Post by: TriggerMike on February 10, 2015, 11:22:08 AM
February 10, 2015
Contact: Dave Ware, 360-902-2520
WDFW Wolf Advisory Group
expanded from 9 to 18 members
OLYMPIA - Nine members have been added to the committee that advises the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) on wolf recovery and management. Their appointments, for two-year terms that run through 2016, bring the Wolf Advisory Group's membership to 18.
WDFW Director Jim Unsworth said the new members will bring diverse personal and professional backgrounds to the group that makes recommendations to guide the department's implementation of the state's Wolf Conservation and Management Plan.
WDFW formed the group in 2013, with nine members representing the interests of wolf advocates, cattle ranchers, and hunters. Unsworth said the new members bring a wider range of perspectives and, for example, include a science teacher and a member of the state's largest hiking association.
"Wolf recovery has been and will continue to be a very challenging issue, and the advisory group members will provide valuable advice on how to achieve the goals of the wolf plan," said Unsworth.
Dave Ware, the department's wolf policy lead, said more than 50 people applied for the new positions following the department's announcement in October that it was seeking to expand the group. Ware said WDFW placed a priority on selecting people from diverse backgrounds who have the ability to share information about the advisory group's discussions within their own networks of contacts.
Ware said the nine people who served as original members or alternates will continue to serve through 2016. Those members have been very helpful to the department, and their continued presence will lend stability and continuity to the advisory group, he said.
The group's next meeting is planned for March, with details to be announced on the Wolf Advisory Group website: http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/wag/. (http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/wag/.)
Post by: Bob33 on February 10, 2015, 11:28:55 AM
Post by: elk247 on February 10, 2015, 11:35:02 AM
Post by: elkboy on February 10, 2015, 11:35:33 AM
Post by: TriggerMike on February 10, 2015, 11:43:29 AM
Post by: bobcat on February 10, 2015, 11:49:29 AM
Post by: Bob33 on February 10, 2015, 11:51:18 AM
My thoughts on this... I feel like it's a waste to have people from groups like Conservation NW, Defenders of Wildlife, Wolf Haven International and the Humane Society on the committee. Not because I think they're "crazy wolf humpers" and that I don't agree with them but because history has proven that no amount of logic will ever change their opinion on wolves.WDFW represents all citizens, not just hunters.
Post by: TriggerMike on February 10, 2015, 12:03:16 PM
My thoughts on this... I feel like it's a waste to have people from groups like Conservation NW, Defenders of Wildlife, Wolf Haven International and the Humane Society on the committee. Not because I think they're "crazy wolf humpers" and that I don't agree with them but because history has proven that no amount of logic will ever change their opinion on wolves.WDFW represents all citizens, not just hunters.
I understand that and I'm not saying to only have hunters on the committee. I'm saying only have people with education and credentials that aren't biased one way or another to be the ones to hear the input from all the citizens and to make the judgements based on the scientific research and from the citizens concerns. It is very likely that most of the people from the conservation groups aren't going to give a fudge about the opinion or concerns from anyone living in the NE corner. And a rancher from the NE corner isn't going to give a fudge about a wolf lovers opinion from Seattle. If there are 9 outright pro wolf people and 9 outright anti wolf people on the committee then nothing will ever get accomplished is all I'm saying.
Post by: Bob33 on February 10, 2015, 12:08:15 PM
"Not because I think they're "crazy wolf humpers" and that I don't agree with them but because history has proven that no amount of logic will ever change their opinion on wolves.My thoughts on this... I feel like it's a waste to have people from groups like Conservation NW, Defenders of Wildlife, Wolf Haven International and the Humane Society on the committee. Not because I think they're "crazy wolf humpers" and that I don't agree with them but because history has proven that no amount of logic will ever change their opinion on wolves.WDFW represents all citizens, not just hunters.
I understand that and I'm not saying to only have hunters on the committee. I'm saying only have people with education and credentials that aren't biased one way or another to be the ones to hear the input from all the citizens and to make the judgements based on the scientific research and from the citizens concerns. It is very likely that most of the people from the conservation groups aren't going to give a fudge about the opinion or concerns from anyone living in the NE corner. And a rancher from the NE corner isn't going to give a fudge about a wolf lovers opinion from Seattle. If there are 9 outright pro wolf people and 9 outright anti wolf people on the committee then nothing will ever get accomplished is all I'm saying.
History has proven that nothing will change the opinion of those who despise wolves either.
It's a no-win situation for WDFW.
Post by: jackelope on February 10, 2015, 12:14:21 PM
Interesting, thanks for posting. Anyone know if Lisa Stone of Shelton is a H-W member?
I don't.
Good to see Dan McKinley of the Mule Deer Foundation on the list.
I agree...Dan is a Hunt-WA member...goes by "MuleDeer".
Post by: wolfbait on February 10, 2015, 01:51:20 PM
"Not because I think they're "crazy wolf humpers" and that I don't agree with them but because history has proven that no amount of logic will ever change their opinion on wolves.My thoughts on this... I feel like it's a waste to have people from groups like Conservation NW, Defenders of Wildlife, Wolf Haven International and the Humane Society on the committee. Not because I think they're "crazy wolf humpers" and that I don't agree with them but because history has proven that no amount of logic will ever change their opinion on wolves.WDFW represents all citizens, not just hunters.
I understand that and I'm not saying to only have hunters on the committee. I'm saying only have people with education and credentials that aren't biased one way or another to be the ones to hear the input from all the citizens and to make the judgements based on the scientific research and from the citizens concerns. It is very likely that most of the people from the conservation groups aren't going to give a fudge about the opinion or concerns from anyone living in the NE corner. And a rancher from the NE corner isn't going to give a fudge about a wolf lovers opinion from Seattle. If there are 9 outright pro wolf people and 9 outright anti wolf people on the committee then nothing will ever get accomplished is all I'm saying.
History has proven that nothing will change the opinion of those who despise wolves either.
It's a no-win situation for WDFW.
The problem we have had from the beginning is the lack of any wolf/prey base management. If we look at the wolf plan that WDFW and the pro-wolf crowd came out with, it doesn't leave much doubt as to what kind of wolf management WA is in for. I think there would be less people against the wolves if they would have/were strictly managed from the beginning.
What has happened is the USFWS and state game agencies have lowballed the wolf count from day one. WDFW claim the wolves start migrating into WA in 2002, here we are 13 years later at a lowly 52 wolves, WDFW's count, with how many more wolves, WDFW won't even guess. WDFW don't want to talk about their wolf push of the 1970's-90's.
Look at Idaho 13 years later, even five years later.
Folks in Idaho have said the best way to estimate your wolf problem is to watch the prey base drop.
The lack of honesty with WDFW and their wolf management to date, doesn't leave too many people with a lot of hope.
Wolf management has never been based on science, it has been fraud and corruption from the very beginning starting with the USFWS and environmentalists.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on February 10, 2015, 02:56:56 PM
Post by: sakoshooter on February 10, 2015, 03:29:43 PM
Post by: Curly on February 10, 2015, 03:37:44 PM
I was thinking like 12 :dunno:
:yeah:
Post by: CAMPMEAT on February 10, 2015, 03:50:32 PM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on February 10, 2015, 04:33:55 PM
Post by: timberfaller on February 10, 2015, 04:55:11 PM
Tim Coleman is our biggest enemy in Ferry County, right smack dab in the middle of wolf country. This puke is 100 % anti-everything unless it's enviro related. He is well known around here..................who picked these people anyhow. No wonder nothing gets done. :bash: Again, the deck is stacked against us hunters, ATVers etc.
Tim Coleman :puke:
The object of the committee is to keep the "city dwellers" mis-informed!
I agree with what has been stated about the :tree1: no matter what data, scientific or FACTS, their agenda comes first and if you don't like it, they will let their attorney's speak.
Been around them for decades, their minds are like a steel trap, hard to open and quick to close!!
HSUS has no business being on the Committee, their Bais(anti-hunting) is to over the hill.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on February 10, 2015, 05:08:09 PM
Tim Coleman is our biggest enemy in Ferry County, right smack dab in the middle of wolf country. This puke is 100 % anti-everything unless it's enviro related. He is well known around here..................who picked these people anyhow. No wonder nothing gets done. :bash: Again, the deck is stacked against us hunters, ATVers etc.
Tim Coleman :puke:
The object of the committee is to keep the "city dwellers" mis-informed!
I agree with what has been stated about the :tree1: no matter what data, scientific or FACTS, their agenda comes first and if you don't like it, they will let their attorney's speak.
Been around them for decades, their minds are like a steel trap, hard to open and quick to close!!
HSUS has no business being on the Committee, their Bais(anti-hunting) is to over the hill.
Couldn't agree more..............
Post by: Curly on February 10, 2015, 05:21:39 PM
Post by: CementFinisher on February 10, 2015, 05:34:23 PM
Post by: Southpole on February 10, 2015, 05:55:40 PM
Tim Coleman is our biggest enemy in Ferry County, right smack dab in the middle of wolf country. This puke is 100 % anti-everything unless it's enviro related. He is well known around here..................who picked these people anyhow. No wonder nothing gets done. :bash: Again, the deck is stacked against us hunters, ATVers etc.Kettle Range Conservation Group is anti-everything, it's their way or no way. One of the members we know live near our cabin in Curlew and he gives the private timber company, we live next to, a hard time all the time... until he needs firewood then it's okay.
Post by: wolfbait on February 10, 2015, 06:06:11 PM
Everything sounds pretty normal to me, I hope none of you had your hopes up thinking WDFW etc. were going to turn over a new leaf of honesty.
Post by: Special T on February 10, 2015, 06:49:46 PM
My thoughts on this... I feel like it's a waste to have people from groups like Conservation NW, Defenders of Wildlife, Wolf Haven International and the Humane Society on the committee. Not because I think they're "crazy wolf humpers" and that I don't agree with them but because history has proven that no amount of logic will ever change their opinion on wolves.WDFW represents all citizens, not just hunters.
Here is where i take umbrage with you statement Bob. An increasing amount of funds from sportsmen are used to support the WDFW so why is the representation for those who pay the bills decreasing? If some how these "Anti" groups were contributing to funding of WDFW i think they should have a say. I will have to double check but i think i only see 3 that are really sportmen related the rest are so called "Share holders" I think the cattlemens and Sheep association reps dont contribute but are directly impacted. How doe these other Groups have skin in the game?
Post by: CAMPMEAT on February 10, 2015, 07:27:27 PM
My thoughts on this... I feel like it's a waste to have people from groups like Conservation NW, Defenders of Wildlife, Wolf Haven International and the Humane Society on the committee. Not because I think they're "crazy wolf humpers" and that I don't agree with them but because history has proven that no amount of logic will ever change their opinion on wolves.WDFW represents all citizens, not just hunters.
Here is where i take umbrage with you statement Bob. An increasing amount of funds from sportsmen are used to support the WDFW so why is the representation for those who pay the bills decreasing? If some how these "Anti" groups were contributing to funding of WDFW i think they should have a say. I will have to double check but i think i only see 3 that are really sportmen related the rest are so called "Share holders" I think the cattlemens and Sheep association reps dont contribute but are directly impacted. How doe these other Groups have skin in the game?
The Cattlemen and Sheep Associations contribute quite a bit I bet.. They are hunters too, along with being business men and women. They have a lot of earning power loss at stake, because of the wants of the antis and the lack of say by the hunters and their associates.
Post by: Bob33 on February 10, 2015, 07:32:17 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on February 10, 2015, 07:45:47 PM
Here is where i take umbrage with you statement Bob. An increasing amount of funds from sportsmen are used to support the WDFW so why is the representation for those who pay the bills decreasing? If some how these "Anti" groups were contributing to funding of WDFW i think they should have a say.
They do. They pay taxes.
I will have to double check but i think i only see 3 that are really sportmen related the rest are so called "Share holders" I think the cattlemens and Sheep association reps dont contribute but are directly impacted. How doe these other Groups have skin in the game?They own the wildlife being impacted by the management decisions carried out by WDFW...just like you and me.
Everything sounds pretty normal to me, I hope none of you had your hopes up thinking WDFW etc. were going to turn over a new leaf of honesty.Yea, because you're the arbiter of truth and honesty in wolf issues :chuckle: :chuckle:
If history is any indicator, the composition of this group will have little effect on the outcome anyway. Advisory groups tend to serve as little more than cover for what WDFW wants to do regardless.I think one of biggest benefits of advisory groups is not that the group makes decisions for WDFW, but that WDFW can communicate information to its multiple stakeholders in one forum. This is particularly important for controversial issues imo.
Post by: Special T on February 10, 2015, 11:42:19 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/budget/graphics/2014oct27/slide1.jpg (http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/budget/graphics/2014oct27/slide1.jpg) Only 16% of the WDFW funds come from the general fund.Here is where i take umbrage with you statement Bob. An increasing amount of funds from sportsmen are used to support the WDFW so why is the representation for those who pay the bills decreasing? If some how these "Anti" groups were contributing to funding of WDFW i think they should have a say.
They do. They pay taxes.
I will have to double check but i think i only see 3 that are really sportmen related the rest are so called "Share holders" I think the cattlemens and Sheep association reps dont contribute but are directly impacted. How doe these other Groups have skin in the game?They own the wildlife being impacted by the management decisions carried out by WDFW...just like you and me.
Here is the definition of the state wild life account. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.12.170 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.12.170) the only real non sportsmen funds com from watch able wildlife sales... I would imagine that number is fairly small
Federal mones are mostly made up of Pitman-Robers funds, Dingell–Johnson Funds and grants to "Study" ESA issues and that mostly comes from those funds as well.
So we could fight over a % I say no more than 30% are "General funds" so why do they have more than 30% of the stakeholder positions? BTW i would include Cattlemens and other ranching associations in that 30% of "General public input" at the table. Straight up SPORTSMAN representation is well below the 50% mark and i would find it very difficult for anyone to argue that we dont support the department at least that much.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on February 11, 2015, 06:50:24 AM
Tim Coleman is our biggest enemy in Ferry County, right smack dab in the middle of wolf country. This puke is 100 % anti-everything unless it's enviro related. He is well known around here..................who picked these people anyhow. No wonder nothing gets done. :bash: Again, the deck is stacked against us hunters, ATVers etc.Kettle Range Conservation Group is anti-everything, it's their way or no way. One of the members we know live near our cabin in Curlew and he gives the private timber company we live next to a hard time all the time... until he needs firewood then it's okay.
It's funny how true that is. One of the commies even lives in a log house. Another one, has a famous mountain climber relative there name starts with Whittakker (?) that left garbage all over the world on tall mountains. They are all very popular people around here....
Post by: Southpole on February 11, 2015, 08:04:58 AM
They like to hold the "we're saving the planet" badge in your face, but we know it's really about power and control... ruler of the sandbox if you will.Tim Coleman is our biggest enemy in Ferry County, right smack dab in the middle of wolf country. This puke is 100 % anti-everything unless it's enviro related. He is well known around here..................who picked these people anyhow. No wonder nothing gets done. :bash: Again, the deck is stacked against us hunters, ATVers etc.Kettle Range Conservation Group is anti-everything, it's their way or no way. One of the members we know live near our cabin in Curlew and he gives the private timber company, we live next to, a hard time all the time... until he needs firewood then it's okay.
It's funny how true that is. One of the commies even lives in a log house. Another one, has a famous mountain climber relative there name starts with Whittakker (?) that left garbage all over the world on tall mountains. They are all very popular people around here....
Post by: CAMPMEAT on February 11, 2015, 11:20:51 AM
They like to hold the "we're saving the planet" badge in your face, but we know it's really about power and control... ruler of the sandbox if you will.Tim Coleman is our biggest enemy in Ferry County, right smack dab in the middle of wolf country. This puke is 100 % anti-everything unless it's enviro related. He is well known around here..................who picked these people anyhow. No wonder nothing gets done. :bash: Again, the deck is stacked against us hunters, ATVers etc.Kettle Range Conservation Group is anti-everything, it's their way or no way. One of the members we know live near our cabin in Curlew and he gives the private timber company, we live next to, a hard time all the time... until he needs firewood then it's okay.
It's funny how true that is. One of the commies even lives in a log house. Another one, has a famous mountain climber relative there name starts with Whittakker (?) that left garbage all over the world on tall mountains. They are all very popular people around here....
We were talking about them at coffee this morning. It's really irritating to the ranchers I know how all the anti's are on this committee.
Post by: wolfbait on February 11, 2015, 01:09:22 PM
They like to hold the "we're saving the planet" badge in your face, but we know it's really about power and control... ruler of the sandbox if you will.Tim Coleman is our biggest enemy in Ferry County, right smack dab in the middle of wolf country. This puke is 100 % anti-everything unless it's enviro related. He is well known around here..................who picked these people anyhow. No wonder nothing gets done. :bash: Again, the deck is stacked against us hunters, ATVers etc.Kettle Range Conservation Group is anti-everything, it's their way or no way. One of the members we know live near our cabin in Curlew and he gives the private timber company, we live next to, a hard time all the time... until he needs firewood then it's okay.
It's funny how true that is. One of the commies even lives in a log house. Another one, has a famous mountain climber relative there name starts with Whittakker (?) that left garbage all over the world on tall mountains. They are all very popular people around here....
We were talking about them at coffee this morning. It's really irritating to the ranchers I know how all the anti's are on this committee.
I don't understand the surprise, look at the wolf plan WDFW gave us, look at their wolf management with livestock predation, and the impact the wolves and other predators are having on the game herds. Instead of feeding deer in the winter, WDFW are predicting the weather and killing the breeding stock.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on February 11, 2015, 02:27:21 PM
Wolves and a very high population of cougars, lotsa cattle and fewer deer everyday.....
Post by: wolfbait on February 11, 2015, 09:04:01 PM
People report wolves here on W-H, and if we advertised that we would like any wolf sightings reported to this site and then if we had people in those areas who followed up on these different sightings with trail cameras etc., and reported to the county commissioners, maybe then we could force WDFW to confirm wolf packs earlier, instead of waiting for livestock predation to confirm?
Post by: bobcat on February 11, 2015, 09:15:57 PM
People report wolves here on W-H
This is H-W, not W-H. Just FYI, since I see you write it that way all the time.
As for your idea, the WDFW already has a wolf reporting tool on their website: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/reporting/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/reporting/)
Post by: wolfbait on February 11, 2015, 09:22:20 PM
People report wolves here on W-H
This is H-W, not W-H. Just FYI, since I see you write it that way all the time.
As for your idea, the WDFW already has a wolf reporting tool on their website: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/reporting/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/reporting/)
Thanks for the correction Bobcat :tup:
As for WDFW I would leave them out of the loup, although if they were interested the info would be here for them to view, remember the whole idea is to confirm wolf packs early and not wait until WDFW are forced to confirm or not.
Post by: Special T on February 11, 2015, 10:07:32 PM
The Cattlemen and Sheep Associations contribute quite a bit I bet.. They are hunters too, along with being business men and women. They have a lot of earning power loss at stake, because of the wants of the antis and the lack of say by the hunters and their associates.
I think on this issue they are our ally. I mostly mean that as a "shareholder" Im not so sure that they contribute to the WDFW financially. What im trying to point out is that half of those represented should be hunters/related stakeholders. The anti's are over represented especially when it comes to how much they contribute $ to the system... I think they COST the WDFW plenty tho.
Post by: Humptulips on February 11, 2015, 10:52:10 PM
Off subject here, but the cougar season is closed already because of a damn quota. I bet we have the highest cougar count in the state here in Ferry, or at least very close to it, WTF !!Just so you won't feel lonesome the cougar have eaten up just about everything that moves around here from elk to beaver and that includes coyotes. I think the cougar population is down from a few years ago because there is little left for them to eat around here.
Wolves and a very high population of cougars, lotsa cattle and fewer deer everyday.....
Post by: VarmintVentilator on February 12, 2015, 01:06:55 PM
Post by: Special T on February 12, 2015, 04:16:49 PM
Funny the Cattlemen have said they would put up $ to document wolves if they have a say in it.... IE a trapper THEY hire.... So it cant really only be about the $ :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on February 13, 2015, 01:23:32 AM
If history is any indicator, the composition of this group will have little effect on the outcome anyway. Advisory groups tend to serve as little more than cover for what WDFW wants to do regardless.
:yeah:
I think this advisory board is pretty evenly split between pro-wolf and pro-management with 2 to 3 wild cards that I'm not sure about. Overall, I think this group will prove to be more reasonable and knowledgeable than the original wolf working group, I'm hoping WDFW will listen to them.
Post by: elk247 on February 13, 2015, 01:40:36 AM
Post by: MuleDeer on May 12, 2015, 12:53:15 AM
I agree with all of you on a couple of the groups represented, mainly HSUS and not understanding how they should or do have a role here...but, there are two groups that I have worked with on projects and know the members/leaders of, and they are actually on "our" side, although most of you would never believe it.
One example, and I'll start with a question first: How much do any of you really know about Wolf Haven International? Do you know that, other than the Ruby wolf taken there last year, every other wolf there is a "captive born", "filming and production" wolf? It surprised me that they openly said they would euthanize the Ruby wolf if she doesn't adapt, even though that would cost them many financial supporters by saying that. Do any of you know that both the ladies that run WHI are active parts of hunting families? They both grew up in hunting families, and their spouses are both active hunters. They eat venison. They have no issues at all with hunting, and see it as an American heritage and support it fully.
When I was appointed to the WAG I decided I didn't want to go into the meetings with mis-conceptions if I could help it. So, I decided to go and spend a few hours at WHI and learn everything I could about them as a business and individuals. Granted, I still have my opinions on a few of the other groups in the WAG, but,, as they say, it is vital to "know your enemy". Sometimes they aren't who we think they are.
This post may not gain me any friends here, but I'm only speaking from facts that I know first-hand, and they are good news for us as hunters. I'll post more as things get rolling, and hopefully we will see some positive changes coming our way...
Post by: haus on May 12, 2015, 11:58:44 AM
Though I might put a muzzle on the HSUS rep. They have no business having a direct voice in our states "issues".
Post by: Curly on May 12, 2015, 12:35:31 PM
.........
Do any of you know that both the ladies that run WHI are active parts of hunting families? They both grew up in hunting families, and their spouses are both active hunters. They eat venison. They have no issues at all with hunting, and see it as an American heritage and support it fully.
....
Interesting. That is good to know. I've always assumed wolf haven to be HSUS types and PETA members.
Post by: Special T on May 12, 2015, 12:37:04 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on May 12, 2015, 12:49:51 PM
Post by: bearpaw on May 12, 2015, 01:24:02 PM
Post by: AspenBud on May 12, 2015, 01:30:33 PM
HSUS and the Sierra Club have NO BUSINESS being on this board. Their funding and orders come predominantly from out of state and their goals have NOTHING to do with what is best for Washington. If you want a bunch of folks in DC and California dictating things, those are the groups to get. Those two groups have done more to try and limit, stop, and destroy hunting in this country than just about any group. They interfere with habitat projects (ask the Ruffed Grouse Society what they think of the Sierra Club and their efforts to stop clear cutting of aspen trees), they interfere with wildlife management decisions, and they rule by initiative. You have no hound hunting here courtesy of those groups.
This group is also too heavily livestock oriented, though maybe that's needed to fight the above. But it would be nice to see more representation by hunters and outfitters.
At the very least if they are inviting national groups opposed to hunting it would have been nice to see the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation there in addition to Mule Deer Foundation and even a group like the RGS to represent bird hunters and their dogs as a counterweight.
I'm not happy with this "representation." :twocents:
Post by: AspenBud on May 12, 2015, 01:36:15 PM
As meetings happen with the WAG, I will try my best to make periodic entries here for you all that are interested in the process and what's going on. A mediator has been brought on board, and I believe she will help make some progress in the processes we will be dealing with, mainly facilitating our ability to make decisions as a group. No, it's not going to be easy, but it IS possible. Our first meeting, in about a week, is going to be focusing on showing ALL groups how they do share similar concerns and have worked for like goals in the past. Call it a "team-building" exercise if you want...it isn't the cure all, but we have to start by setting the rules, recognizing the playing field and the players, and knowing where we can most easily make some headway.
I agree with all of you on a couple of the groups represented, mainly HSUS and not understanding how they should or do have a role here...but, there are two groups that I have worked with on projects and know the members/leaders of, and they are actually on "our" side, although most of you would never believe it.
One example, and I'll start with a question first: How much do any of you really know about Wolf Haven International? Do you know that, other than the Ruby wolf taken there last year, every other wolf there is a "captive born", "filming and production" wolf? It surprised me that they openly said they would euthanize the Ruby wolf if she doesn't adapt, even though that would cost them many financial supporters by saying that. Do any of you know that both the ladies that run WHI are active parts of hunting families? They both grew up in hunting families, and their spouses are both active hunters. They eat venison. They have no issues at all with hunting, and see it as an American heritage and support it fully.
When I was appointed to the WAG I decided I didn't want to go into the meetings with mis-conceptions if I could help it. So, I decided to go and spend a few hours at WHI and learn everything I could about them as a business and individuals. Granted, I still have my opinions on a few of the other groups in the WAG, but,, as they say, it is vital to "know your enemy". Sometimes they aren't who we think they are.
This post may not gain me any friends here, but I'm only speaking from facts that I know first-hand, and they are good news for us as hunters. I'll post more as things get rolling, and hopefully we will see some positive changes coming our way...
:tup:
Post by: Bob33 on May 12, 2015, 01:43:44 PM
Thank you for the feedback. :tup:
Post by: haus on May 12, 2015, 04:17:09 PM
I haven't read most of the comments here but I'll wade in and say this...Since we havent campaigned our economic value enough, that sort of weight falls on the livestock interests, which seem to much better at presenting their economic value.
HSUS and the Sierra Club have NO BUSINESS being on this board. Their funding and orders come predominantly from out of state and their goals have NOTHING to do with what is best for Washington. If you want a bunch of folks in DC and California dictating things, those are the groups to get. Those two groups have done more to try and limit, stop, and destroy hunting in this country than just about any group. They interfere with habitat projects (ask the Ruffed Grouse Society what they think of the Sierra Club and their efforts to stop clear cutting of aspen trees), they interfere with wildlife management decisions, and they rule by initiative. You have no hound hunting here courtesy of those groups.
This group is also too heavily livestock oriented, though maybe that's needed to fight the above. But it would be nice to see more representation by hunters and outfitters.
At the very least if they are inviting national groups opposed to hunting it would have been nice to see the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation there in addition to Mule Deer Foundation and even a group like the RGS to represent bird hunters and their dogs as a counterweight.
I'm not happy with this "representation." :twocents:
Post by: Special T on May 12, 2015, 07:56:44 PM
I haven't read most of the comments here but I'll wade in and say this...
HSUS and the Sierra Club have NO BUSINESS being on this board. Their funding and orders come predominantly from out of state and their goals have NOTHING to do with what is best for Washington. If you want a bunch of folks in DC and California dictating things, those are the groups to get. Those two groups have done more to try and limit, stop, and destroy hunting in this country than just about any group. They interfere with habitat projects (ask the Ruffed Grouse Society what they think of the Sierra Club and their efforts to stop clear cutting of aspen trees), they interfere with wildlife management decisions, and they rule by initiative. You have no hound hunting here courtesy of those groups.
This group is also too heavily livestock oriented, though maybe that's needed to fight the above. But it would be nice to see more representation by hunters and outfitters.
At the very least if they are inviting national groups opposed to hunting it would have been nice to see the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation there in addition to Mule Deer Foundation and even a group like the RGS to represent bird hunters and their dogs as a counterweight.
I'm not happy with this "representation." :twocents:
ALL the groups that have real representation are ORGANIZED! Government LIKES to deal with BIG orgs like the 2 horrible ones you state because 1 they speak the same language, 2 they are organized, 3 they have $, 4 they represent (or pretend to) a huge number of the population.
You may have a distaste for the number of cattle/sheep reps BUT they are all the things hunters are NOT... They may not have all the same interests as you and me BUT they are a LOT closer than the 2 Orgs you pointed out.
Post by: AspenBud on May 13, 2015, 06:40:01 AM
I haven't read most of the comments here but I'll wade in and say this...
HSUS and the Sierra Club have NO BUSINESS being on this board. Their funding and orders come predominantly from out of state and their goals have NOTHING to do with what is best for Washington. If you want a bunch of folks in DC and California dictating things, those are the groups to get. Those two groups have done more to try and limit, stop, and destroy hunting in this country than just about any group. They interfere with habitat projects (ask the Ruffed Grouse Society what they think of the Sierra Club and their efforts to stop clear cutting of aspen trees), they interfere with wildlife management decisions, and they rule by initiative. You have no hound hunting here courtesy of those groups.
This group is also too heavily livestock oriented, though maybe that's needed to fight the above. But it would be nice to see more representation by hunters and outfitters.
At the very least if they are inviting national groups opposed to hunting it would have been nice to see the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation there in addition to Mule Deer Foundation and even a group like the RGS to represent bird hunters and their dogs as a counterweight.
I'm not happy with this "representation." :twocents:
ALL the groups that have real representation are ORGANIZED! Government LIKES to deal with BIG orgs like the 2 horrible ones you state because 1 they speak the same language, 2 they are organized, 3 they have $, 4 they represent (or pretend to) a huge number of the population.
You may have a distaste for the number of cattle/sheep reps BUT they are all the things hunters are NOT... They may not have all the same interests as you and me BUT they are a LOT closer than the 2 Orgs you pointed out.
If they get results great. I have big doubts.
Post by: Special T on May 13, 2015, 07:13:27 AM
Post by: grundy53 on May 13, 2015, 08:33:33 AM
Well for results you likely need a new Gov... I kind of think this whole fiasco has the makings of putting a lipstick on a pig.I agree. And some pigs are more equal than others....
Post by: nwwanderer on May 13, 2015, 08:53:42 AM
Post by: AspenBud on May 13, 2015, 08:54:06 AM
The problem for cattlemen in this state is they aren't as economically significant to the state as a whole as they are in places like Montana or Wyoming. The sense of urgency you got in those states isn't the same here and it's not just because of Liberal politics.
If this "Wolf Advisory Group" was seriously about the wants of the people you would have less representation from special interest groups on both sides.
Post by: MuleDeer on May 13, 2015, 11:12:00 AM
Thanks for the update and perspective Muledeer. Do they allow you to bring an assistant note taker/recorder to the meeting? If so sign me up :chuckle:
Though I might put a muzzle on the HSUS rep. They have no business having a direct voice in our states "issues".
With the exception of this first meeting this month, these WAG meetings are open to the public. I would encourage any of you to attend if you have the time to. I hope to see a lot of hunters attend these meetings. I know a lot of you don't believe it, but there is strength in numbers, and WDFW notices when an "organized" voice is present. I guarantee you HSUS, DofW, Sierra Club and the like won't have many, if any supporters at the meetings, but we can. I don't agree with them being there either, and I've already questioned their appointments there with WDFW.
As for other groups that aren't there, I don't know if they applied or not. I hope they did, or will in the future, as we do need them present as well. If you know someone with RMEF, RGS, or any other hunting based conservation groups, encourage them to apply next time the window opens. In the meantime, the hunters that are on the group will do their best to represent all of us and our goals. More to follow...
Post by: MuleDeer on May 13, 2015, 11:14:27 AM
Thanks for the report. Sounds like you will be a great fit for this group and have the right attitude for working with people that have different perspectives. I think it is great if we can have ambassadors from our sport represent us in diplomatic and intelligent ways to non or even anti-hunting groups. Don't worry about what the fringe folks on either side of the wolf issue think of you. :tup:
I don't worry too much about the "fringe"...if I had thin skin I woulda left this forum long ago ;)
Post by: villageidiot on May 13, 2015, 10:23:13 PM
Just how in the devil did these non hunter groups ever get considered since WDFW is funded primarily by hunters?
Post by: denali on May 13, 2015, 10:56:24 PM
Published:
May 13, 2015 4:00PM
Last changed:
May 13, 2015 4:38PM
The next meeting of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's wolf advisory group will be closed to the public at the recommendation of a private consultant.
OLYMPIA — The first meeting of the state’s expanded wolf advisory group will be closed to the public at the request of a private consultant, a Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife official said Wednesday.
WDFW has hired Francine Madden, executive director of Ohio-based Human-Wildlife Conflict Collaboration, to facilitate the two-day meeting, May 21-22, in Spokane.
The group, which has been doubled in size to 18 members since its formation in 2013, has met nine previous times in public to talk about WDFW’s execution of Washington’s wolf recovery plan, a subject of intense public interest.
WDFW’s wolf policy coordinator, Dave Ware, said Madden wanted the first meeting of the enlarged board to be closed to encourage members to speak freely and get to know each other.
“I think people are more willing to share and be open without that scrutiny,” he said.
Efforts to reach Madden were not successful.
Ware said WDFW maintains that the meeting does not have to be open under state law because the advisory group does not set department policy. With new members joining the board, the meeting will be “more about getting up to speed on wolf-management issues,” Ware said.
Madden recently interviewed ranchers, environmentalists, hunters, WDFW employees and other public officials for an assessment of the public conflict over wolf management. Ware said the report cost the state $82,000. Her fee for facilitating the wolf advisory group meeting was not immediately available.
Washington Cattlemen’s Association Executive Vice President Jack Field, who has been on the board since it was formed, said the board has always allowed the public to observe meetings and offer their comments at the end.
“I don’t see any reason it needs to be closed,” he said.
Field said the board members should be held more accountable by taking votes on recommendations — something they’ve never done before.
Field said he’s pushing for the board to jump in at this month’s meeting and begin talking about policy decisions related to lethal control and recovery goals for wolves.
“I’m not interested in going to a marshmallow roast, making s’mores and doing some team-building,” he said. “I just want to get something done.”
Another advisory group member, Sierra Club representative Bob Aegerter, said he agreed with Madden’s recommendation to close the meeting.
“I think she’s an excellent choice to be a moderator because she has experience and will be impartial,” he said.
Madden reported interviewing more than 90 people in compiling a report on their views of wolf management. The report does not address how to manage wolves, though it does recommend that parties should build trust and have positive dialogue.
Ware said the report showed that WDFW could improve its handling of humans. “We need to figure out how to do a better job of dealing with the social side of wolf management,” he said.
Aegerter called the report “thorough,” while Field said the money could have been better spent.
Field said he wasn’t surprised to read that ranchers are concerned about livestock predation, while environmentalists are worried that wildlife managers are too quick to resort to lethal control.
“I don’t know why they thought it was necessary to have it,” Field said. “I personally would rather have seen them spend the $82,000 collaring more wolves.”
Field is right, sounds like a kum ba yah meeting :fire.:
Post by: Bob33 on May 13, 2015, 11:01:09 PM
Post by: MuleDeer on May 13, 2015, 11:18:29 PM
I agree, with a larger group, it will be more difficult. But I won't go in with a defeatist attitude, resigned to the fact that we'll never get anything done. If the process didn't work in the past, don't you think a different approach could be beneficial? I personally agree with the meeting being closed: it will give a chance to set the stage for work, without the public influencing the actions of some WAG members.
Call it a Kumbayah meeting if you want; I'd say it's trying to fix what's broken, instead of expecting a different result out of the same broken system.
Post by: AspenBud on May 14, 2015, 06:32:19 AM
Post by: Special T on May 14, 2015, 06:41:21 AM
Real progress can only be made with people interested in managing wolves. Protection does not equal management.
Post by: CementFinisher on May 14, 2015, 04:52:45 PM
Post by: dreamingbig on May 14, 2015, 06:19:50 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: wolfbait on May 15, 2015, 05:56:40 AM
http://idahoforwildlife.com/index.php/idfg-wildlife-summit#Unholy%20Alliances
Post by: haus on May 15, 2015, 09:19:46 AM
Post by: Humptulips on May 15, 2015, 01:38:21 PM
Unholy Alliances: The danger of alignment with environmental and anti hunting groups:
http://idahoforwildlife.com/index.php/idfg-wildlife-summit#Unholy%20Alliances
Well, The one bright spot in all that was the quote by Director Unsworth.
Post by: jasnt on May 27, 2015, 06:01:35 AM
There could be a way that we could speed up wolf recovery, but it would take a commitment from a few people. What if we were to put together a few teams of people to document/confirm wolf packs in WA.. these people would only document/confirm in their area of WA.im in
People report wolves here on W-H, and if we advertised that we would like any wolf sightings reported to this site and then if we had people in those areas who followed up on these different sightings with trail cameras etc., and reported to the county commissioners, maybe then we could force WDFW to confirm wolf packs earlier, instead of waiting for livestock predation to confirm?
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 27, 2015, 06:07:22 AM
What process would need to be undertaken to get the representation of a specific organization removed from the WAG?
Government department heads and employees (through their superiors), answer to elected officials. When you see something that doesn't seem right, contact your state senators and representatives.
http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/
Post by: MuleDeer on May 27, 2015, 09:56:36 PM
What process would need to be undertaken to get the representation of a specific organization removed from the WAG?
Government department heads and employees (through their superiors), answer to elected officials. When you see something that doesn't seem right, contact your state senators and representatives.
http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/
Pianoman, the reference you gave doesn't apply to the WAG, as no members are dept heads or employees; it's all volunteer. But that's why I asked the same question during our first meeting: in case there is someone there to intentionally be a 'barrier" to progress or consensus. The result was that we will work off of "majority consensus", meaning if one or two folks stand in the way, the decision can be made. But if you find a way to get someone removed, let me know...