if the state pursues charges, that's another story.
Same jury. Same venue. No matter how he gets charged under state law.
Post by: VarmintVentilator on November 18, 2014, 07:05:46 AM
They have been watching this guy because of "previous activities" for a while now, just haven't been able to catch him. I think he had better get out his check book for this one. If it does go to court, the PA Denis Tracy just has to remember to take the right paper work with him when he goes to the court house. He has been known to make those types of goobers.
If you are going to make accusations such as this maybe you should back them up with facts. Otherwise this kind of accusation adds no value to the topic at hand. :twocents:
I am a landowner in Whitman County and lived here all my life. As far as what Mr.-------did, it was a really bad decision on his part. Are there wolves here in Whitman county? Enough that sitings are on a regular basis now throughout the county. The problem is with the wolves always moving and the type of ground (big rolling hills and lots of seeded wheat acres) it's hard for anyone to keep tabs on them, get photos for proof etc. Plus, the game department is not going to just start driving through peoples seeded wheat fields. As far as two or more that have been seen together to be considered a pack, is very difficult since most people don't carry cameras with them, plus you have to be close enough to get a good visual photo. The game biologist know there are two and three running together in a couple of areas but nobody can see them long enough to get the visual proof needed. As far as the game department you only have a few of them to check the whole county. That makes it very difficult on their part.
Post by: Snakeriver10 on November 19, 2014, 11:43:31 AM
Post by: Curly on November 19, 2014, 11:47:55 AM
Post by: bearpaw on November 19, 2014, 11:50:49 AM
Didn't I read in this thread where DNA testing had been done now and it is 100% wolf?
I saw that somewhere too!
Post by: Curly on November 19, 2014, 11:54:00 AM
Post by: Sumpnneedskillin on November 19, 2014, 03:16:55 PM
State Fish and Wildlife wants Pullman wolf shooting suspect to face misdemeanor
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife wants the man who allegedly shot a wolf just outside of Pullman to be prosecuted with a misdemeanor. The Regional Fish and Wildlife Sergeant and the local agent personally delivered their final investigative report to Whitman County Prosecutor Denis Tracy Wednesday. The report recommends that the man be charged with unlawful taking of endangered wildlife. Wolves are still protected under Washington State law and can only be shot if they are in the act of attacking pets or livestock. The incident occurred October 12th when a wolf was shot and killed just outside Pullman. The alleged shooter called fish and game himself to report the incident. It’s now up to Tracy to decide how to proceed. If convicted of the misdemeanor requested by Fish and Wildlife the man could face up to a year in jail. This marks the first time in Washington that a wolf poaching suspect has been identified by authorities.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on November 19, 2014, 03:22:54 PM
Surprised they didn't throw the book at him, must be something to his side of the story. :dunno:
Post by: predkiller on November 19, 2014, 04:15:12 PM
Nothing I like better then Westsiders telling Landowners what to do w their property.. Think of the wolf as a Rapist instead and it's attacking your wife or daughter. Their whole lives depend on small things making or breaking..now they must fight the Completely unconstitutional endangered species act and all the Liberals who know better. Reminder Wolf re introduction was done first and foremost to destroy Private Property rights and the use of ones property today it's the sheep and cattle ranchers Tomorrow it may be you over an endangered Cockroach.No way should this guy get off. Especially being a farmer. I am sure he is more than aware of wolves being reintroduced into WA.
He can claim he thought it was a coyote, but that's not going to work in court. That's like me going and shooting an elk and saying I thought it was a big buck, and made an honest mistake. Please let me off.
Classic example of a typical Eastern Washington self-entitled farmer, that thinks he is going to "show the state of Washington" how the good ole boys do it out in Pullman. Well the good ole boy better cash in some of that wheat. He is going to have a big bill to pay. Looks like we should have some nice fresh roads being built on the Westside; compliments of this farmers stupidity.
Then again, maybe a jury will say the Eastsiders won't be paying for roads in W.WA. Never underestimate the local communities. Will be interesting to see.
Post by: Snakeriver10 on November 19, 2014, 04:19:17 PM
Post by: JJB11B on November 19, 2014, 06:29:05 PM
No way should this guy get off. Especially being a farmer. I am sure he is more than aware of wolves being reintroduced into WA.
He can claim he thought it was a coyote, but that's not going to work in court. That's like me going and shooting an elk and saying I thought it was a big buck, and made an honest mistake. Please let me off.
Classic example of a typical Eastern Washington self-entitled farmer, that thinks he is going to "show the state of Washington" how the good ole boys do it out in Pullman. Well the good ole boy better cash in some of that wheat. He is going to have a big bill to pay. Looks like we should have some nice fresh roads being built on the Westside; compliments of this farmers stupidity.
No way should this guy get off. Especially being a farmer. I am sure he is more than aware of wolves being reintroduced into WA.:stirthepot: :bash:
He can claim he thought it was a coyote, but that's not going to work in court. That's like me going and shooting an elk and saying I thought it was a big buck, and made an honest mistake. Please let me off.
Classic example of a typical Eastern Washington self-entitled farmer, that thinks he is going to "show the state of Washington" how the good ole boys do it out in Pullman. Well the good ole boy better cash in some of that wheat. He is going to have a big bill to pay. Looks like we should have some nice fresh roads being built on the Westside; compliments of this farmers stupidity.
Post by: Special T on November 19, 2014, 07:26:26 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 19, 2014, 07:33:08 PM
Post by: jrebel on November 19, 2014, 07:43:42 PM
Post by: Special T on November 19, 2014, 07:49:49 PM
Likely he is getting some slack because he called himself in. The could have hit him harder...
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on November 19, 2014, 08:00:02 PM
Wouldn't he also lose his right to hunt?
He wasn't hunting he was killing! :chuckle:
Plus defending his family and livestock. :tup:
Post by: Buckhunter82 on November 20, 2014, 12:01:59 AM
"Classic example of a typical Eastern Washington self-entitled farmer, that thinks he is going to "show the state of Washington" how the good ole boys do it out in Pullman.
Is that comparable to the typical Western Washington self entitled liberal, that thinks he is going to show the state of Washington how the the good ole boys better do it out in Colville? It doesn't matter how many boots you lick. They're still going to to step on you. Thanks for 594 and Agenda 21.
Post by: Bean Counter on November 20, 2014, 12:32:45 AM
Wouldn't he also lose his right to hunt?
I thought hunting is a "privilege" in Washington state :rolleyes: :stirthepot:
Post by: turkeyfeather on November 20, 2014, 06:16:41 AM
I never said there weren't wolves in the Palouse. I said that game officials have said there are no wolves in the Palouse and I am not referring to the clerk at Wal-Mart. :bash: Anyone who has any ties to this region knows they are there. Why is it so hard for you to understand that WDFW has denied this. It has been well documented how they had done this very same thing in the NE for many years. You need to get your head outta the sand there bud. Oh, and if you think I am gonna give names and specifics about reports and sightings to a leaf licking wolf lover and defender you are crazier than I thought. If you knew half as much about this area as you claim to you would already know.Then you have been talking to the wrong people...the cashier that sells licenses at walmart or office clerk at the local wdfw office are not necessarily the best sources of information. I highly doubt you had a biologist tell you or any Palouse resident that no wolf could be near pullman...wolves have been on the Palouse for a long time...perhaps you could provide more details on who said what...are you just making a generalization about some rumors you heard from friends and relatives...or do you have specific names, dates, articles, etc. to prove what you keep repeating?If I'm not mistaken, wdfw said there are no wolf packs in Whitman county. I don't believe they ever said there are no wolves there. An individual wolf could show up anywhere.As someone who lives on this side of the state and has family in the Palouse I can assure you that is what residents have been told.
Post by: bhawley76 on November 20, 2014, 06:50:29 AM
Post by: VarmintVentilator on November 20, 2014, 06:55:26 AM
Post by: Gringo31 on November 20, 2014, 08:27:56 AM
This is decent news.
Post by: idahohuntr on November 20, 2014, 09:00:50 AM
I will ignore your name calling and point out again that it is inconceivable that WDFW biologists told you wolves could never be on the Palouse. I didn't ask for details about reporting sightings, I asked who (at WDFW) specifically told you there were no wolves on the Palouse? You either misunderstood something or we need to find out who this WDFW staff is so they can be identified and corrected.I never said there weren't wolves in the Palouse. I said that game officials have said there are no wolves in the Palouse and I am not referring to the clerk at Wal-Mart. :bash: Anyone who has any ties to this region knows they are there. Why is it so hard for you to understand that WDFW has denied this. It has been well documented how they had done this very same thing in the NE for many years. You need to get your head outta the sand there bud. Oh, and if you think I am gonna give names and specifics about reports and sightings to a leaf licking wolf lover and defender you are crazier than I thought. If you knew half as much about this area as you claim to you would already know.Then you have been talking to the wrong people...the cashier that sells licenses at walmart or office clerk at the local wdfw office are not necessarily the best sources of information. I highly doubt you had a biologist tell you or any Palouse resident that no wolf could be near pullman...wolves have been on the Palouse for a long time...perhaps you could provide more details on who said what...are you just making a generalization about some rumors you heard from friends and relatives...or do you have specific names, dates, articles, etc. to prove what you keep repeating?If I'm not mistaken, wdfw said there are no wolf packs in Whitman county. I don't believe they ever said there are no wolves there. An individual wolf could show up anywhere.As someone who lives on this side of the state and has family in the Palouse I can assure you that is what residents have been told.
On the recommended charges...I'm still curious to hear more details of the event...and whether this guy is going to plead guilty...penalties seem low enough this might be a good case to take to a jury...maybe demonstrate to prosecutors that small communities won't render guilty verdicts on wolf issues :dunno: :chuckle:
Post by: Evil_EdwardO on November 20, 2014, 09:03:23 AM
Post by: KFhunter on November 20, 2014, 09:07:30 AM
It'll probably take him at least 6 more months to find another wolf anyways :chuckle:
Post by: turkeyfeather on November 20, 2014, 09:18:45 AM
Show me where I ever said a WDFW employee told me their were no wolves. I am relaying info I was provided. Are you denying that WDFW has ever mislead us on the presence of wolves in a patticular geographic region? Knock it off your making yourself look stupid with your continuous attempt to spin and twist this around in circles. It's a typical leaf licker liberal tactic to continuously delay and deny to hide facts and truth.I will ignore your name calling and point out again that it is inconceivable that WDFW biologists told you wolves could never be on the Palouse. I didn't ask for details about reporting sightings, I asked who (at WDFW) specifically told you there were no wolves on the Palouse? You either misunderstood something or we need to find out who this WDFW staff is so they can be identified and corrected.I never said there weren't wolves in the Palouse. I said that game officials have said there are no wolves in the Palouse and I am not referring to the clerk at Wal-Mart. :bash: Anyone who has any ties to this region knows they are there. Why is it so hard for you to understand that WDFW has denied this. It has been well documented how they had done this very same thing in the NE for many years. You need to get your head outta the sand there bud. Oh, and if you think I am gonna give names and specifics about reports and sightings to a leaf licking wolf lover and defender you are crazier than I thought. If you knew half as much about this area as you claim to you would already know.Then you have been talking to the wrong people...the cashier that sells licenses at walmart or office clerk at the local wdfw office are not necessarily the best sources of information. I highly doubt you had a biologist tell you or any Palouse resident that no wolf could be near pullman...wolves have been on the Palouse for a long time...perhaps you could provide more details on who said what...are you just making a generalization about some rumors you heard from friends and relatives...or do you have specific names, dates, articles, etc. to prove what you keep repeating?If I'm not mistaken, wdfw said there are no wolf packs in Whitman county. I don't believe they ever said there are no wolves there. An individual wolf could show up anywhere.As someone who lives on this side of the state and has family in the Palouse I can assure you that is what residents have been told.
On the recommended charges...I'm still curious to hear more details of the event...and whether this guy is going to plead guilty...penalties seem low enough this might be a good case to take to a jury...maybe demonstrate to prosecutors that small communities won't render guilty verdicts on wolf issues :dunno: :chuckle:
Post by: bigtex on November 20, 2014, 09:27:16 AM
On the recommended charges...I'm still curious to hear more details of the event...and whether this guy is going to plead guilty...penalties seem low enough this might be a good case to take to a jury...maybe demonstrate to prosecutors that small communities won't render guilty verdicts on wolf issues :dunno: :chuckle:Whitman County is the one of two counties that voted to pass the firearms background check intiative this year. They also passed marijuana legalization in 2012.
Whitman County may not be as red as we once thought. :twocents:
Post by: turkeyfeather on November 20, 2014, 09:31:05 AM
That is due in large part thanks to Pullman and WSU. Not to.mention low grain and crop prices.On the recommended charges...I'm still curious to hear more details of the event...and whether this guy is going to plead guilty...penalties seem low enough this might be a good case to take to a jury...maybe demonstrate to prosecutors that small communities won't render guilty verdicts on wolf issues :dunno: :chuckle:Whitman County is the one of two counties that voted to pass the firearms background check intiative this year. They also passed marijuana legalization in 2012.
Whitman County may not be as red as we once thought. :twocents:
Post by: jasnt on November 20, 2014, 09:38:03 AM
I never said there weren't wolves in the Palouse. I said that game officials have said there are no wolves in the Palouse and I am not referring to the clerk at Wal-Mart. :bash: Anyone who has any ties to this region knows they are there. Why is it so hard for you to understand that WDFW has denied this. It has been well documented how they had done this very same thing in the NE for many years. You need to get your head outta the sand there bud. Oh, and if you think I am gonna give names and specifics about reports and sightings to a leaf licking wolf lover and defender you are crazier than I thought. If you knew half as much about this area as you claim to you would already know.Then you have been talking to the wrong people...the cashier that sells licenses at walmart or office clerk at the local wdfw office are not necessarily the best sources of information. I highly doubt you had a biologist tell you or any Palouse resident that no wolf could be near pullman...wolves have been on the Palouse for a long time...perhaps you could provide more details on who said what...are you just making a generalization about some rumors you heard from friends and relatives...or do you have specific names, dates, articles, etc. to prove what you keep repeating?If I'm not mistaken, wdfw said there are no wolf packs in Whitman county. I don't believe they ever said there are no wolves there. An individual wolf could show up anywhere.As someone who lives on this side of the state and has family in the Palouse I can assure you that is what residents have been told.
I've had a game Leo tell me there are no wolves here then I said sweet then I'll shoot it next I see it chasing deer. Then he said "NO there are wolves here and they are protected". This was 2010 in south pend Oreille county
Post by: turkeyfeather on November 20, 2014, 09:46:24 AM
Exactly. I don't know if it's comical or pathetic that despite the fact that many of us have experienced a similar encounter with WDFW or some other Fed LEO, that there are still some so clueless as to see the big picture here.
I've had a game Leo tell me there are no wolves here then I said sweet then I'll shoot it next I see it chasing deer. Then he said "NO there are wolves here and they are protected". This was 2010 in south pend Oreille county
Post by: idahohuntr on November 20, 2014, 10:03:31 AM
I never said there weren't wolves in the Palouse. I said that game officials have said there are no wolves in the Palouse and I am not referring to the clerk at Wal-Mart.
Show me where I ever said a WDFW employee told me their were no wolves. I am relaying info I was provided.
Ok, lets see if I've got this straight: There are wolves on the Palouse. No WDFW official ever once told you there weren't wolves on the Palouse (because obviously there are). However, someone told you that some wdfw staff told them there weren't wolves on the Palouse? Did I get that right? You ever play that game "telephone" around a campfire? :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: haulinbass on November 20, 2014, 10:26:36 AM
Post by: stromdiddily on November 20, 2014, 10:28:46 AM
So according to this our department doesn't show a wolves in that area so I guess they don't exist or they are trying to hide something or once again not doing there job that we pay them to do and keep the public informed. Seems like an issue that is never gonna end. http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/packs/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/packs/) that is my :twocents:
So because there's no "confirmed" pack there, that means that there are zero wolves in the area? I would guess no...
Post by: Curly on November 20, 2014, 10:29:58 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on November 20, 2014, 11:02:40 AM
That map shows "packs" of wolves. Individual wolves travel all over creation. I still think this may be where some confusion comes into play.......someone in authority may make a comment about no wolf "packs" being in a certain area and someone may just not hear the word "pack". :twocents::yeah:
"telephone game" :chuckle:
Post by: Woodchuck on November 20, 2014, 11:11:28 AM
- NAME CALLING, ANTAGONIZING, DEMEANING, or BELITTLING other Members.
A small excerpt from the forum rules of things that will not be tolerated...
Post by: turkeyfeather on November 20, 2014, 06:08:28 PM
Way to keep avoiding the question you can't answer the way you want and instead keep talking in circles.I never said there weren't wolves in the Palouse. I said that game officials have said there are no wolves in the Palouse and I am not referring to the clerk at Wal-Mart.Show me where I ever said a WDFW employee told me their were no wolves. I am relaying info I was provided.
Ok, lets see if I've got this straight: There are wolves on the Palouse. No WDFW official ever once told you there weren't wolves on the Palouse (because obviously there are). However, someone told you that some wdfw staff told them there weren't wolves on the Palouse? Did I get that right? You ever play that game "telephone" around a campfire? :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Jonathan_S on November 20, 2014, 06:22:46 PM
I never said there weren't wolves in the Palouse. I said that game officials have said there are no wolves in the Palouse and I am not referring to the clerk at Wal-Mart.Show me where I ever said a WDFW employee told me their were no wolves. I am relaying info I was provided.
Ok, lets see if I've got this straight: There are wolves on the Palouse. No WDFW official ever once told you there weren't wolves on the Palouse (because obviously there are). However, someone told you that some wdfw staff told them there weren't wolves on the Palouse? Did I get that right? You ever play that game "telephone" around a campfire? :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
:yeah: Sorry TF, you're off the Reservation on this one. :sry:
I understand the point you're attempting to make about how the WDFW says there weren't wolves there (if that was said) but to say the guy isn't responsible for killing a protected wolf is beneath your intellect.
You're about to label me a wolf lover so here goes...killing wolves illegally is not the way to making a positive change.
Post by: turkeyfeather on November 20, 2014, 06:30:36 PM
I mispoke when I said he isn't responsible. I should have said I don't fault the guy for doing it. And I also do believe he could use the defense that he believed what the "experts" said.I never said there weren't wolves in the Palouse. I said that game officials have said there are no wolves in the Palouse and I am not referring to the clerk at Wal-Mart.Show me where I ever said a WDFW employee told me their were no wolves. I am relaying info I was provided.
Ok, lets see if I've got this straight: There are wolves on the Palouse. No WDFW official ever once told you there weren't wolves on the Palouse (because obviously there are). However, someone told you that some wdfw staff told them there weren't wolves on the Palouse? Did I get that right? You ever play that game "telephone" around a campfire? :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
:yeah: Sorry TF, you're off the Reservation on this one. :sry:
I understand the point you're attempting to make about how the WDFW says there weren't wolves there (if that was said) but to say the guy isn't responsible for killing a protected wolf is beneath your intellect.
You're about to label me a wolf lover so here goes...killing wolves illegally is not the way to making a positive change.
Post by: Jonathan_S on November 20, 2014, 06:32:49 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2014, 05:16:20 PM
Quote
Officers recommend charge in Wash. wolf shooting
November 23, 2014 @ 12:56 pm
PULLMAN, Wash. (AP) -- Washington fish and wildlife officers are recommending a misdemeanor charge against a farmer accused of illegally shooting a wolf last month.
Whitman County Prosecutor Denis Tracy tells the Moscow-Pullman Daily News (http://bit.ly/1zPAhLj (http://bit.ly/1zPAhLj) ) that he'll review the investigation report and the law before making a decision about whether to file charges. The wolf was shot southwest of Pullman on Oct. 12.
Under Washington law, a wolf can only be shot if it is in the act of attacking pets or livestock.
A conviction on a misdemeanor charge could result in up to a year in jail and a two-year suspension of any hunting, fishing or trapping licenses.
Post by: boneaddict on November 29, 2014, 06:57:27 AM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on November 29, 2014, 07:34:56 AM
Strange situation going on over there.
Post by: cougarbart on November 29, 2014, 07:56:50 AM
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on November 29, 2014, 08:41:20 AM
This is a perfect example of why Wyoming wolf management is so smart! They are protected in places with habitat and when the travel into the wrong area they are shot! Like Wyoming knows you can shoot all the wolves you can in populated areas and it still has no effect on overall wolf populations!
The way it should be! :yeah:
Post by: idahohuntr on December 01, 2014, 09:22:00 PM
Yea...I would rather have a wolf plan that allows legal harvest of wolves than a plan that sounds tough on paper but doesn't actually result in any wolf hunting... http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/news-1002256.aspx (http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/news-1002256.aspx) :twocents:This is a perfect example of why Wyoming wolf management is so smart! They are protected in places with habitat and when the travel into the wrong area they are shot! Like Wyoming knows you can shoot all the wolves you can in populated areas and it still has no effect on overall wolf populations!
The way it should be! :yeah:
Post by: Special T on December 01, 2014, 11:11:03 PM
Or because it held such a firm line that now the Feds have had their agreement overturned? I think before i :DOH: I think you need to clarify your position...
I personally think the WY plan was the most realistic plan where the rubber meets the road. I also think because its the most "loose" plan it MUST be the ones DoW and others must attack to push their agenda... I also dont think that appeasement works with the "environmental" groups that are involved with this issue.
Post by: bearpaw on December 01, 2014, 11:31:25 PM
This is a perfect example of why Wyoming wolf management is so smart! They are protected in places with habitat and when the travel into the wrong area they are shot! Like Wyoming knows you can shoot all the wolves you can in populated areas and it still has no effect on overall wolf populations!
The way it should be! :yeah:
I agree, if all the states would have gone the WY route I think we would all have better management of wolves. Since WY had the most reasonable wolf management plan for containing wolves in the areas with fewer humans the wolf groups are all opposing it.
Post by: idahohuntr on December 02, 2014, 07:32:02 AM
So let me get this straight... You didnt think the WY plan was good when it was legal?
Or because it held such a firm line that now the Feds have had their agreement overturned? I think before i :DOH: I think you need to clarify your position...
I personally think the WY plan was the most realistic plan where the rubber meets the road. I also think because its the most "loose" plan it MUST be the ones DoW and others must attack to push their agenda... I also dont think that appeasement works with the "environmental" groups that are involved with this issue.
I agree, if all the states would have gone the WY route I think we would all have better management of wolves. Since WY had the most reasonable wolf management plan for containing wolves in the areas with fewer humans the wolf groups are all opposing it.Any wolf plan that stops a state from hunting wolves for an entire fall hunting season (when most hunters are out) is a bad plan. I guess if you prefer wolves to not be hunted anywhere in the state so that their numbers can increase then this is the plan for you. You pro-wolfers crack me up.
Post by: wolfbait on December 02, 2014, 08:45:58 AM
So let me get this straight... You didnt think the WY plan was good when it was legal?
Or because it held such a firm line that now the Feds have had their agreement overturned? I think before i :DOH: I think you need to clarify your position...
I personally think the WY plan was the most realistic plan where the rubber meets the road. I also think because its the most "loose" plan it MUST be the ones DoW and others must attack to push their agenda... I also dont think that appeasement works with the "environmental" groups that are involved with this issue.I agree, if all the states would have gone the WY route I think we would all have better management of wolves. Since WY had the most reasonable wolf management plan for containing wolves in the areas with fewer humans the wolf groups are all opposing it.Any wolf plan that stops a state from hunting wolves for an entire fall hunting season (when most hunters are out) is a bad plan. I guess if you prefer wolves to not be hunted anywhere in the state so that their numbers can increase then this is the plan for you. You pro-wolfers crack me up.
If you say so Idahohunter, after all you evidently know what is truly best for everyone. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Special T on December 02, 2014, 09:20:24 AM
Unfortuanlty i think that organisations like DoW are a Proxy in the fight against states that do not submitt to the control of feds. The Sue and settle strategy that has been employed is evidence of this. To think that WY could have taken a more moderate stance and the Dow would have left them alone is Naive. ID took that route and it has not worked out well for them. I would say MT tired to as well and it has only worked out slightly better.
I must say that with a population density of 5 people per square mile it will be pretty hard for the Feds to enforce this ruling especially since it is unlikely the state will go out of its way to help. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around...
Post by: idahohuntr on December 02, 2014, 10:00:04 AM
When you say ID took the route of moderation and it has not worked out well for them...what exactly are you talking about? They hunt and trap wolves year round; have hired trappers remove wolves; have decreased wolf numbers from highs in 2009; continue to have great deer and elk hunting in most OTC units. I don't see where you could possibly suggest things have not worked out well for Idaho, given the wolves were reintroduced.
Post by: wolfbait on December 02, 2014, 10:13:30 AM
Post by: Special T on December 02, 2014, 10:30:42 AM
When you say ID took the route of moderation and it has not worked out well for them...what exactly are you talking about? They hunt and trap wolves year round; have hired trappers remove wolves; have decreased wolf numbers from highs in 2009; continue to have great deer and elk hunting in most OTC units. I don't see where you could possibly suggest things have not worked out well for Idaho, given the wolves were reintroduced.
Well there are 2 seperate paths that do not neccesarily go together. Any State only has as many wolves as they are able to document regaurdless of the real number. There in lies the big slight of hand IMO ANYTIME you force your oppnet to fight on YOUR terms you will win. I dont think that WY has had as big a dropp off in animal numbers because they held the tough line, and in return they did not have to waste precious resource, time and $, to justify thier actions... The "Balance" has been achieved in WY though shooting wolves that dont stay away from humans, and because of this more have been shot.
Wacking wolves in the "Predator Zone" is akin to shooting dogs running loose chasing game or livestock. They are shot and it is not advertised or talked openly about. If the people of WY do not seek attention the problem resolves itself, and they still have wolves. So since the state is not likely to enforce this Court decree, and according to you the Feds are "OK" with hunting them, what do you think will really change in WY? Some hunters wont shoot them, Likely most out of state hunters won't. Trapping for "other" animals is ok so do you think that will really stop the killing?
What the law is and what they can enforce are 2 completely seperate things. You Hail from ID, not sure where, but I know several people in the Northern sections that have NEVER been afraid to run law enforcemnt off thier property.
Post by: idahohuntr on December 03, 2014, 07:41:52 AM
You friends with the Weavers? :chuckle:
When you say ID took the route of moderation and it has not worked out well for them...what exactly are you talking about? They hunt and trap wolves year round; have hired trappers remove wolves; have decreased wolf numbers from highs in 2009; continue to have great deer and elk hunting in most OTC units. I don't see where you could possibly suggest things have not worked out well for Idaho, given the wolves were reintroduced.
Well there are 2 seperate paths that do not neccesarily go together. Any State only has as many wolves as they are able to document regaurdless of the real number. There in lies the big slight of hand IMO ANYTIME you force your oppnet to fight on YOUR terms you will win. I dont think that WY has had as big a dropp off in animal numbers because they held the tough line, and in return they did not have to waste precious resource, time and $, to justify thier actions... The "Balance" has been achieved in WY though shooting wolves that dont stay away from humans, and because of this more have been shot.
Wacking wolves in the "Predator Zone" is akin to shooting dogs running loose chasing game or livestock. They are shot and it is not advertised or talked openly about. If the people of WY do not seek attention the problem resolves itself, and they still have wolves. So since the state is not likely to enforce this Court decree, and according to you the Feds are "OK" with hunting them, what do you think will really change in WY? Some hunters wont shoot them, Likely most out of state hunters won't. Trapping for "other" animals is ok so do you think that will really stop the killing?
What the law is and what they can enforce are 2 completely seperate things. You Hail from ID, not sure where, but I know several people in the Northern sections that have NEVER been afraid to run law enforcemnt off thier property.
I think what changes in WY is that a vast number of sportsmen won't actually poach a wolf, but would have shot said wolf if seasons were open.
Post by: splitshot on December 03, 2014, 08:42:43 AM
Post by: Special T on December 03, 2014, 09:59:45 AM