Post by: cbond3318 on May 15, 2015, 11:07:33 AM
Post by: grundy53 on May 15, 2015, 06:03:52 PM
Post by: 4fletch on May 16, 2015, 12:31:22 AM
Post by: RadSav on May 16, 2015, 02:03:06 AM
Are we sportsmen really paying the state to hire a coexistence love guru for our wildlife department. And then conduct meetings behind closed doors? And then we are going to go on a field trip boys and girls. If you all behave yourselves we can stop for some tofu and frozen yogurt on the way home!
I expect they will start with a good hearted group rendition of Kumbaya and finish with a fund raiser for the Sierra Club and HWCC. We'd probably get more for our money had we hired Dr. Phil.
Post by: grundy53 on May 16, 2015, 07:08:24 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on May 16, 2015, 07:42:30 AM
Post by: AspenBud on May 16, 2015, 07:44:31 AM
But this whole thing isn't about hunting or Washington. It's about NE Washington, cows, and animal rights people. What the rest of the state thinks or wants is really irrelevant to this group. Don't believe it? Note where they are taking a field trip to. It is only because money is on the line and a powerful lobby has howled that they are doing this. What's important to hunters isn't what it's about. The fact that HSUS and the Sierra Club are in the group tells you that right there.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 16, 2015, 07:47:57 AM
Post by: AspenBud on May 16, 2015, 08:06:37 AM
This group would be useless without the greenies involved...you have to have all sides.
What you'll end up with is something like they had in Michigan then. Livestock owners might be able to get a permit to take out a problem wolf and no more. Definitely don't expect a wolf season and don't expect to have the right to take out a wolf threatening you, your family and friends, or your dog without a lot of legal problems.
If HSUS could ban all hunting today, they would. There is no compromising with them. That has been proven over and over and over and over again. I don't agree with a lot of the whacked stuff that gets posted here but when I see those four letters getting associated with WDFW and wildlife management I know things are greatly out of control.
Ranchers in the NE might get some help, big might, because money is involved, but expect no more.
Post by: grundy53 on May 16, 2015, 08:21:39 AM
Post by: jasnt on May 16, 2015, 01:01:24 PM
Apparently there is no need to improve our handling of wolves we just need to improve our handling of people.:yeah:
Are we sportsmen really paying the state to hire a coexistence love guru for our wildlife department. And then conduct meetings behind closed doors? And then we are going to go on a field trip boys and girls. If you all behave yourselves we can stop for some tofu and frozen yogurt on the way home!
I expect they will start with a good hearted group rendition of Kumbaya and finish with a fund raiser for the Sierra Club and HWCC. We'd probably get more for our money had we hired Dr. Phil.
Be assured, any future meetings open to the public will likely be in a few areas that are not convenient for most of the public to reach. God forbid they hear from all four corners of the state plus the middle. Oh sure, the "well if you really care" and "stop complaining and come say something" line will be spewed but when most people have a job and families that isn't going to happen unless it's close to home.:yeah:
But this whole thing isn't about hunting or Washington. It's about NE Washington, cows, and animal rights people. What the rest of the state thinks or wants is really irrelevant to this group. Don't believe it? Note where they are taking a field trip to. It is only because money is on the line and a powerful lobby has howled that they are doing this. What's important to hunters isn't what it's about. The fact that HSUS and the Sierra Club are in the group tells you that right there.
:bash:
Post by: mfswallace on May 16, 2015, 02:03:05 PM
This group would be useless without the greenies involved...you have to have all sides.
:puke:
Post by: RadSav on May 16, 2015, 04:00:39 PM
But this whole thing isn't about hunting or Washington. It's about NE Washington, cows, and animal rights people. What the rest of the state thinks or wants is really irrelevant to this group. Don't believe it? Note where they are taking a field trip to.
I assumed the location is because the wolfies have lost the public support in the NE and the wolf control support up there is strong. So they figured the love guru could help tell the wolfs side of the story and bring about a Walt Disney coexist blue bird moment of clarity. Wolves have feeling to, you know.
Post by: timberfaller on May 16, 2015, 04:13:04 PM
It goes back to that liberal code word, CONTROL besides THERE never was any REASON for the reintroduction of the Wolf, all those YEARS ago to begin with! PERIOD!
But :kneel: out number those who have common sense!!!
Post by: CAMPMEAT on May 16, 2015, 04:20:48 PM
Post by: timberfaller on May 16, 2015, 04:35:39 PM
Don't ya just like it when "outsiders" can come in and "close" down debate!! :o
18 member strong(scream and shout loudly to scare wolves) and scares the you know what out of WA employees!!!! oh ya and they are "experts" :chuckle:
Post by: cookingdaily on May 16, 2015, 04:43:02 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on May 16, 2015, 07:38:40 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on May 16, 2015, 10:05:15 PM
If this were Idaho or Wyoming I could see telling the greenie groups to take a hike...but in WA it is a non-starter. Also, a big part of these advisory groups is actually an opportunity for WDFW to educate multiple stakeholders on wolf management...make sure all sides are getting the same information and updates so there is less unintentional miscommunication/misinformation.
I could go on and on about why it is essential to have folks you philosophically disagree with come to the table to discuss these issues...bottom line though is it will be a necessary part of any kind of wolf management in this state.
Post by: Humptulips on May 16, 2015, 10:17:35 PM
Here is how it works. WDFW comes in with what they want to do. They are willing to modify that a bit if there is consensus. That is the only way any decisions come out of the committee. It has to be by consensus. No actual votes are taken.
By putting HSUS and in my case trappers on the same committee it guarantees there will never be consensus. In the end WDFW does what they wanted to do in the beginning and they can say they had all this good public involvement.
The public can watch but they really have no input. When the meeting is over and the public can comment all the committee members leave.
Do I sound a little jaded?
Post by: mfswallace on May 16, 2015, 10:58:14 PM
I think most are confused about what this group does and does not do or how politically powerful some of these more pro-wolf groups are in WA state. If the greenies don't have a seat at the table, they actually become more powerful. Adding them as one member or voice amongst a group of other members/voices eliminates their ability to cry foul over not being included but also forces them to sit amongst pro-hunting groups and listen to other viewpoints. This is where the personal relationship building can be very effective in working on finding common ground and solutions in controversial issues...otherwise...they certainly don't need a facilitator...post a wolf article in the seattle times and link it to Hunt-Wa and DoW webpages and let the fringe folks go at each others throats...that will work I'm sure.
If this were Idaho or Wyoming I could see telling the greenie groups to take a hike...but in WA it is a non-starter. Also, a big part of these advisory groups is actually an opportunity for WDFW to educate multiple stakeholders on wolf management...make sure all sides are getting the same information and updates so there is less unintentional miscommunication/misinformation.
I could go on and on about why it is essential to have folks you philosophically disagree with come to the table to discuss these issues...bottom line though is it will be a necessary part of any kind of wolf management in this state.
Seems contrary to the intentional misinformation wdfw spreads :chuckle:
Post by: RadSav on May 17, 2015, 12:30:02 AM
I see her involvement as stacking the deck against hunters and wolf control. There are a lot of neutral arbitrators out there. Why do you think we got her? There is no doubt she has a proven record of reducing conflict between groups. But in every case there has been a celebration related to how many animals the conflict resolution has saved. Immediately evident on their Facebook page. We need a conflict resolution that results in a limit on wolves not one that celebrates their expansion. Her "Conservation's Blind Spot" paper reads a lot like Obama's foreign policy. A bunch of feel good nonsense that serves only to embolden the offensive action of our enemies.
It is extremely painful to read, but WDFW did just release the love guru's report of investigations so far. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01719/ It's a bunch of rambling information on how the interview process has gone and what each group has said. Basically 90% of it is all a prelude to how much the HWCC is needed and why the money spent by WDFW will be the Holy Grail. I was left with a feeling that it was a long winded version of an Obama speech. Lots of words and no substance.
I sincerely Hope she is better at her job of delivering Change than the last guy that tried to sell us magic beans of "Hope and Change".
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 17, 2015, 07:50:57 AM
"Ware said the report showed that WDFW could improve its handling of humans."
or would the proper word be control
Post by: CAMPMEAT on May 17, 2015, 08:20:59 AM
Sound familiar ?
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on May 17, 2015, 08:45:01 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 17, 2015, 08:45:35 AM
Anti-hunting, anti-guns, anti-public lands, anti-ATV, pro-greenie, pro-wolf, pro-greenie money takers, pro-enviromentalist supporters.
Sound familiar ?
What's really disheartening is to know that many hunters will align themselves with one of these groups on one issue (motorized access for one) and be so ignorant of the fact that the knife the group is hiding WILL be used on all hunters later on. :dunno:
Post by: idahohuntr on May 17, 2015, 09:39:00 AM
I hope you are right idahohuntr and something positive can come of this.What's to lose? If we can get some traction amongst folks on lethal control so not every removal is contested...that would be great. Will we get HSUS to support sport hunting of wolves...no. Nor will they get hunters and many others to support an end to all hunting. But if we can get reasonable, diplomatic people representing these various interests to talk to one another it might be surprising where we find common ground. Also, as hunters, we have literally centuries and billions of dollars of work that prove we are the most successful and powerful conservation group ever. Hunting is Conservation...sound familiar? I think MuleDeer (who is on the WAG) has already expressed some positive news at how folks many of us assumed were anti-hunters actually are not opposed to hunting. No matter what humans do (or don't do) it is extremely unlikely we will be without wolves well into the future...if we can get non (or even anti) hunting groups to better understand or at least tolerate some of the wolf management actions WDFW and sportsmen or livestock producers see as necessary, then I would say that is moving the needle in the right direction. We will not make any progress if folks isolate themselves from opposing viewpoints as some seem to suggest by not having these greenie groups on this WAG. :twocents:
Post by: mfswallace on May 17, 2015, 09:47:44 AM
HSUS and anti-HUMAN SOCIETY don't belong on this group no matter how you keep spewing it will help! There is no F-Ing way our ungulate populations can handle the BS wolf plan these types of groups and wdfw came up with!!
Post by: Dave Workman on May 17, 2015, 08:25:10 PM
While most Evergreen Staters will be observing the 35th anniversary of the devastating Mount St. Helens eruption Monday, some people are talking about something else happening later this week in Spokane, a closed-door meeting of the expanded wolf advisory group, and they’re wondering why.
http://www.examiner.com/article/is-washington-wolf-management-about-to-get-secretive
Post by: idahohuntr on May 17, 2015, 09:16:23 PM
Post by: mfswallace on May 17, 2015, 10:33:59 PM
It's sad to see someone resort to eye-catching headlines at the expense of reality. You've got 18 VOLUNTEERS who have no authority over any kind of wolf management meeting to get to know each other. The facilitator wants a closed meeting so that these volunteers will speak openly and not hold back out of fear for who is in the audience (and what they may write)...but lets not inject reality into wolf management...that won't sell ad-space will it. :rolleyes:
:puke:
Post by: 4fletch on May 18, 2015, 12:19:06 AM
Post by: AspenBud on May 18, 2015, 06:27:24 AM
But what should bother everyone most is that HSUS and the Sierra Club have such a foothold in such matters. That shows you just how much influence they have in all areas of wildlife management here. Wolves are but one small item in their meddling. These are out of state groups with out of state money that are no friends to hunting, or fishing for that matter (yes, HSUS would like to attack that as well), and they are being allowed to LOBBY wildlife management decisions...and they are in close.
Post by: wolfbait on May 18, 2015, 07:05:10 AM
It doesn't matter guys. This is a livestock oriented group. They'll try to find a way to placate the ranchers and get them off their back. If they take the economics out of it it becomes a fight over who is right, not if it's right to cause someone economic harm. If they can get the cattlemen out of the picture it becomes a lot easier for them to have their way with a disorganized group like hunters in WA.
But what should bother everyone most is that HSUS and the Sierra Club have such a foothold in such matters. That shows you just how much influence they have in all areas of wildlife management here. Wolves are but one small item in their meddling. These are out of state groups with out of state money that are no friends to hunting, or fishing for that matter (yes, HSUS would like to attack that as well), and they are being allowed to LOBBY wildlife management decisions...and they are in close.
:yeah:
Well Said A-bud
This isn't a get to know you better meeting this is a lets figure out how we are going to continue protecting WA's wolves while managing those who will be hurt by uncontrolled wolves.
Post by: wolfbait on May 18, 2015, 07:10:31 AM
Anti-hunting, anti-guns, anti-public lands, anti-ATV, pro-greenie, pro-wolf, pro-greenie money takers, pro-enviromentalist supporters.
Sound familiar ?
What's really disheartening is to know that many hunters will align themselves with one of these groups on one issue (motorized access for one) and be so ignorant of the fact that the knife the group is hiding WILL be used on all hunters later on. :dunno:
:yeah:
The environmentalists, USFWS, and state game agencies are all on the same page, with the same goals. Look at WDFW's long term management plans.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on May 18, 2015, 07:22:10 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 18, 2015, 07:26:51 AM
It's sad to see someone resort to eye-catching headlines at the expense of reality. You've got 18 VOLUNTEERS who have no authority over any kind of wolf management meeting to get to know each other. The facilitator wants a closed meeting so that these volunteers will speak openly and not hold back out of fear for who is in the audience (and what they may write)...but lets not inject reality into wolf management...that won't sell ad-space will it. :rolleyes:
Yep.
Deploy the tin foil helmets!! Not all meetings are open to the public. Closed chambers happen for county commissioners and different elected officials all the time. Perhaps, (prepare yourself for a crazy idea) the group doesn't want to get derailed by mindless blather from the wildly anti or pro wolf crowd.....
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 18, 2015, 08:36:46 AM
Letter to Sen. Benton re: closed meetings:
"Hi Don,
There's a 2-day meeting of the wolf advisory committee in Spokane on the 21st and 22nd this week. The WDFW has announced that it will not be open to the public. This is really unacceptable. I'm over in Pullman waiting for the meeting and won't be able to attend. Please find out what you can about this and about the possibility of having the meeting opened to our residents.
Thanks much for your help with this, Don. I look forward to your timely reply.
John W.
Vancouver"
Post by: timberfaller on May 18, 2015, 09:49:22 AM
Get ready to :kneel:
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 18, 2015, 09:55:45 AM
Post by: AspenBud on May 18, 2015, 11:58:49 AM
Deploy the tin foil helmets!! Not all meetings are open to the public. Closed chambers happen for county commissioners and different elected officials all the time. Perhaps, (prepare yourself for a crazy idea) the group doesn't want to get derailed by mindless blather from the wildly anti or pro wolf crowd.....
So HSUS and the Sierra Club don't want to listen to themselves?
I don't really care that the meeting is closed door, I don't even care that much that it's centered on wolves. It's the representation on that board that really bothers me. HSUS will never support hunting of wolves or any animal. They don't just try to stop wolf hunting, it's the works. The Sierra Club isn't far behind and they are about as damaging to habitat initiatives as Wolfbait's thoughts on habitat are.
But pocket books matter. They will try to solve the livestock problem and if they do, hunters will be left behind. This goes far beyond wolves with them. People not able to make a livelihood is a problem for them. But convincing the public that hunting of any animal is bad...we've seen what they can do.
They (HSUS and the SC) should not be at the table.
Post by: Curly on May 18, 2015, 12:06:17 PM
Post by: AspenBud on May 18, 2015, 12:06:39 PM
Post by: timberfaller on May 18, 2015, 12:43:56 PM
:hello: wolfbait :dunno: :chuckle:
Post by: Special T on May 18, 2015, 01:02:26 PM
Breaking bread with your enemy only works if they are willing to compromise. HSUS does not compromise.
I have to fully agree with you on this point
Post by: Dave Workman on May 18, 2015, 03:13:33 PM
It's sad to see someone resort to eye-catching headlines at the expense of reality. You've got 18 VOLUNTEERS who have no authority over any kind of wolf management meeting to get to know each other. The facilitator wants a closed meeting so that these volunteers will speak openly and not hold back out of fear for who is in the audience (and what they may write)...but lets not inject reality into wolf management...that won't sell ad-space will it. :rolleyes:
Yep.
Deploy the tin foil helmets!! Not all meetings are open to the public. Closed chambers happen for county commissioners and different elected officials all the time. Perhaps, (prepare yourself for a crazy idea) the group doesn't want to get derailed by mindless blather from the wildly anti or pro wolf crowd.....
Nope.
I know a guy who thinks there just might be a violation of the open meetings law here.
If you want to have an executive session, then declare an executive session.
What goes on in these committee meetings could ultimately affect all of us, and people have a right to know that trumps some desire to "get acquainted."
This isn't tinfoil hat stuff. No pun intended, but everyone on this forum has a "dog" in the fight, for many different reasons.
I remember 30 years ago when a series of "secret meetings" was held over fish and wildlife issues with the tribes. Nobody knew about any of it until the ink was dry.
Not a good way to go.
Post by: mountainman on May 18, 2015, 07:35:29 PM
:yeah:It's sad to see someone resort to eye-catching headlines at the expense of reality. You've got 18 VOLUNTEERS who have no authority over any kind of wolf management meeting to get to know each other. The facilitator wants a closed meeting so that these volunteers will speak openly and not hold back out of fear for who is in the audience (and what they may write)...but lets not inject reality into wolf management...that won't sell ad-space will it. :rolleyes:
Yep.
Deploy the tin foil helmets!! Not all meetings are open to the public. Closed chambers happen for county commissioners and different elected officials all the time. Perhaps, (prepare yourself for a crazy idea) the group doesn't want to get derailed by mindless blather from the wildly anti or pro wolf crowd.....
Nope.
I know a guy who thinks there just might be a violation of the open meetings law here.
If you want to have an executive session, then declare an executive session.
What goes on in these committee meetings could ultimately affect all of us, and people have a right to know that trumps some desire to "get acquainted."
This isn't tinfoil hat stuff. No pun intended, but everyone on this forum has a "dog" in the fight, for many different reasons.
I remember 30 years ago when a series of "secret meetings" was held over fish and wildlife issues with the tribes. Nobody knew about any of it until the ink was dry.
Not a good way to go.
Post by: jasnt on May 18, 2015, 08:47:52 PM
:yeah:Breaking bread with your enemy only works if they are willing to compromise. HSUS does not compromise.
I have to fully agree with you on this point
Post by: idahohuntr on May 18, 2015, 09:38:23 PM
I don't really care about the bureaucratic bs on whether you call the meeting an "executive session"...the bottom line is this group, which has absolutely no power or authority, might just work better together if they have an opportunity to get to know each other on a personal level. Ultimately, wolf management decisions will be made at open Commission meetings which any individual can attend - regardless of affiliation. The notion that nothing can be gained by meeting with folks of opposing view points is naive and childish. The Sierra Club and HSUS are not ISIS and Al Qaeda.It's sad to see someone resort to eye-catching headlines at the expense of reality. You've got 18 VOLUNTEERS who have no authority over any kind of wolf management meeting to get to know each other. The facilitator wants a closed meeting so that these volunteers will speak openly and not hold back out of fear for who is in the audience (and what they may write)...but lets not inject reality into wolf management...that won't sell ad-space will it. :rolleyes:
Yep.
Deploy the tin foil helmets!! Not all meetings are open to the public. Closed chambers happen for county commissioners and different elected officials all the time. Perhaps, (prepare yourself for a crazy idea) the group doesn't want to get derailed by mindless blather from the wildly anti or pro wolf crowd.....
Nope.
I know a guy who thinks there just might be a violation of the open meetings law here.
If you want to have an executive session, then declare an executive session.
What goes on in these committee meetings could ultimately affect all of us, and people have a right to know that trumps some desire to "get acquainted."
This isn't tinfoil hat stuff. No pun intended, but everyone on this forum has a "dog" in the fight, for many different reasons.
I remember 30 years ago when a series of "secret meetings" was held over fish and wildlife issues with the tribes. Nobody knew about any of it until the ink was dry.
Not a good way to go.
Post by: Special T on May 18, 2015, 09:47:04 PM
Post by: jasnt on May 18, 2015, 10:14:08 PM
they are no better in my book!I don't really care about the bureaucratic bs on whether you call the meeting an "executive session"...the bottom line is this group, which has absolutely no power or authority, might just work better together if they have an opportunity to get to know each other on a personal level. Ultimately, wolf management decisions will be made at open Commission meetings which any individual can attend - regardless of affiliation. The notion that nothing can be gained by meeting with folks of opposing view points is naive and childish. The Sierra Club and HSUS are not ISIS and Al Qaeda.It's sad to see someone resort to eye-catching headlines at the expense of reality. You've got 18 VOLUNTEERS who have no authority over any kind of wolf management meeting to get to know each other. The facilitator wants a closed meeting so that these volunteers will speak openly and not hold back out of fear for who is in the audience (and what they may write)...but lets not inject reality into wolf management...that won't sell ad-space will it. :rolleyes:
Yep.
Deploy the tin foil helmets!! Not all meetings are open to the public. Closed chambers happen for county commissioners and different elected officials all the time. Perhaps, (prepare yourself for a crazy idea) the group doesn't want to get derailed by mindless blather from the wildly anti or pro wolf crowd.....
Nope.
I know a guy who thinks there just might be a violation of the open meetings law here.
If you want to have an executive session, then declare an executive session.
What goes on in these committee meetings could ultimately affect all of us, and people have a right to know that trumps some desire to "get acquainted."
This isn't tinfoil hat stuff. No pun intended, but everyone on this forum has a "dog" in the fight, for many different reasons.
I remember 30 years ago when a series of "secret meetings" was held over fish and wildlife issues with the tribes. Nobody knew about any of it until the ink was dry.
Not a good way to go.
Post by: huntnphool on May 18, 2015, 10:30:59 PM
I don't really care about the bureaucratic bs on whether you call the meeting an "executive session"...the bottom line is this group, which has absolutely no power or authority, might just work better together if they have an opportunity to get to know each other on a personal level. Ultimately, wolf management decisions will be made at open Commission meetings which any individual can attend - regardless of affiliation. The notion that nothing can be gained by meeting with folks of opposing view points is naive and childish. The Sierra Club and HSUS are not ISIS and Al Qaeda.It's sad to see someone resort to eye-catching headlines at the expense of reality. You've got 18 VOLUNTEERS who have no authority over any kind of wolf management meeting to get to know each other. The facilitator wants a closed meeting so that these volunteers will speak openly and not hold back out of fear for who is in the audience (and what they may write)...but lets not inject reality into wolf management...that won't sell ad-space will it. :rolleyes:
Yep.
Deploy the tin foil helmets!! Not all meetings are open to the public. Closed chambers happen for county commissioners and different elected officials all the time. Perhaps, (prepare yourself for a crazy idea) the group doesn't want to get derailed by mindless blather from the wildly anti or pro wolf crowd.....
Nope.
I know a guy who thinks there just might be a violation of the open meetings law here.
If you want to have an executive session, then declare an executive session.
What goes on in these committee meetings could ultimately affect all of us, and people have a right to know that trumps some desire to "get acquainted."
This isn't tinfoil hat stuff. No pun intended, but everyone on this forum has a "dog" in the fight, for many different reasons.
I remember 30 years ago when a series of "secret meetings" was held over fish and wildlife issues with the tribes. Nobody knew about any of it until the ink was dry.
Not a good way to go.
What's naive Idaho is the belief that common ground can be gained with these groups.
Can you come up with any meaningful compromise the left would accept with regards to wolves?
Post by: idahohuntr on May 18, 2015, 10:58:36 PM
Most of you wanting to exclude them or demanding this introductory meeting be completely open to the public...you are playing checkers when you need to open your eyes to the game of chess which is being played.
Post by: huntnphool on May 18, 2015, 11:31:49 PM
I've never suggested there needs to be any compromise. Only that there is no downside to including these groups and letting them hear from reasoned, intelligent, and diplomatic hunters and biologists. Not allowing them at the meetings gives them ammo to whine to a sympathetic governor that they were ignored and that gives them even more political leverage on wolf issues in WA than if they are included as one of many voices in a large group with diverse opinions.
Most of you wanting to exclude them or demanding this introductory meeting be completely open to the public...you are playing checkers when you need to open your eyes to the game of chess which is being played.
Fair enough, I'll rephrase the question then. Can you give me a example of meaningful common ground and solutions that the left would consider regarding wolves?
Post by: Dave Workman on May 19, 2015, 04:56:06 AM
I've never suggested there needs to be any compromise. Only that there is no downside to including these groups and letting them hear from reasoned, intelligent, and diplomatic hunters and biologists. Not allowing them at the meetings gives them ammo to whine to a sympathetic governor that they were ignored and that gives them even more political leverage on wolf issues in WA than if they are included as one of many voices in a large group with diverse opinions.
Most of you wanting to exclude them or demanding this introductory meeting be completely open to the public...you are playing checkers when you need to open your eyes to the game of chess which is being played.
Whoa, time out!
Who suggested that these people should be excluded? I didn't, and to suggest otherwise is pure B.S.
They will listen to the reasoned, intelligent, and diplomatic hunters and biologists. They will then shake hands, go back to their peeps and call all of those intelligent, reasoned people a bunch of backwards animal killers and idiots.
You want to sit down with them, fine. Just don't expect any meeting of the minds. Diplomacy goes only so far. Right about where you feel a knife in your back.
Call me names if you want, but years of experience has come with one lesson above all. You cannot trust anybody whose ultimate goal is to erase your way of life. That goes for hunting, exercising the Second Amendment, burning wood in a stove for heat, pick a subject.
This isn't a game of checkers or chess. This is serious business with potential consequences. Comparing it to a board game is what gets people in all kinds of trouble.
Post by: grundy53 on May 19, 2015, 05:13:36 AM
The Sierra Club and HSUS are not ISIS and Al Qaeda.
To the hunting community they are.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 19, 2015, 09:51:37 AM
Go back and read through this thread, many folks are suggesting these groups be completely excluded. I believe this would be a huge strategic error. As far as trust and diplomacy...again, we have nothing to lose by meeting with these groups...even if they continue to object to any lethal control. There is only upside potential...even if its very improbable.I've never suggested there needs to be any compromise. Only that there is no downside to including these groups and letting them hear from reasoned, intelligent, and diplomatic hunters and biologists. Not allowing them at the meetings gives them ammo to whine to a sympathetic governor that they were ignored and that gives them even more political leverage on wolf issues in WA than if they are included as one of many voices in a large group with diverse opinions.
Most of you wanting to exclude them or demanding this introductory meeting be completely open to the public...you are playing checkers when you need to open your eyes to the game of chess which is being played.
Whoa, time out!
Who suggested that these people should be excluded? I didn't, and to suggest otherwise is pure B.S.
They will listen to the reasoned, intelligent, and diplomatic hunters and biologists. They will then shake hands, go back to their peeps and call all of those intelligent, reasoned people a bunch of backwards animal killers and idiots.
You want to sit down with them, fine. Just don't expect any meeting of the minds. Diplomacy goes only so far. Right about where you feel a knife in your back.
Call me names if you want, but years of experience has come with one lesson above all. You cannot trust anybody whose ultimate goal is to erase your way of life. That goes for hunting, exercising the Second Amendment, burning wood in a stove for heat, pick a subject.
This isn't a game of checkers or chess. This is serious business with potential consequences. Comparing it to a board game is what gets people in all kinds of trouble.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 19, 2015, 09:53:58 AM
No, they are not. Having an opposing environmental management philosophy is not akin to terrorism and murder of innocent people. Get real.The Sierra Club and HSUS are not ISIS and Al Qaeda.
To the hunting community they are.
Post by: grundy53 on May 19, 2015, 10:04:11 AM
They want to end our way of life because they don't agree with us.No, they are not. Having an opposing environmental management philosophy is not akin to terrorism and murder of innocent people. Get real.The Sierra Club and HSUS are not ISIS and Al Qaeda.
To the hunting community they are.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 19, 2015, 10:15:57 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on May 19, 2015, 10:21:40 AM
Groups seeking to limit or eliminate recreational hunting or ATV use, as much as we may object to their views, are still a far cry from terrorists who murder people. To continue to argue they are the same is ignorant and disrespectful to our military.They want to end our way of life because they don't agree with us.No, they are not. Having an opposing environmental management philosophy is not akin to terrorism and murder of innocent people. Get real.The Sierra Club and HSUS are not ISIS and Al Qaeda.
To the hunting community they are.
Post by: grundy53 on May 19, 2015, 11:05:57 AM
I'm talking philosophically. I'm not disrespecting our military. But since you seem to want to defend these groups, there are many that are eco terrorists. That is a fact. Also ask Bearpaw or many other hunters that are in the public eye how many death threats they get.Groups seeking to limit or eliminate recreational hunting or ATV use, as much as we may object to their views, are still a far cry from terrorists who murder people. To continue to argue they are the same is ignorant and disrespectful to our military.They want to end our way of life because they don't agree with us.No, they are not. Having an opposing environmental management philosophy is not akin to terrorism and murder of innocent people. Get real.The Sierra Club and HSUS are not ISIS and Al Qaeda.
To the hunting community they are.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 19, 2015, 11:40:54 AM
https://gunowners.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/the-humane-society-is-anything-but/
The Humane Society is anything but
17
SEP
"The Humane Society does not care about domestic pets. Less than 1% of all money they generate goes to actually shelters where funding is desperately needed. Despite what the ads on TV would have you believe, the Humane Society does not care about your pet, pounds, shelters or anything of the like.
Their president, Wayne Pacelle, goes so far as to say the following:
When asked if he envisioned a future without pets, “If I had my personal view, perhaps that might take hold. In fact, I don’t want to see another dog or cat born.”
“One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals.”
That’s right…these people are so out there on the fringe that they don’t even believe that pets should have the right to exist. No wonder they don’t want to see money spent on shelters, the Human Society’s endgame is the eradication of pets and the more that get euthanized in shelters, the better.
I think the most ironic thing, especially when you are in the thick of the con job that the Humane Society does, is that Mr. Pacelle doesn’t even LIKE animals.
“I don’t have a hands-on fondness for animals…To this day I don’t feel bonded to any non-human animal. I like them and I pet them and I’m kind to them, but there’s no special bond between me and other animals.”
So you have an organization headed by a man who doesn’t like animals and wants to drive all domesticated animals to extinction. Please reflect on that the next time you see the TV ad for the animal shelter and have a desire to donate to the Humane Society. Their goal is “the extinction of domestic animals”.
Here’s a link these and other quotes they have made
But of course it goes beyond domestic animals as the Humane Society has also set its sights on hunting. It is there that Gun Owners of America and the Humane Society cross paths.
If Pacelle wants the extinction of domestic animals, what do you think the leadership wants in regards to hunting? From his and HSUS Manager John (J.P) Goodwin own mouths:
Pacelle
“If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would.”
“Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and dog fighting.”
“We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States … We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state.”
Goodwin takes it a step further and fully wraps himself in an eco terrorist stance
“My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture.”
“The industry has produced a booklet that they are sending out to farmers. This booklet describes security techniques that they can adopt. Security techniques which the (Animal Liberation Front) A.L.F. dismantled in Utah, putting the industry to shame. We haven’t gotten a copy of the booklet yet…”
“Sadly, some so called “animal defenders” are not so supportive of these raids. Ann Davis of the Salt Lake City, Utah based Animal Rights Alliance has stated that she has already talked to the FBI, and will continue to do so. The FBI is working for the fur industry. Anyone that works with them is working hand in hand with the fur trade and is a traitor. If you don’t want to be investigated then don’t associate with turncoats. With friends like these, the mink are screwed…”
“Let it be stated loud and clear, that myself and the Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade support these actions 100%. We will never, ever, ever work with anyone who helps the FBI stop the A.L.F.”
So, not only do they want to abolish hunting and animal agriculture (which extends to beef cattle, dairy cows, sheep’s wool etc) they also fully support the actions of the eco-terrorist group, Animal Liberation Front."
Post by: timberfaller on May 19, 2015, 12:39:36 PM
They are "radical" because THEY are the one's NOT going to "compromise" one inch(YOU have to though)!! because their "agenda" is THEIR "Religion" !! Common sense is THEIR "Evil"
If you can't see the fire though the smoke, YOUR going to get Burned!!!!
Post by: AspenBud on May 19, 2015, 01:55:02 PM
There is no compromise.
Post by: huntnphool on May 19, 2015, 02:26:54 PM
As far as trust and diplomacy...again, we have nothing to lose by meeting with these groups...even if they continue to object to any lethal control. There is only upside potential...even if its very improbable.I've never suggested there needs to be any compromise. Only that there is no downside to including these groups and letting them hear from reasoned, intelligent, and diplomatic hunters and biologists. Not allowing them at the meetings gives them ammo to whine to a sympathetic governor that they were ignored and that gives them even more political leverage on wolf issues in WA than if they are included as one of many voices in a large group with diverse opinions.
Most of you wanting to exclude them or demanding this introductory meeting be completely open to the public...you are playing checkers when you need to open your eyes to the game of chess which is being played.
Whoa, time out!
Who suggested that these people should be excluded? I didn't, and to suggest otherwise is pure B.S.
They will listen to the reasoned, intelligent, and diplomatic hunters and biologists. They will then shake hands, go back to their peeps and call all of those intelligent, reasoned people a bunch of backwards animal killers and idiots.
You want to sit down with them, fine. Just don't expect any meeting of the minds. Diplomacy goes only so far. Right about where you feel a knife in your back.
Call me names if you want, but years of experience has come with one lesson above all. You cannot trust anybody whose ultimate goal is to erase your way of life. That goes for hunting, exercising the Second Amendment, burning wood in a stove for heat, pick a subject.
This isn't a game of checkers or chess. This is serious business with potential consequences. Comparing it to a board game is what gets people in all kinds of trouble.
Yeah yeah yeah, you keep saying that, but when continually asked to give examples like "nothing to lose", "upside", "opportunity", "common ground" and "solutions" you conveniently ignore the question or look for ways to confuse the obvious intent of the question.
Let's hear it Idaho, what meaningful "good" can come out of discussions with these people? Will they EVER agree with lethal control?
The only compromise that's EVER been accepted are those given from the anti wolf side, and I have zero faith in CNW, HSUS or any pro wolf group giving a inch, you do so let's hear where you think compromise on their side is possible.
Post by: huntnphool on May 19, 2015, 02:29:43 PM
What exactly is the role of HSUS and the SC on a WDFW advisory committee of any kind? The HSUS is the Hezbollah of animal rights groups. They deceive donors into thinking they support local shelters while they use taxpayer money to sue the state governments over animal rights law. They have no ability whatsoever for flexibility in their thinking towards hunting. Their stated goal is to end hunting. It is completely inappropriate for them to have a seat on any committee that has the ability to influence hunting regulations. Anyone who supports their position on a WDFW committee has no place in this forum.
+1
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 19, 2015, 02:30:30 PM
Post by: huntnphool on May 19, 2015, 02:39:40 PM
The Senator is looking into the legality of closing it to the public at all, but they're confused as to why they first said it would be closed and is now open at the beginning.
Looking into the "legality" of why it is closed to the public? How about looking into the need to have it closed at all, let alone the legality of it. :dunno:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 19, 2015, 02:44:59 PM
Grabbers and antis are way worse.They want to end our way of life because they don't agree with us.No, they are not. Having an opposing environmental management philosophy is not akin to terrorism and murder of innocent people. Get real.The Sierra Club and HSUS are not ISIS and Al Qaeda.
To the hunting community they are.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 19, 2015, 02:45:29 PM
The Senator is looking into the legality of closing it to the public at all, but they're confused as to why they first said it would be closed and is now open at the beginning.
Looking into the "legality" of why it is closed to the public? How about looking into the need to have it closed at all, let alone the legality of it. :dunno:
Have it closed as illegal? Please expound.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 19, 2015, 03:08:28 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 19, 2015, 03:27:29 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 19, 2015, 03:28:38 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on May 19, 2015, 03:28:52 PM
More waffling. I just called the WDFW for meeting details and was told the Thursday meeting at the Spokane Airport Ramada was closed to the public except the media. I told them Sen. Benton's office had been told the beginning would be open and would he check with wildlife. He did so and came back and said it was completely closed. Interesting developments by the moment. I'm going to be out of touch for a while but will either be back on tonight or in the AM. The full meeting will be available by video on the WDFW website.
...................I wonder how much editing will be done to the video ?
Post by: bobcat on May 19, 2015, 03:36:23 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 19, 2015, 03:38:51 PM
Post by: bobcat on May 19, 2015, 03:45:25 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 19, 2015, 04:29:53 PM
Funny, if it was open to the public I bet nobody would show up. But since it's not open to the public people have got politicians calling and giving them a hard time about it. :chuckle:Your comment is not only unfair, but untrue. Especially in the Spokane area, a great many would show up. We on the wetside have the luxury of not attending wolf meetings and it having little effect on our lives. The luxury doesn't exist for the people of the NE. Between ranchers and concerned hunters, I believe a great many would attend.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on May 19, 2015, 04:38:01 PM
Post by: timberfaller on May 19, 2015, 04:51:28 PM
More waffling. I just called the WDFW for meeting details and was told the Thursday meeting at the Spokane Airport Ramada was closed to the public except the media. I told them Sen. Benton's office had been told the beginning would be open and would he check with wildlife. He did so and came back and said it was completely closed. Interesting developments by the moment. I'm going to be out of touch for a while but will either be back on tonight or in the AM. The full meeting will be available by video on the WDFW website.
Wow!! EXACTLY the "type" of thing the Feds pulled at the Winthrop air port years ago over the listing of the Salmon!!
I guess the "local boys" are following suit! Airport for the big wigs to fly into, call the meeting Open but when a County Commissioner shows up, it becomes "closed"(private) "agenda" already discussed and PASSED with out input form any LOCAL elected officials!!
Keep drinking the kool-aid and wearing the tin foil if you think for one minute its just a "get together" kum by ya meeting to bounce IDEAS off of one another! :o
Post by: mfswallace on May 19, 2015, 04:56:58 PM
I hope they do their handshakes and have time to meet and learn about each other without you and your buddies heckling and protesting wolves. I know you dont believe this, but the point of the meeting is not to guide policy or make decisions. Its to meet the other board members in a non confrontational setting.... You are the one making it confrontational, just so we are all clear.
:puke:
Post by: idahohuntr on May 19, 2015, 05:46:18 PM
HP -Go read the first post of mine that you quote here. I very clearly articulate why it is to our advantage, even if they don't compromise on lethal control, to have these groups represented at this meeting. :tup:As far as trust and diplomacy...again, we have nothing to lose by meeting with these groups...even if they continue to object to any lethal control. There is only upside potential...even if its very improbable.I've never suggested there needs to be any compromise. Only that there is no downside to including these groups and letting them hear from reasoned, intelligent, and diplomatic hunters and biologists. Not allowing them at the meetings gives them ammo to whine to a sympathetic governor that they were ignored and that gives them even more political leverage on wolf issues in WA than if they are included as one of many voices in a large group with diverse opinions.
Most of you wanting to exclude them or demanding this introductory meeting be completely open to the public...you are playing checkers when you need to open your eyes to the game of chess which is being played.
Whoa, time out!
Who suggested that these people should be excluded? I didn't, and to suggest otherwise is pure B.S.
They will listen to the reasoned, intelligent, and diplomatic hunters and biologists. They will then shake hands, go back to their peeps and call all of those intelligent, reasoned people a bunch of backwards animal killers and idiots.
You want to sit down with them, fine. Just don't expect any meeting of the minds. Diplomacy goes only so far. Right about where you feel a knife in your back.
Call me names if you want, but years of experience has come with one lesson above all. You cannot trust anybody whose ultimate goal is to erase your way of life. That goes for hunting, exercising the Second Amendment, burning wood in a stove for heat, pick a subject.
This isn't a game of checkers or chess. This is serious business with potential consequences. Comparing it to a board game is what gets people in all kinds of trouble.
Yeah yeah yeah, you keep saying that, but when continually asked to give examples like "nothing to lose", "upside", "opportunity", "common ground" and "solutions" you conveniently ignore the question or look for ways to confuse the obvious intent of the question.
Let's hear it Idaho, what meaningful "good" can come out of discussions with these people? Will they EVER agree with lethal control?
The only compromise that's EVER been accepted are those given from the anti wolf side, and I have zero faith in CNW, HSUS or any pro wolf group giving a inch, you do so let's hear where you think compromise on their side is possible.
Anyways, this meeting of volunteers is definitely being blown out of proportion. This group has absolutely no control or authority over wolf management decisions.
Post by: denali on May 19, 2015, 05:51:03 PM
Post by: AspenBud on May 19, 2015, 06:51:17 PM
Funny, if it was open to the public I bet nobody would show up. But since it's not open to the public people have got politicians calling and giving them a hard time about it. :chuckle:
All of the meetings to date have been held in Olympus, central WA, and Spokane. That makes for a long drive for anyone not within an hour of that. People with jobs and families aren't going to come unless it's close.
Post by: AspenBud on May 19, 2015, 07:00:19 PM
HP -Go read the first post of mine that you quote here. I very clearly articulate why it is to our advantage, even if they don't compromise on lethal control, to have these groups represented at this meeting. :tup:As far as trust and diplomacy...again, we have nothing to lose by meeting with these groups...even if they continue to object to any lethal control. There is only upside potential...even if its very improbable.I've never suggested there needs to be any compromise. Only that there is no downside to including these groups and letting them hear from reasoned, intelligent, and diplomatic hunters and biologists. Not allowing them at the meetings gives them ammo to whine to a sympathetic governor that they were ignored and that gives them even more political leverage on wolf issues in WA than if they are included as one of many voices in a large group with diverse opinions.
Most of you wanting to exclude them or demanding this introductory meeting be completely open to the public...you are playing checkers when you need to open your eyes to the game of chess which is being played.
Whoa, time out!
Who suggested that these people should be excluded? I didn't, and to suggest otherwise is pure B.S.
They will listen to the reasoned, intelligent, and diplomatic hunters and biologists. They will then shake hands, go back to their peeps and call all of those intelligent, reasoned people a bunch of backwards animal killers and idiots.
You want to sit down with them, fine. Just don't expect any meeting of the minds. Diplomacy goes only so far. Right about where you feel a knife in your back.
Call me names if you want, but years of experience has come with one lesson above all. You cannot trust anybody whose ultimate goal is to erase your way of life. That goes for hunting, exercising the Second Amendment, burning wood in a stove for heat, pick a subject.
This isn't a game of checkers or chess. This is serious business with potential consequences. Comparing it to a board game is what gets people in all kinds of trouble.
Yeah yeah yeah, you keep saying that, but when continually asked to give examples like "nothing to lose", "upside", "opportunity", "common ground" and "solutions" you conveniently ignore the question or look for ways to confuse the obvious intent of the question.
Let's hear it Idaho, what meaningful "good" can come out of discussions with these people? Will they EVER agree with lethal control?
The only compromise that's EVER been accepted are those given from the anti wolf side, and I have zero faith in CNW, HSUS or any pro wolf group giving a inch, you do so let's hear where you think compromise on their side is possible.
Anyways, this meeting of volunteers is definitely being blown out of proportion. This group has absolutely no control or authority over wolf management decisions.
Authority? No. Influence? Yes.
Again, I care less about it being about wolves and more that HSUS has their meat hooks into WDFW that deep.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 19, 2015, 09:56:00 PM
Post by: MuleDeer on May 20, 2015, 01:41:45 AM
More waffling. I just called the WDFW for meeting details and was told the Thursday meeting at the Spokane Airport Ramada was closed to the public except the media. I told them Sen. Benton's office had been told the beginning would be open and would he check with wildlife. He did so and came back and said it was completely closed. Interesting developments by the moment. I'm going to be out of touch for a while but will either be back on tonight or in the AM. The full meeting will be available by video on the WDFW website.
Lots of comments that are similar, so I just picked this one at random to quote. The "Open Public Meeting Act", first of all, does NOT apply to Advisory Groups. It is absolutely legal for them to have it closed. As far as it closing once a county commissioner wanted to be there, well, he is already ON the WAG, so he'll be there anyway.
As for Dave Workman's article, Dave, you wrote outside of your knowledge base on that one, stirring the pot even more on the issue. With as volatile as this issue is, we should all try to do a better job of verifying facts before stating them as truth. It's irresponsible to do otherwise. I know that would put a damper on the comments a lot of you like to write here, but what you're all saying, is basically, "preaching to the choir".
A couple facts:
*Wolves are here, probably for as long as any of us will be.
The best thing we can do is try to make a difference in how they are eventually managed.
*HSUS, Defenders of Wildlife, and SC are on the WAG.
None of us here agree with that, but that's the way it is. So build a case for them NOT to be on the WAG by the next appointment period. Constantly stating the same distaste for their appointment does nothing.
*The meeting is closed at the request of the WAG members, not WDFW.
It is the first time many of the members will meet, and as proven by the comments here, it would be a great distraction to have the public there for this volatile issue in the first meeting.
*The field trip this week isn't at the request of the cattlemen and ranchers.
This trip was requested by the antis, to better understand the trials, losses, and hardships that are being caused in NE WA. It may, in fact, help ALL user groups to better understand the need for controlling the wolves, both with non-lethal AND lethal means.
Below is a quote regarding why the meeting is closed, and the thinking behind it. Again, the meeting was closed at the request of the members, not WDFW or Francine Madden.
"WAG members are not going to discuss the merits of or give advice on substantive issues at this first WAG. The most pressing concerns about WAG by most people center around a need to improve relationships (trust, team capacity, humanizing and respecting individuals and their group affiliation, etc) and process (how discussions and decisions on advice/decisions are arrived at and communicated so they are supported and sustained). In short, most people felt that the group could more effectively tackle the "what" (substantive issues) at a future meeting, if significant improvements were made to the "who" (relationships) and the "how" (process) beforehand.
All sides have expressed a deep desire to move beyond an "us versus them" mentality that disrupts everyone's ability to work together toward acceptable, sustainable solutions. In assessing needs for this 'orientation' WAG, most people I've talked to so far felt that the group would build trust and a sense of team more effectively it they weren't on stage with an audience. They similarly expressed an appreciation for open, transparent processes as substantive decisions are addressed. As such, this first WAG meeting is an effort to 'go slow to go fast' and focus on the relationship and process piece, and then address substantive issues at future WAG meetings.
Why do we need to build a sense of team and focus on relationship-building as a first step? Because people don't make important decisions with people they don't know or trust. People don't demonstrate flexibility and accommodation to others if they don't trust them or feel empathy toward them, and if they don't understand their perspectives and reality. Members of the WAG come from very different realities of what this conflict means to them and for them -- people need to understand that reality so they can support one another and work effectively together. This is also the reason for the field trip, so that all WAG members can understand the reality of what it means to be a livestock producer in the NE today. I want to ensure that the field trip feels safe, productive and positive for those involved. This field trip is one component of a longer process to ensure that every side is understood by the other, that we can find shared values and common ground, and we can build on all of this to work together more effectively. This WAG meeting will also ensure that WAG members with varying levels of experience, history and knowledge have a shared understanding of basic, relevant information so they can be more productive when it comes to discussing substantive issues in the future.
Given the pressing needs for forward progress on substantive issues, it may feel, to some, counter-intuitive to focus on the relationships and process pieces first. In our experience, we will ultimately move faster on the substantive issues if we take the time in this first meeting to create an atmosphere of mutual respect and appreciation for each person's reality. The alternative is often a rush to failure.
Please know that while this interim step - to give folks a chance to get to know, respect and humanize one another - may seem like an effort to constrict involvement from the public, it is a short term step toward a goal of more effective, expanded involvement among those impacted by this conflict, improved transparency and fairness, and ultimately peace for those in your community and other communities/stakeholder groups who are impacted by this conflict.
As you know, my involvement in this issue around wolves will go beyond WAG. And it needs to. WAG is one forum designed to engage stakeholders at a state-wide scale, but that scale does not address the fact that this is currently an acute local issue, particularly in the NE, and that the interests in this issue are also national, and that some stakeholders are impacted immediately while others anticipate impacts down the road. As such, even if this meeting were open, it would likely not meet the needs for your community's (or any community/group) involvement, nor should it. My goal is to increase overall productive involvement, not limit it. As such, I hope to work with the different stakeholder groups to support their efforts to work together to seek strategies and solutions that meet their needs, allow for needed progress, and are widely accepted and supported. As for the WAG, my hope is the group will design a process going forward that begins to more formally include constituent groups by bringing feedback directly to them, garnering their input in more depth than in the past, and ensuring that as the WAG moves forward with advice, that advice is informed and supported by the stakeholders they represent."
Call it "kumbaya", love guru team building, whatever you want. But from the first session of the WAG, things didn't work, and that's another fact. Will this cure it? We won't know until it's tried. But it's an effort to make a difference, which is something that, sadly, too few of us as hunters and conservationists bother to do. I realize most of us here have jobs and families; but don't let that get in the way of your convictions. Make time to get to a meeting, apply for an advisory group, spear-head an effort to improve a situation, instead of diverting all of that effort into a public forum where everyone already agrees with you. Get out and speak to the ones who don't know which way to lean yet; that's the only way the tide is going to turn over the long run.
Post by: jasnt on May 20, 2015, 05:52:56 AM
This group may not have any authority to make or change rules but they can influence those rules or changes. Other wise it's pointless to have them at all!
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 20, 2015, 06:03:00 AM
I get that the meet and greet is necessary for the group to begin working together. I'm unsure that the public shouldn't be involved, but that's a moot point now. As far as the legality of whether an advisory group can be closed to the public, the jury's still out on that.
I, like a good many others see the reports from WDFW saying management could begin within 6 years, and then in the next week, find that more members of anti-hunting and pro-wolf organizations have been added to the program. I've said it once and I'll say it more: these people with whom they're bedding are the same ones who will report back to their organizations when the advisory group recommends the start of management, and they'll start the injunctions and the roadblocks to successful management with plenty of advance notice from the inside. It almost seems like the WDFW wishes to create a situation that will prevent management of wolves in WA, because that could certainly be the result. I agree with you about building arguments now to try and thwart their participation in the future, but that would be successful only if the department actually anticipates management. It sure appears from the outside as if they don't and are doing what they can to build up resistance to it from within.
For these reasons, I think it's important for the public to be allowed to attend these meetings so that we can see in a timely manner what's being recommended and decided about the fate of out state, cattle industry, and wildlife with regards to the wolves. I am fully aware the wolves are here to stay. Anyone who isn't is delusional. What I'm not fully aware of is the extent to which they will be allowed to grow unchecked. You know as well as I that many members of the advisory group and, in fact, the Commission, will fight to block any management regardless of the effect on our citizens and other wildlife. This should not be allowed to happen behind closed doors with videos available for the public after an undisclosed period of time after the event when so much will be decided in the meantime. That the pro-wolf press will be the only watchdog at these gatherings is of zero comfort to me and many others.
Post by: grundy53 on May 20, 2015, 06:16:08 AM
Speaking our mind here does not go unseen. Wdfw reads these threads. It is not pointless or preaching to the choir. Many others read them as well! I think it's more important to let our ideas and beliefs be known.:yeah:
This group may not have any authority to make or change rules but they can influence those rules or changes. Other wise it's pointless to have them at all!
Post by: Curly on May 20, 2015, 07:20:48 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on May 20, 2015, 07:26:35 AM
*HSUS, Defenders of Wildlife, and SC are on the WAG.Many excellent points MuleDeer...except the one above. If this WAG were the only forum or process to communicate desires for wolf management...I could see wanting to try and have those groups all removed. The fact is, these are very powerful groups and they will not be limited in their ability to convey their messages to WDFW commissioners, Governor, legislators etc. who have wolf management and policy authority. To not include them, or to seek their removal, empowers them. It just seems flawed to me to not include groups like this when you are trying to resolve wolf management conflicts which are driven by them. Do folks really think we can just get a bunch of like-minded hunters and cattle ranchers in a room, get agreement we need to shoot wolves and then its done? I also still believe as much as this group may provide input to WDFW...it is also a tool for WDFW to provide accurate and reliable information to all stakeholders on wolf management in WA so even if folks disagree on future actions, they at least have a common understanding of the situation and issues related to wolf management in the state. Bottom line, my belief these groups need to be included is not because I support their positions; rather I see little value to this WAG or resolving wolf management conflicts if the opposing view is not represented.
None of us here agree with that, but that's the way it is. So build a case for them NOT to be on the WAG by the next appointment period. Constantly stating the same distaste for their appointment does nothing.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 20, 2015, 07:28:28 AM
I just hope that the WAG will consider recommending that the flawed state wolf plan be revised. It's ridiculous that the feds have delisted the eastern third of the state but because of the state plan, the wolves are allowed to overpopulate in the NE.
That would be nice but is now less likely than ever because of the group's make-up. Not only will the group be unable to come to a consensus which corrects the gaping flaws in the original outrageous plan, many will push for management only on an emergency, as-needed basis. They will certainly fight all attempts now or in the future to list wolves as game animals.
Post by: Curly on May 20, 2015, 07:33:54 AM
Post by: wolfbait on May 20, 2015, 07:53:58 AM
My guess-the "closed" wolf meeting isn't about getting to know each other, as each group already knows one anothers interests, this meeting will be about the next step of protecting wolves and where do they go from here.
Each state that gets wolves would like to pretend their wolves are special, they sell it to the public that special wolf plans are needed, new wolf studies etc..
Washington's wolves will do the same damage that Idaho's wolves did, we will have the same problems, the only difference is WA has never had the number of ungulates that Idaho had before wolf introduction. Washington's hunting etc. won't be able to withstand the impact of wolves near as long as Idaho. And the fake wolf numbers that WDFW throw out to the public will be proven false sooner.
So what's the next step in the wolf agenda for Washington?
Post by: Special T on May 20, 2015, 08:24:57 AM
Muledeer, thanks for the thoughtful observations and respectful tone. That is missing in many posts.
I get that the meet and greet is necessary for the group to begin working together. I'm unsure that the public shouldn't be involved, but that's a moot point now. As far as the legality of whether an advisory group can be closed to the public, the jury's still out on that.
I, like a good many others see the reports from WDFW saying management could begin within 6 years, and then in the next week, find that more members of anti-hunting and pro-wolf organizations have been added to the program. I've said it once and I'll say it more: these people with whom they're bedding are the same ones who will report back to their organizations when the advisory group recommends the start of management, and they'll start the injunctions and the roadblocks to successful management with plenty of advance notice from the inside. It almost seems like the WDFW wishes to create a situation that will prevent management of wolves in WA, because that could certainly be the result. I agree with you about building arguments now to try and thwart their participation in the future, but that would be successful only if the department actually anticipates management. It sure appears from the outside as if they don't and are doing what they can to build up resistance to it from within.
For these reasons, I think it's important for the public to be allowed to attend these meetings so that we can see in a timely manner what's being recommended and decided about the fate of out state, cattle industry, and wildlife with regards to the wolves. I am fully aware the wolves are here to stay. Anyone who isn't is delusional. What I'm not fully aware of is the extent to which they will be allowed to grow unchecked. You know as well as I that many members of the advisory group and, in fact, the Commission, will fight to block any management regardless of the effect on our citizens and other wildlife. This should not be allowed to happen behind closed doors with videos available for the public after an undisclosed period of time after the event when so much will be decided in the meantime. That the pro-wolf press will be the only watchdog at these gatherings is of zero comfort to me and many others.
:yeah:
To pull a couple of points form Muledeer's post.
"People wont reach agreement with people they dont trust."
This is true and the lack of trust is not from misunderstanding but from previous actions taken, or not, from specific groups.
"This meeting is a way to overcome the Us Vs Them mentality."
This would be great if some sense of reason can be brought to the discussion learning from other states experiences. There may be forces that can reasoned with, however if the HSUS and DoW can be brought into agreement then the person responsible would have performed a miracle.
Post by: Dave Workman on May 20, 2015, 10:29:26 AM
As for Dave Workman's article, Dave, you wrote outside of your knowledge base on that one, stirring the pot even more on the issue.
Are you saying that nobody's discussing this? That nobody's concerned or upset? That there wasn't an interesting image posted on line of what appears to be a wolf? That the appearance of a wolf west of the mountains hasn't gotten quite a bit of attention, and that it hasn't opened a new area of discussion?
That's what I wrote about, along with Mount St. Helens and the 35th anniversary observance.
What was erroneous?
You seem to be suggesting that any viewpoint different than the status quo is "stirring the pot" and may be counter-productive, that it?
I don't know who you are, but I signed this with my name, and I've been writing off and on about the wolf controversy here and in other states for quite a while, so... what am I missing?
The issue does affect a lot of people, one way or another, and the public has a right to know any detail that may contribute to a management decision as important and with the ramifications that this might have; how the decision was reached, who agreed and/or disagreed and why.
You call it "stirring the pot." That's what journalists do occasionally.
Would you rather that conflicting viewpoints not be heard? A careful read of this entire thread shows a difference of opinions, and I didn't start that. I just wrote about it.
Post by: Dave Workman on May 20, 2015, 10:36:46 AM
Whoa, time out!Go back and read through this thread, many folks are suggesting these groups be completely excluded. I believe this would be a huge strategic error. As far as trust and diplomacy...again, we have nothing to lose by meeting with these groups...even if they continue to object to any lethal control. There is only upside potential...even if its very improbable.
Who suggested that these people should be excluded? I didn't, and to suggest otherwise is pure B.S.
Well, it wasn't me. ;)
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with sitting down and listening other viewpoints. I do that occasionally with gun control proponents. Just remember the track record and you will never be disappointed when you anticipate disappointment.
I think "wolf bait" posting a few messages back had some interesting observations.
Post by: huntnphool on May 20, 2015, 10:54:07 AM
*HSUS, Defenders of Wildlife, and SC are on the WAG.Many excellent points MuleDeer...except the one above. If this WAG were the only forum or process to communicate desires for wolf management...I could see wanting to try and have those groups all removed. The fact is, these are very powerful groups and they will not be limited in their ability to convey their messages to WDFW commissioners, Governor, legislators etc. who have wolf management and policy authority. To not include them, or to seek their removal, empowers them. It just seems flawed to me to not include groups like this when you are trying to resolve wolf management conflicts which are driven by them.
None of us here agree with that, but that's the way it is. So build a case for them NOT to be on the WAG by the next appointment period. Constantly stating the same distaste for their appointment does nothing.
:yeah: Could not be stated any better than this right here!!!
Spot on Idaho! :tup:
Post by: AspenBud on May 20, 2015, 11:05:49 AM
Post by: MuleDeer on May 20, 2015, 02:46:56 PM
Speaking our mind here does not go unseen. Wdfw reads these threads. It is not pointless or preaching to the choir. Many others read them as well! I think it's more important to let our ideas and beliefs be known.I completely agree, otherwise, I wouldn't have applied for the WAG. As for the comments here being seen, I also agree they are seen by many others; think about how we as hunters would like to be portrayed, and we should all phrase our comments in that responsible, sensible way. Otherwise we get labeled as the "extremists" and "conspiracy theorists". We do need to provide our unified voice, in a way that will appeal to the thousands of those who haven't decided yet which way they will think...those first impressions can win or lose support instantly, that's all I was saying about how things are written. Thanks for the comment.
This group may not have any authority to make or change rules but they can influence those rules or changes. Other wise it's pointless to have them at all!
Post by: MuleDeer on May 20, 2015, 02:50:10 PM
Muledeer, thanks for the thoughtful observations and respectful tone. That is missing in many posts.
I get that the meet and greet is necessary for the group to begin working together. I'm unsure that the public shouldn't be involved, but that's a moot point now. As far as the legality of whether an advisory group can be closed to the public, the jury's still out on that.
I, like a good many others see the reports from WDFW saying management could begin within 6 years, and then in the next week, find that more members of anti-hunting and pro-wolf organizations have been added to the program. I've said it once and I'll say it more: these people with whom they're bedding are the same ones who will report back to their organizations when the advisory group recommends the start of management, and they'll start the injunctions and the roadblocks to successful management with plenty of advance notice from the inside. It almost seems like the WDFW wishes to create a situation that will prevent management of wolves in WA, because that could certainly be the result. I agree with you about building arguments now to try and thwart their participation in the future, but that would be successful only if the department actually anticipates management. It sure appears from the outside as if they don't and are doing what they can to build up resistance to it from within.
For these reasons, I think it's important for the public to be allowed to attend these meetings so that we can see in a timely manner what's being recommended and decided about the fate of out state, cattle industry, and wildlife with regards to the wolves. I am fully aware the wolves are here to stay. Anyone who isn't is delusional. What I'm not fully aware of is the extent to which they will be allowed to grow unchecked. You know as well as I that many members of the advisory group and, in fact, the Commission, will fight to block any management regardless of the effect on our citizens and other wildlife. This should not be allowed to happen behind closed doors with videos available for the public after an undisclosed period of time after the event when so much will be decided in the meantime. That the pro-wolf press will be the only watchdog at these gatherings is of zero comfort to me and many others.
I agree with your concerns, and that's why I said that I will post a synopsis of what happens at this first meeting tomorrow. I'll try to get it on here over the weekend, unless there is something that is totally out of line that needs immediate attention. Thanks
Post by: MuleDeer on May 20, 2015, 02:53:08 PM
I just hope that the WAG will consider recommending that the flawed state wolf plan be revised. It's ridiculous that the feds have delisted the eastern third of the state but because of the state plan, the wolves are allowed to overpopulate in the NE.Curly, that is something that is already on the agenda for future meetings of the WAG. I have personally spoken with many of the local and regional directors in WDFW about that point, and they agree it needs to be adapted to what, for some reason, was unforeseen when the original plan was written. How did they not envision what has happened? That's what most of us ask, I'm sure!
Post by: MuleDeer on May 20, 2015, 02:56:56 PM
*HSUS, Defenders of Wildlife, and SC are on the WAG.Many excellent points MuleDeer...except the one above. If this WAG were the only forum or process to communicate desires for wolf management...I could see wanting to try and have those groups all removed. The fact is, these are very powerful groups and they will not be limited in their ability to convey their messages to WDFW commissioners, Governor, legislators etc. who have wolf management and policy authority. To not include them, or to seek their removal, empowers them. It just seems flawed to me to not include groups like this when you are trying to resolve wolf management conflicts which are driven by them. Do folks really think we can just get a bunch of like-minded hunters and cattle ranchers in a room, get agreement we need to shoot wolves and then its done? I also still believe as much as this group may provide input to WDFW...it is also a tool for WDFW to provide accurate and reliable information to all stakeholders on wolf management in WA so even if folks disagree on future actions, they at least have a common understanding of the situation and issues related to wolf management in the state. Bottom line, my belief these groups need to be included is not because I support their positions; rather I see little value to this WAG or resolving wolf management conflicts if the opposing view is not represented.
None of us here agree with that, but that's the way it is. So build a case for them NOT to be on the WAG by the next appointment period. Constantly stating the same distaste for their appointment does nothing.
Thanks for the comments and support. I do understand and agree with your point, but there is a solution: prove HSUS for what they really are, and they will lose any credibility to have influence on any mgmt. issues for wildlife. If there was a concerted effort to expose them for what they are. like FOX news did today with the cancer charities, we would be rid of HSUS, and they would be facing charges like those charities exposed today. At that point, their position would be removed, and there would be no advantage to them. Guess that's asking for that miracle, but if we don't believe change can actually happen, what's the point, right?
Post by: MuleDeer on May 20, 2015, 03:06:02 PM
d
As for Dave Workman's article, Dave, you wrote outside of your knowledge base on that one, stirring the pot even more on the issue.
Are you saying that nobody's discussing this? That nobody's concerned or upset? That there wasn't an interesting image posted on line of what appears to be a wolf? That the appearance of a wolf west of the mountains hasn't gotten quite a bit of attention, and that it hasn't opened a new area of discussion?
That's what I wrote about, along with Mount St. Helens and the 35th anniversary observance.
What was erroneous?
You seem to be suggesting that any viewpoint different than the status quo is "stirring the pot" and may be counter-productive, that it?
I don't know who you are, but I signed this with my name, and I've been writing off and on about the wolf controversy here and in other states for quite a while, so... what am I missing?
The issue does affect a lot of people, one way or another, and the public has a right to know any detail that may contribute to a management decision as important and with the ramifications that this might have; how the decision was reached, who agreed and/or disagreed and why.
You call it "stirring the pot." That's what journalists do occasionally.
Would you rather that conflicting viewpoints not be heard? A careful read of this entire thread shows a difference of opinions, and I didn't start that. I just wrote about it.
Dave, what I was referring to in my comment about your article was your successful attempt at finding a headline that would grab people's attention without even knowing why the meeting was proposed to be closed, and who asked for it to be that way. I did post why, just too late for you to use the information in your article, whether you would choose to or not. I know it's not as sexy as accusing the WAG of turning to secret management, though.
As for your other points, I agree completely with you. As for who I am and what I stand for, query my posts and/or username and you'll find out. When I first joined this forum, my motives were, of course, questioned by some here, trying to find my "hidden agenda". I don't have one, and I'm more than happy to talk to you anytime about what we are doing across this state, and show you the numbers, paperwork, etc to back it up. If you ever want to talk, drop me a line.
Dan McKinley
509-995-0819
dan@muledeer.org
Post by: Dave Workman on May 20, 2015, 08:11:48 PM
Dave, what I was referring to in my comment about your article was your successful attempt at finding a headline that would grab people's attention without even knowing why the meeting was proposed to be closed, and who asked for it to be that way. I did post why, just too late for you to use the information in your article, whether you would choose to or not. I know it's not as sexy as accusing the WAG of turning to secret management, though.
As for your other points, I agree completely with you. As for who I am and what I stand for, query my posts and/or username and you'll find out. When I first joined this forum, my motives were, of course, questioned by some here, trying to find my "hidden agenda". I don't have one, and I'm more than happy to talk to you anytime about what we are doing across this state, and show you the numbers, paperwork, etc to back it up. If you ever want to talk, drop me a line.
Dan McKinley
509-995-0819
dan@muledeer.org
Well, Dan I knew why the meeting was proposed to be closed when I wrote the piece. I also knew who asked. That was spelled out in the piece.
I didn't accuse anybody of anything. The headline was a question, not a statement.
Wolf management is a divisive issue. It doesn't need to be made more divisive with meetings held behind closed doors, even ostensibly to allow people to speak frankly and exchange ideas, make new friends or whatever.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 20, 2015, 08:28:09 PM
Muledeer, thanks for the thoughtful observations and respectful tone. That is missing in many posts.
I get that the meet and greet is necessary for the group to begin working together. I'm unsure that the public shouldn't be involved, but that's a moot point now. As far as the legality of whether an advisory group can be closed to the public, the jury's still out on that.
I, like a good many others see the reports from WDFW saying management could begin within 6 years, and then in the next week, find that more members of anti-hunting and pro-wolf organizations have been added to the program. I've said it once and I'll say it more: these people with whom they're bedding are the same ones who will report back to their organizations when the advisory group recommends the start of management, and they'll start the injunctions and the roadblocks to successful management with plenty of advance notice from the inside. It almost seems like the WDFW wishes to create a situation that will prevent management of wolves in WA, because that could certainly be the result. I agree with you about building arguments now to try and thwart their participation in the future, but that would be successful only if the department actually anticipates management. It sure appears from the outside as if they don't and are doing what they can to build up resistance to it from within.
For these reasons, I think it's important for the public to be allowed to attend these meetings so that we can see in a timely manner what's being recommended and decided about the fate of out state, cattle industry, and wildlife with regards to the wolves. I am fully aware the wolves are here to stay. Anyone who isn't is delusional. What I'm not fully aware of is the extent to which they will be allowed to grow unchecked. You know as well as I that many members of the advisory group and, in fact, the Commission, will fight to block any management regardless of the effect on our citizens and other wildlife. This should not be allowed to happen behind closed doors with videos available for the public after an undisclosed period of time after the event when so much will be decided in the meantime. That the pro-wolf press will be the only watchdog at these gatherings is of zero comfort to me and many others.
I agree with your concerns, and that's why I said that I will post a synopsis of what happens at this first meeting tomorrow. I'll try to get it on here over the weekend, unless there is something that is totally out of line that needs immediate attention. Thanks
Thanks very much! :tup:
Post by: ribka on May 23, 2015, 07:35:55 AM
These are show comittees that will be used later by the WDFW to later publically state that all groups were represented and were heard from when they start closing down hunting areas and introduce more wolves and declare public hunting areas as "protected wolf preserves" and shut down all access. When hunters start to complain they will be marginalized and labeled as irrational and anti wildlife. one only has to look at Michigan, Wisconsin Minnesota to see how these anti hunting groups work
They have a no surrender policy and negotiating with them is a losing proposition for any sportsmen's groups.
AS a member of the Maryland Bowhunters I have dealt with HSUS and PETA in the 1990s in Maryland.
Both groups protested the opening day of archery season and would follow Bowhunters out into the woods and harass them. The would often slash tires, break windows on cars and trucks in hunting area parking areas when hunters would be in the woods.
Good luck dealing with these loonies
It doesn't matter guys. This is a livestock oriented group. They'll try to find a way to placate the ranchers and get them off their back. If they take the economics out of it it becomes a fight over who is right, not if it's right to cause someone economic harm. If they can get the cattlemen out of the picture it becomes a lot easier for them to have their way with a disorganized group like hunters in WA.
But what should bother everyone most is that HSUS and the Sierra Club have such a foothold in such matters. That shows you just how much influence they have in all areas of wildlife management here. Wolves are but one small item in their meddling. These are out of state groups with out of state money that are no friends to hunting, or fishing for that matter (yes, HSUS would like to attack that as well), and they are being allowed to LOBBY wildlife management decisions...and they are in close.
Post by: wolfbait on May 23, 2015, 12:15:10 PM
Anyone who is naive enough to think that there is any negotiating with anti hunting anti gun anti human fanatics like HSUS is a lost cause.
These are show comittees that will be used later by the WDFW to later publically state that all groups were represented and were heard from when they start closing down hunting areas and introduce more wolves and declare public hunting areas as "protected wolf preserves" and shut down all access. WheHUD oryx en will complain they will be marginalized and labeled as irrational and anti wildlife. one only has to look at Michigan, Wisconsin Minnesota to see how these anti hunting groups work
They have a no surrender policy and negotiating with them is a losing proposition for any sportsmen's groups.
AS a member of the Maryland Bowhunters I have dealt with HSUS and PETA in the 1990s in Maryland.
Both groups protested the opening day of archery season and would follow Bowhunters out into the woods and harass them. The would often slash tires, break windows on cars and trucks in hunting area parking areas when hunters would be in the woods.
Good luck dealing with these looniesIt doesn't matter guys. This is a livestock oriented group. They'll try to find a way to placate the ranchers and get them off their back. If they take the economics out of it it becomes a fight over who is right, not if it's right to cause someone economic harm. If they can get the cattlemen out of the picture it becomes a lot easier for them to have their way with a disorganized group like hunters in WA.
But what should bother everyone most is that HSUS and the Sierra Club have such a foothold in such matters. That shows you just how much influence they have in all areas of wildlife management here. Wolves are but one small item in their meddling. These are out of state groups with out of state money that are no friends to hunting, or fishing for that matter (yes, HSUS would like to attack that as well), and they are being allowed to LOBBY wildlife management decisions...and they are in close.
Managing wolves doesn't take more studies or a specialized group of people to figure out the how. The topic for WDFW and the environmental groups is to decide how long they can protect wolves and how much they can accomplish towards their end goal using wolves before the public decides enough is enough.
Look at Idaho and Montana with their hunting and trapping seasons on Wolves, and tell me how Washington's wolves are different and need special management?
Yellowstone is Dead
Post by: ribka on May 23, 2015, 05:50:31 PM
There is no greater blood enemy to a bird hunter and his dogs than HSUS other than possibly PETA. Houndsmen feel the same way.:tup:
There is no compromise.
Both PETA and HSUS members have been investigated for acts of terrorism
Post by: nwwanderer on May 23, 2015, 06:52:39 PM
Post by: jasnt on May 23, 2015, 09:24:12 PM
If you really want to undercut HSUS, the SC, and others you have to eliminate their ability to submit wildlife management decisions via ballot proposals/initiatives. Part of the reason they are allowed in groups like this is because they can undercut the state at the ballot box.i completely agree. But can we trust wdfw to do what's right after that is accomplished....idk
Post by: denali on May 25, 2015, 10:42:55 AM
AIRWAY HEIGHTS, Wash. — The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s wolf advisory group needs to build trust to work on wolf issues together, its director said May 21 during a meeting closed to the public.
Department director Jim Unsworth told the advisory group it will take time to see how wolves affect different aspects of the Washington landscape compared to previous wolf introductions in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.
“I predict, with lots of confidence, wolves will not have the dire impacts some people predict, nor will they have the benign influence others predict,” he said during the group’s meeting in Airway Heights, Wash.
Unsworth said it’s appropriate to start thinking about a plan now for when wolves are taken off the endangered species list, as he expects the wolf population to begin to rapidly increase.
The advisory group met in the morning, allowing only members of the media to attend. It met in private during the afternoon and planned to take a private field trip to talk with ranchers on May 22. According to the advisory group’s guidelines, all meetings are open to the public unless a majority of the 18-member group votes to change the guideline.
Unsworth declined to comment on closing the meeting, saying it was consultant Francine Madden, co-founder and executive director of the Human-Wildlife Conflict Collaboration, who asked that the meeting be closed to the public.
Madden will work with the group for the first few meetings, he said. He hopes to see a funding mechanism from the state Legislature to keep her on board, Unsworth told reporters outside the meeting.
Madden said the feeling of advisory group members during her assessment was that the group was not productive and had no relationship building or trust.
“You’re not going to get one side to respect the needs of the other side if they don’t respect each other as individuals and you’re not going to build trust if you don’t have respect,” she said.
Many in the group are new to the process, she said. The advisory group recently grew from nine members to 18.
“We want to use every opportunity to learn what is going to work in this system and how do we engage in a way where people can start to build trust in a broader community and build engagement,” she said.
Madden said her goal is to expand involvement and not constrict it. The closed meeting was a “one-off,” she said.
“The goal of the closed meeting was to build some trust so we can get everybody to trust each other enough so we can start to expand that involvement,” she said. “To compensate for the closed meeting, we said we would audiotape the whole thing so people would know there’s no hidden agenda, there are no secrets here.”
An audio recording of the entire meeting will be available on the department website, Madden and department public affairs and outreach manager Bruce Botka said.
“As a department, we try to do our business openly and transparently as possible,” Botka said. “Making the information available is one way we can people engaged at a level of detail some of them want to pursue.”
Brendon Wold, deputy communications director of the Washington House of Representatives House Republican Caucus, was told he would not be allowed to attend the meeting as a member of the public. Wold said he represents Eastern Washington legislators and their constituents.
“This would be the first time I’ve ever been asked to leave a state agency meeting, advisory meeting, some sort of council, where the media is able to be,” Wold said. “It is a little bit concerning. I have representatives who are very involved in this issue and the outcome, so they would like somebody here to take notes and listen.”
Stevens County commissioner Don Dashiell is an advisory group member, but remained outside the meeting, only entering during breaks to interact with new and returning members. As an elected official, he said, state law doesn’t allow him to attend a meeting that excludes the public.
The advisory group doesn’t set policy, but will be “incredibly powerful and influential” if they can speak with one voice, Unsworth told members.
The majority of advisory group members supported closing the meeting to focus relationship building, Madden said.
“All of them said, ‘We want a transparent and open process when we’re talking about the substance,’” she said. “Certainly, there is an urgency to address this issue and people are frustrated with lack of progress. So this is a ‘go slow to go fast’ approach, so we’re not rushing to failure.”
Madden said the “conflict transformation” approach works when conflict is very complex, particularly when people’s identity or way of life is threatened, and the perception is that another group is the threat. It’s hard for people to step out of that conflict to get to the long-term goal, she said.
“Every one of you is going to have to ask yourselves if you are willing to take a risk to move into a direction of peace, rather than staying with what is familiar and really comfortable, even if it’s not getting you where you want to go,” she told members.
Madden said that the physical and economic element to the wolf conflict right now is most felt by livestock producers in northeastern Washington. Environmentalists place high value on ecosystems, wildlife and humane treatment of animals, she said.
“There is common ground here — livestock producers are conservationists, they take care of the land,” she said. “(All sides) care about those resources for their current way of life, but also for their children and their children’s children. We need to build on that, but we have to do it by respecting others and including that diversity. Each side needs the other side’s support if we’re going to have a diverse state that is a vibrant society.”
Media were allowed into the first half of the meeting, which was closed to the public. During the first half, activities included an introduction and question-and-answer session for members with Unsworth; an ice breaker in which advisory group members went around the room and had to remember each other’s names and a fruit, vegetable or flower that corresponded with the first letter of their first name and a review of the department’s wolf management program.
The second half of the meeting, closed to the media and public, included brainstorming ideas and perceptions behind concerns associated with wolf recovery, said Jack Field, executive vice president of the Washington Cattlemen’s Association, and a member of the advisory group.
“We talked about some of the basic things: what does respect mean, respect one another in terms of discussion and that everybody feels comfortable in speaking and sharing their thoughts and opinions,” Field said. “I think this is more of, we have a brand-new facilitator and a new process. My perception is that they want to make sure we start from an even playing field and everybody feels comfortable going forward.”
Advisory group member Bob Aegerter represents the Washington chapter of the Sierra Club.
“It has been difficult for individuals to speak things in public that we hope will improve a group dynamic that can lead to a resolution of a very difficult problem,” he said. “It involves some very deeply held values by the conflicting groups.”
Aegerter said he was beginning to see some difference in group members’ body language that perhaps the group would be more welcoming.
“I think this process, which is not going to be easy and is going to have to be ongoing, is going to be successful,” he said.
Dan Paul, Washington director for the Humane Society of the United States, said the afternoon session was “encouraging and enlightening.” The advisory group explored the potential views of all the different opinions its members represent, he said. Communication had improved, he said.
“The trust was there (before), but there was a lot of falling into similar patterns of offense versus defense,” he said. “One of the messages Francine had for us was to start envisioning a future that doesn’t exist yet: It’s going to be looking different than what we had before. I don’t think it was a trust issue, it was just a fear of showing your hand. Now we realize it’s not really about holding your cards or not holding your cards.”
“I really do think the media can be a really positive agent for change,” Madden said.
Post by: mfswallace on May 25, 2015, 11:00:24 AM
"Department director Jim Unsworth told the advisory group it will take time to see how wolves affect different aspects of the Washington landscape compared to previous wolf introductions in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming."
What a load of 💩 :bash: :bash:
A wolf is a wolf I a MF wolf :bash:
Post by: timberfaller on May 25, 2015, 12:17:26 PM
I've always wondered how "Gobbles" pulled the wool over all those Germans way back when!!
Nothing new under the sun, they say!! :yike:
"He hopes to see a funding mechanism from the state Legislature to keep her on board,"
ding ding goes the trolly is another ole saying!! :chuckle:
Post by: Curly on May 25, 2015, 12:19:12 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on May 25, 2015, 01:18:32 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on May 25, 2015, 01:25:44 PM
Dang it Jim, there you go using logic and reason on wolf management again! :bash: :chuckle:
Post by: bobcat on May 25, 2015, 01:38:57 PM
Unsworth is a wolf lover. Go to Idaho for Wildlife on Facebook and read your hearts out about how much he is disliked there...
From what I know about him I believe that couldn't be further from the truth. He's a hunter and probably, like most of us, does not want an unreasonable number of wolves, impacting our deer and elk herds. But you've got to be realistic as well. Wolves are here, they're a native species, on the endangered list, and they're not going away.
Post by: mfswallace on May 25, 2015, 02:57:58 PM
“I predict, with lots of confidence, wolves will not have the dire impacts some people predict, nor will they have the benign influence others predict,” he (Unsworth) said during the group’s meeting in Airway Heights, Wash.
Dang it Jim, there you go using logic and reason on wolf management again! :bash: :chuckle:
What logic and reason? He said nothing if you actually read it he says, it won't be bad and it won't be good :twocents:
Why predict when all any intelligent person has to do is look at history.
Idhuntr-what percentage of elk are left in Yellowstone after wolf introduction? Don't give me habitat and winter bs because while I'll give u that as making up a fraction of loss it can't compare to the decimation from wolves.
Keep trolling and using your indoctrinated biological science you recently received. I find it funny that you constantly dispute wolf topics by calling out anyone who doesn't believe wdfw or pro-wolf biologist like yourself but turn around and do the same thing when other biologists show the negative impacts of wolves on a grand scale :dunno:
Post by: mfswallace on May 25, 2015, 03:10:31 PM
Unsworth is a wolf lover. Go to Idaho for Wildlife on Facebook and read your hearts out about how much he is disliked there...
From what I know about him I believe that couldn't be further from the truth. He's a hunter and probably, like most of us, does not want an unreasonable number of wolves, impacting our deer and elk herds. But you've got to be realistic as well. Wolves are here, they're a native species, on the endangered list, and they're not going away.
Not by true definition as they usurped the true native wolves that were already around when feds overstepped and introduced Canadian grays...
http://nwoutback.blogspot.com/2011/07/non-native-canadian-gray-wolves-vs.html
Post by: MuleDeer on May 26, 2015, 12:05:13 AM
Muledeer and anyone else in the group care to share your notes and thoughts??? Are hunters interest represented ???????????Yes, hunter's interests are represented well in the group. I spoke with every member there, and spent extra time talking to the members from CNW, DofW, Sierra Club, and HSUS. 3 of these members grew up in and understand our hunting heritage, and are not opposed to hunting personally or as a representative of their group. The other member has never been exposed to hunting, but is not against hunting at all. We are currently working on a time to hit the woods, so he can see what we do and why we do it. I was very pleased to find that there is not one "anti hunter" in this group. Of all groups represented, only one has ever had an anti-hunting agenda published, and it was HSUS. But that statement was made over 20 years ago, and not all members, including their rep on the WAG, are anti hunting. I spent time personally with all of these members, and I have no doubt this group can have one voice, and it will be for management of wolves. Everyone there agrees that mgmt. needs to happen; it is when and how we will get there that we need to get changed now. As for the folks who say we won't ever get anything done because of "one bad apple", I brought that up at the meeting. I suggested that there be a way to remove a person from the WAG if their aim there is to be a barrier to any progress. The resulting solution was for us to always seek a "majority consensus". That means, if there is one or two people (or groups) holding up progress on a vote or issue, their input can be discarded, based on what the majority desires. With that in mind, we as hunters have a ton of support in this group, and I feel confident that we actually will have many unanimous decisions, and they won't be "pro-wolf" ones. Rather, they will be in the interest of managing the wolves as well as we are allowed by state law, until those laws change allowing for more mgmt. practices, including lethal means.
"Department director Jim Unsworth told the advisory group it will take time to see how wolves affect different aspects of the Washington landscape compared to previous wolf introductions in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming."
What a load of 💩 :bash: :bash:
A wolf is a wolf I a MF wolf :bash:
I would suggest that all of you interested look up the audio of the meeting. I believe they are also putting together notes of the whole meeting. Before you decide your judgment, I would encourage you to hear it straight from the meeting instead of conjecture and rumors from authors of articles. As for Director Unsworth, I spoke with him, too, and all he wanted to do was talk about hunting, especially mule deer. He does share concern about managing wolves, as was evident by his statements at our meeting. I look forward to sharing some time with him talking about the concerns of hunters in WA. Feel free to bend my ear about those, as long as they are respectful, sincere ideas to share. We will have his ear; we must take advantage of that.
I am from a "science based" mgmt. philosophy, as many hunters are. He and others no longer have the luxury of thinking that way. What I mean by that is the social impacts are going to be the biggest challenge of wolves in WA. Are they "special"? Absolutely not, wolfbait; they are the same wolves as in ID, WY, and MT. The difference isn't our wolves, it's our population and demographics. Do we need to manage wolves with lethal measures? Absolutely, but not in all cases, as some want. Fact is, the population sector that has had the most impact on mgmt. issues in the past 10-15 years hasn't been hunters, and that's the sad truth. If we had been as organized and outspoken in positive ways than other "user groups", we may have seen things move faster. But the fact is, we don't speak as one voice...just look at the baiting issue for deer and elk. On the chopping block because of hunters, not any anti hunting groups.
It's time we unite and speak with a unified voice if we want to make a difference....
Post by: huntnphool on May 26, 2015, 12:52:51 AM
Muledeer and anyone else in the group care to share your notes and thoughts??? Are hunters interest represented ???????????Yes, hunter's interests are represented well in the group. I spoke with every member there, and spent extra time talking to the members from CNW, DofW, Sierra Club, and HSUS. 3 of these members grew up in and understand our hunting heritage, and are not opposed to hunting personally or as a representative of their group. The other member has never been exposed to hunting, but is not against hunting at all. We are currently working on a time to hit the woods, so he can see what we do and why we do it. I was very pleased to find that there is not one "anti hunter" in this group. Of all groups represented, only one has ever had an anti-hunting agenda published, and it was HSUS. But that statement was made over 20 years ago, and not all members, including their rep on the WAG, are anti hunting. I spent time personally with all of these members, and I have no doubt this group can have one voice, and it will be for management of wolves. Everyone there agrees that mgmt. needs to happen; it is when and how we will get there that we need to get changed now. As for the folks who say we won't ever get anything done because of "one bad apple", I brought that up at the meeting. I suggested that there be a way to remove a person from the WAG if their aim there is to be a barrier to any progress. The resulting solution was for us to always seek a "majority consensus". That means, if there is one or two people (or groups) holding up progress on a vote or issue, their input can be discarded, based on what the majority desires. With that in mind, we as hunters have a ton of support in this group, and I feel confident that we actually will have many unanimous decisions, and they won't be "pro-wolf" ones. Rather, they will be in the interest of managing the wolves as well as we are allowed by state law, until those laws change allowing for more mgmt. practices, including lethal means.
"Department director Jim Unsworth told the advisory group it will take time to see how wolves affect different aspects of the Washington landscape compared to previous wolf introductions in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming."
What a load of 💩 :bash: :bash:
A wolf is a wolf I a MF wolf :bash:
I would suggest that all of you interested look up the audio of the meeting. I believe they are also putting together notes of the whole meeting. Before you decide your judgment, I would encourage you to hear it straight from the meeting instead of conjecture and rumors from authors of articles. As for Director Unsworth, I spoke with him, too, and all he wanted to do was talk about hunting, especially mule deer. He does share concern about managing wolves, as was evident by his statements at our meeting. I look forward to sharing some time with him talking about the concerns of hunters in WA. Feel free to bend my ear about those, as long as they are respectful, sincere ideas to share. We will have his ear; we must take advantage of that.
I am from a "science based" mgmt. philosophy, as many hunters are. He and others no longer have the luxury of thinking that way. What I mean by that is the social impacts are going to be the biggest challenge of wolves in WA. Are they "special"? Absolutely not, wolfbait; they are the same wolves as in ID, WY, and MT. The difference isn't our wolves, it's our population and demographics. Do we need to manage wolves with lethal measures? Absolutely, but not in all cases, as some want. Fact is, the population sector that has had the most impact on mgmt. issues in the past 10-15 years hasn't been hunters, and that's the sad truth. If we had been as organized and outspoken in positive ways than other "user groups", we may have seen things move faster. But the fact is, we don't speak as one voice...just look at the baiting issue for deer and elk. On the chopping block because of hunters, not any anti hunting groups.
It's time we unite and speak with a unified voice if we want to make a difference....
I am interested to know specifically who are speaking for hunters and who appointed them to speak for us?
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 26, 2015, 04:37:42 AM
Post by: wolfbait on May 26, 2015, 06:17:26 AM
“I predict, with lots of confidence, wolves will not have the dire impacts some people predict, nor will they have the benign influence others predict,” he said during the group’s meeting in Airway Heights, Wash."
Yep, Washington's wolves are special. If you are pro-wolf then Unsworth is the right choice to to lead the wolf recovery program? Shouldn't be too hard to get everyone on the same page with a spoon fed media. Bet there won't be too much mentioned about what happened with the Lolo elk herd or the ungulates in the Yellowstone, after all that's all history and WA's wolves are a whole new experiment.
How many more bogus wolf studies will there be for Washington's special wolves?
Existence of Many Wolves Ignored
Bangs also explained that it was too difficult to locate individual wolves or small groups of wolves that were not packs and emphasized that the existence of these wolves was not important to recovery. Once the transplanted wolves began pairing and successfully raising young, the Nez Perce and FWS recovery teams declined to investigate sightings of individual wolves or groups of wolves unless they involved livestock killing.
But even then, if the livestock was moved to a different location and/or the wolf predation stopped, any investigation abruptly ceased. In some parts of Idaho where wolf populations are excessive, including the county we live in, local citizens report frustration over the Wolf Teams’ refusal to investigate reports of apparent pack activity unless there is evidence of at least two pups.
The excuse used by the FWS/NezPerce Team for its failure to investigate such activity is that it is too expensive but it also is not interested in recording wolves unless they meet the confirmed wolf criteria agreed upon by Bangs, Ted Koch and Steve Fritts in 1994. The exception is the need to radio-collar one or more wolves to facilitate removal of one or more members of a pack that continues to kill livestock.
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf
"Unsworth said it’s appropriate to start thinking about a plan now for when wolves are taken off the endangered species list, as he expects the wolf population to begin to rapidly increase."
What Unsworth is really trying to say, is the wolves are getting hard to lie about, and they will have to confirm a few obvious packs, course breeding pair confirmation will have to be scheduled so that delisting does not occur for another six years.
Washington could end up with hundreds of wolves and only 15 BP's, imagine that.
“Ignore All But Known Breeding Pairs and Packs”
In his 1984 letter to Lobdell, Bangs listed the “key recovery issues that will be consistently presented to the public.” Issue number 6 stated, “Only breeding pairs of wolves that have successfully raised young are important to the recovery of viable wolf populations.
“At this time there is no such thing as a truly ‘confirmed’ wolf’ until it has been determined to have successfully raised young in the wild or has been captured, examined, and monitored with radio telemetry. (F)rom this day forward we (will) use the strictest definition of confirmed wolf activity (i.e. individual wolves or members of packs that have been examined, radiocollared and monitored in the wild).
“We should be comfortable with this definition in all phases of wolf recovery such as when discussing the criteria for use of an experimental rule or for delisting the species because the population viability criteria have been reached.” (emphasis added)
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf
Every wolf sighting in the Okanogan is part of the lookout pack, even when two different packs are seen on the same day in two different locations 20 miles apart.
Muledeer, your little write up sure does sound good, I kind of think you might have spread it on a little too thick. You say the people representing the environmental groups have nothing against hunting, and that may be true but their groups do, we have seen that with lawsuit after lawsuit in other states. You would like us to believe that not only the wolves changed when they were hauled across state lines into WA but the environmental groups have taken on a whole new outlook for WA's wolves also?.
So far WDFW have followed the same wolf introduction plans as the USFWS and IDFG, and now Unsworth and the pro-hunting environmentalists are going to turn honest, confirm known wolf packs/BP's, control livestock killing wolves, monitor the impact the wolves are having on WA ungulates? That's a little hard to swallow, maybe it's WA's air, it changes wolves and environmentalist.
Everyone just needs to get on the same page and trust the wolf loving environmental groups and WDFW?
Post by: wolfbait on May 26, 2015, 06:34:48 AM
“I predict, with lots of confidence, wolves will not have the dire impacts some people predict, nor will they have the benign influence others predict,” he (Unsworth) said during the group’s meeting in Airway Heights, Wash.
Dang it Jim, there you go using logic and reason on wolf management again! :bash: :chuckle:
What logic and reason? He said nothing if you actually read it he says, it won't be bad and it won't be good :twocents:
Why predict when all any intelligent person has to do is look at history.
Idhuntr-what percentage of elk are left in Yellowstone after wolf introduction? Don't give me habitat and winter bs because while I'll give u that as making up a fraction of loss it can't compare to the decimation from wolves.
Keep trolling and using your indoctrinated biological science you recently received. I find it funny that you constantly dispute wolf topics by calling out anyone who doesn't believe wdfw or pro-wolf biologist like yourself but turn around and do the same thing when other biologists show the negative impacts of wolves on a grand scale :dunno:
"Why predict when all any intelligent person has to do is look at history."
The USFWS and State game agencies had looked at the wolf history in the beginning but they have an agenda, if they would have been honest, wolves would never have been introduced.
Every state that gets wolves has to have there own "new" wolf plan. It's like a brand new wolf experiment that promotes the wolves and people as different with special needs.
Brain-washed agencies, brain-washing the public.
The environmental groups are pro-hunting they just want to manage WA wolves so everyone is happy.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on May 26, 2015, 06:39:31 AM
Post by: ribka on May 26, 2015, 07:30:46 AM
It's a game of politics not wildlife management dealing with these groups
Having dealt with members of PETA and HSUS I can tell you from dozens of encounters with these antihunting loons tha the overwhelming majority of members want hunting abolished and I don't care what their representative said. I have met many anti-hunting members of the Sierra Club too. I used to be a member years ago until they shifted away from hunting as a way to manage and protect our resources.
Their representative at the meetings can say whatever to placate hunting groups but both organizations PETA and HSUS are anti hunting. Cannot see why the go along to get along strategy for hunters will work. And I base this on what is happening with wolf management in WI, MI and MN. They'll agree to a management plan then file lawsuits to stop any management and in the meantime the wolf numbers will increase to a point where they will be unmanageable without trapping and poisoning. Those management methods will never be allowed in WA and HSUS and PETA and Sierra know this. This isn't a checkers game. :twocents:
Muledeer and anyone else in the group care to share your notes and thoughts??? Are hunters interest represented ???????????Yes, hunter's interests are represented well in the group. I spoke with every member there, and spent extra time talking to the members from CNW, DofW, Sierra Club, and HSUS. 3 of these members grew up in and understand our hunting heritage, and are not opposed to hunting personally or as a representative of their group. The other member has never been exposed to hunting, but is not against hunting at all. We are currently working on a time to hit the woods, so he can see what we do and why we do it. I was very pleased to find that there is not one "anti hunter" in this group. Of all groups represented, only one has ever had an anti-hunting agenda published, and it was HSUS. But that statement was made over 20 years ago, and not all members, including their rep on the WAG, are anti hunting. I spent time personally with all of these members, and I have no doubt this group can have one voice, and it will be for management of wolves. Everyone there agrees that mgmt. needs to happen; it is when and how we will get there that we need to get changed now. As for the folks who say we won't ever get anything done because of "one bad apple", I brought that up at the meeting. I suggested that there be a way to remove a person from the WAG if their aim there is to be a barrier to any progress. The resulting solution was for us to always seek a "majority consensus". That means, if there is one or two people (or groups) holding up progress on a vote or issue, their input can be discarded, based on what the majority desires. With that in mind, we as hunters have a ton of support in this group, and I feel confident that we actually will have many unanimous decisions, and they won't be "pro-wolf" ones. Rather, they will be in the interest of managing the wolves as well as we are allowed by state law, until those laws change allowing for more mgmt. practices, including lethal means.
"Department director Jim Unsworth told the advisory group it will take time to see how wolves affect different aspects of the Washington landscape compared to previous wolf introductions in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming."
What a load of 💩 :bash: :bash:
A wolf is a wolf I a MF wolf :bash:
I would suggest that all of you interested look up the audio of the meeting. I believe they are also putting together notes of the whole meeting. Before you decide your judgment, I would encourage you to hear it straight from the meeting instead of conjecture and rumors from authors of articles. As for Director Unsworth, I spoke with him, too, and all he wanted to do was talk about hunting, especially mule deer. He does share concern about managing wolves, as was evident by his statements at our meeting. I look forward to sharing some time with him talking about the concerns of hunters in WA. Feel free to bend my ear about those, as long as they are respectful, sincere ideas to share. We will have his ear; we must take advantage of that.
I am from a "science based" mgmt. philosophy, as many hunters are. He and others no longer have the luxury of thinking that way. What I mean by that is the social impacts are going to be the biggest challenge of wolves in WA. Are they "special"? Absolutely not, wolfbait; they are the same wolves as in ID, WY, and MT. The difference isn't our wolves, it's our population and demographics. Do we need to manage wolves with lethal measures? Absolutely, but not in all cases, as some want. Fact is, the population sector that has had the most impact on mgmt. issues in the past 10-15 years hasn't been hunters, and that's the sad truth. If we had been as organized and outspoken in positive ways than other "user groups", we may have seen things move faster. But the fact is, we don't speak as one voice...just look at the baiting issue for deer and elk. On the chopping block because of hunters, not any anti hunting groups.
It's time we unite and speak with a unified voice if we want to make a difference....
I am interested to know specifically who are speaking for hunters and who appointed them to speak for us?
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 26, 2015, 07:37:01 AM
The HSUS seeks to build a humane society that will move toward protecting and celebrating wildlife, and will develop humane solutions to wildlife conflicts through innovation. The HSUS actively works to eliminate the most inhumane and unfair sport hunting practices, such as the use of body-gripping traps and snares; bear baiting; the hound hunting of bears, bobcats, mountain lions and wolves; contest killing events; and captive-hunting on fenced properties. We oppose live pigeon shoots and other forms of staged hunting where the animals are bred or stocked simply to be shot as living targets. We also oppose the trophy hunting of rare or endangered populations and the use of lead ammunition, since less toxic alternatives are workable and available in the marketplace."
http://www.humanesociety.org/about/policy_statements/statement_wild_animals.html?credit=web_id86435304#Hunting
We're giving them a seat at the table, giving them advance information to get ready to sue our state as soon as we move toward management. This is a plain as can be.
And this from DOW website:
"Earthjustice represents Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, The Humane Society of the United States, Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, Friends of the Clearwater, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Oregon Wild, Cascadia Wildlands, Western Watersheds Project, Wildlands Network, and Hells Canyon Preservation Council."
http://www.defenders.org/press-release/conservation-groups-challenge-wolf-hunting
Post by: grundy53 on May 26, 2015, 08:34:22 AM
I wonder:yeah: they are playing chess....
Having dealt with members of PETA and HSUS I can tell you from dozens of encounters with these antihunting loons that most of the overwhelming majority of members want hunting abolished and I don't care what their representative said. I have met many anti-hunting members of the Sierra Club too. I used to be a member years ago until they shifted away from hunting as a way to manage and protect our resources.
Their representative at the meetings can say whatever to placate hunting groups but both organizations PETA and HSUS are anti hunting. Cannot see why the go along to get along strategy for hunters will work. And I base this on what is happening with wolf management in WI, MI and MN. They'll agree to a management plan then file lawsuits to stop any management and in the meantime the wolf numbers will increase to a point where they will be unmanageable without trapping and poisoning. Those management methods will never be allowed in WA and HSUS and PETA and Sierra know this. This isn't a checkers game. :twocents:Muledeer and anyone else in the group care to share your notes and thoughts??? Are hunters interest represented ???????????Yes, hunter's interests are represented well in the group. I spoke with every member there, and spent extra time talking to the members from CNW, DofW, Sierra Club, and HSUS. 3 of these members grew up in and understand our hunting heritage, and are not opposed to hunting personally or as a representative of their group. The other member has never been exposed to hunting, but is not against hunting at all. We are currently working on a time to hit the woods, so he can see what we do and why we do it. I was very pleased to find that there is not one "anti hunter" in this group. Of all groups represented, only one has ever had an anti-hunting agenda published, and it was HSUS. But that statement was made over 20 years ago, and not all members, including their rep on the WAG, are anti hunting. I spent time personally with all of these members, and I have no doubt this group can have one voice, and it will be for management of wolves. Everyone there agrees that mgmt. needs to happen; it is when and how we will get there that we need to get changed now. As for the folks who say we won't ever get anything done because of "one bad apple", I brought that up at the meeting. I suggested that there be a way to remove a person from the WAG if their aim there is to be a barrier to any progress. The resulting solution was for us to always seek a "majority consensus". That means, if there is one or two people (or groups) holding up progress on a vote or issue, their input can be discarded, based on what the majority desires. With that in mind, we as hunters have a ton of support in this group, and I feel confident that we actually will have many unanimous decisions, and they won't be "pro-wolf" ones. Rather, they will be in the interest of managing the wolves as well as we are allowed by state law, until those laws change allowing for more mgmt. practices, including lethal means.
"Department director Jim Unsworth told the advisory group it will take time to see how wolves affect different aspects of the Washington landscape compared to previous wolf introductions in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming."
What a load of 💩 :bash: :bash:
A wolf is a wolf I a MF wolf :bash:
I would suggest that all of you interested look up the audio of the meeting. I believe they are also putting together notes of the whole meeting. Before you decide your judgment, I would encourage you to hear it straight from the meeting instead of conjecture and rumors from authors of articles. As for Director Unsworth, I spoke with him, too, and all he wanted to do was talk about hunting, especially mule deer. He does share concern about managing wolves, as was evident by his statements at our meeting. I look forward to sharing some time with him talking about the concerns of hunters in WA. Feel free to bend my ear about those, as long as they are respectful, sincere ideas to share. We will have his ear; we must take advantage of that.
I am from a "science based" mgmt. philosophy, as many hunters are. He and others no longer have the luxury of thinking that way. What I mean by that is the social impacts are going to be the biggest challenge of wolves in WA. Are they "special"? Absolutely not, wolfbait; they are the same wolves as in ID, WY, and MT. The difference isn't our wolves, it's our population and demographics. Do we need to manage wolves with lethal measures? Absolutely, but not in all cases, as some want. Fact is, the population sector that has had the most impact on mgmt. issues in the past 10-15 years hasn't been hunters, and that's the sad truth. If we had been as organized and outspoken in positive ways than other "user groups", we may have seen things move faster. But the fact is, we don't speak as one voice...just look at the baiting issue for deer and elk. On the chopping block because of hunters, not any anti hunting groups.
It's time we unite and speak with a unified voice if we want to make a difference....
I am interested to know specifically who are speaking for hunters and who appointed them to speak for us?
Post by: dreamingbig on May 26, 2015, 10:33:07 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: CGDucksandDeer on May 26, 2015, 10:38:30 AM
I would suggest that all of you interested look up the audio of the meeting. I believe they are also putting together notes of the whole meeting. Before you decide your judgment, I would encourage you to hear it straight from the meeting instead of conjecture and rumors from authors of articles. As for Director Unsworth, I spoke with him, too, and all he wanted to do was talk about hunting, especially mule deer. He does share concern about managing wolves, as was evident by his statements at our meeting. I look forward to sharing some time with him talking about the concerns of hunters in WA. Feel free to bend my ear about those, as long as they are respectful, sincere ideas to share. We will have his ear; we must take advantage of that.
I am from a "science based" mgmt. philosophy, as many hunters are. He and others no longer have the luxury of thinking that way. What I mean by that is the social impacts are going to be the biggest challenge of wolves in WA. Are they "special"? Absolutely not, wolfbait; they are the same wolves as in ID, WY, and MT. The difference isn't our wolves, it's our population and demographics. Do we need to manage wolves with lethal measures? Absolutely, but not in all cases, as some want. Fact is, the population sector that has had the most impact on mgmt. issues in the past 10-15 years hasn't been hunters, and that's the sad truth. If we had been as organized and outspoken in positive ways than other "user groups", we may have seen things move faster. But the fact is, we don't speak as one voice...just look at the baiting issue for deer and elk. On the chopping block because of hunters, not any anti hunting groups.
It's time we unite and speak with a unified voice if we want to make a difference....
[/quote]
Well said MuleDeer. It's good to have you on the WAG.
A little more info on Conservation Northwest (CNW)'s current stance on hunting for those that are interested:
http://www.conservationnw.org/what-we-do/predators-and-prey/
Say what you like about the organizations past efforts or stances regarding wolves, cougars or other issues. But don't lump CNW in with the PETA and HSUS types when it comes to being anti-hunting. And many of those extreme pro-wolfers hate CNW as much as they do hunters because CNW signed off on the Wedge Pack removal and has supported lethal wolf management as a necessary tool for managing problem wolves or packs if other options fail.
Post by: Curly on May 26, 2015, 10:45:03 AM
They also are responsible for helping push through the trapping, bear baiting, and hound bans in 1996.
One of my main complaints with the group is their name. They use that name to dupe people into thinking they are related to the local humane society animal shelters.
Nothing they stand for is a benefit to sportsmen.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 26, 2015, 10:50:13 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 26, 2015, 12:12:07 PM
http://www.capitalpress.com/20150521/wolf-advisory-group-seeks-common-ground
Post by: ribka on May 26, 2015, 12:32:11 PM
A simple google search indicates that HSUS is currently and actively involved in shutting down all forms of wolf management. So much for the HSUS has had no " no hunting stance for over 20 years"
If you cannot mange wolves by lethal means how does one manage wolves? Relocate them to other areas where they can spread? Hunters have been put spoken for 20 years against wolves and they have always been demonized and marginalized and in some cases threatened with death by the anti-hunting organizations.
http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2014/12/fed-court-wolf-hunt-season-over-121914.html
Yes, hunter's interests are represented well in the group. I spoke with every member there, and spent extra time talking to the members from CNW, DofW, Sierra Club, and HSUS. 3 of these members grew up in and understand our hunting heritage, and are not opposed to hunting personally or as a representative of their group. The other member has never been exposed to hunting, but is not against hunting at all. We are currently working on a time to hit the woods, so he can see what we do and why we do it. I was very pleased to find that there is not one "anti hunter" in this group. Of all groups represented, only one has ever had an anti-hunting agenda published, and it was HSUS. But that statement was made over 20 years ago, and not all members, including their rep on the WAG, are anti hunting. I spent time personally with all of these members, and I have no doubt this group can have one voice, and it will be for management of wolves. Everyone there agrees that mgmt. needs to happen; it is when and how we will get there that we need to get changed now. As for the folks who say we won't ever get anything done because of "one bad apple", I brought that up at the meeting. I suggested that there be a way to remove a person from the WAG if their aim there is to be a barrier to any progress. The resulting solution was for us to always seek a "majority consensus". That means, if there is one or two people (or groups) holding up progress on a vote or issue, their input can be discarded, based on what the majority desires. With that in mind, we as hunters have a ton of support in this group, and I feel confident that we actually will have many unanimous decisions, and they won't be "pro-wolf" ones. Rather, they will be in the interest of managing the wolves as well as we are allowed by state law, until those laws change allowing for more mgmt. practices, including lethal means.
I would suggest that all of you interested look up the audio of the meeting. I believe they are also putting together notes of the whole meeting. Before you decide your judgment, I would encourage you to hear it straight from the meeting instead of conjecture and rumors from authors of articles. As for Director Unsworth, I spoke with him, too, and all he wanted to do was talk about hunting, especially mule deer. He does share concern about managing wolves, as was evident by his statements at our meeting. I look forward to sharing some time with him talking about the concerns of hunters in WA. Feel free to bend my ear about those, as long as they are respectful, sincere ideas to share. We will have his ear; we must take advantage of that.
I am from a "science based" mgmt. philosophy, as many hunters are. He and others no longer have the luxury of thinking that way. What I mean by that is the social impacts are going to be the biggest challenge of wolves in WA. Are they "special"? Absolutely not, wolfbait; they are the same wolves as in ID, WY, and MT. The difference isn't our wolves, it's our population and demographics. Do we need to manage wolves with lethal measures? Absolutely, but not in all cases, as some want. Fact is, the population sector that has had the most impact on mgmt. issues in the past 10-15 years hasn't been hunters, and that's the sad truth. If we had been as organized and outspoken in positive ways than other "user groups", we may have seen things move faster. But the fact is, we don't speak as one voice...just look at the baiting issue for deer and elk. On the chopping block because of hunters, not any anti hunting groups.
It's time we unite and speak with a unified voice if we want to make a difference....
Well said MuleDeer. It's good to have you on the WAG.
A little more info on Conservation Northwest (CNW)'s current stance on hunting for those that are interested:
http://www.conservationnw.org/what-we-do/predators-and-prey/
Say what you like about the organizations past efforts or stances regarding wolves, cougars or other issues. But don't lump CNW in with the PETA and HSUS types when it comes to being anti-hunting. And many of those extreme pro-wolfers hate CNW as much as they do hunters because CNW signed off on the Wedge Pack removal and has supported lethal wolf management as a necessary tool for managing problem wolves or packs if other options fail.
[/quote]
Post by: grundy53 on May 26, 2015, 12:33:42 PM
I don't get why people think these organizations will change their spots just because a few of their members are seemingly more moderate towards hunting. They'll be reporting to the organizations and it'll be the organizations which sue our state, regardless of what these individuals say or even believe. I truly think that the WDFW believes that if they include them they'll be more cooperative. They've been sold a bridge. What's the expression about lipstick on a pig?:yeah: they're playing chess and we are playing checkers. I don't trust them any further than I can throw them.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 26, 2015, 12:42:06 PM
I don't get why people think these organizations will change their spots just because a few of their members are seemingly more moderate towards hunting. They'll be reporting to the organizations and it'll be the organizations which sue our state, regardless of what these individuals say or even believe. I truly think that the WDFW believes that if they include them they'll be more cooperative. They've been sold a bridge. What's the expression about lipstick on a pig?:yeah: they're playing chess and we are playing checkers. I don't trust them any further than I can throw them.
They're vegans. You could probably toss one quite a few feet! I trust them less.
Post by: ribka on May 26, 2015, 12:50:44 PM
"For the most part, wolf recovery is proceeding very well here in the state. We’ve gone from our first pack in 2008 to having likely between 8 and 12 today. All but one of those packs has been largely trouble free."
"Conservation Northwest spoke out in August against the state wildlife agency deciding to kill wolves in northeast Washington’s Wedge Pack."
Sounds like conservation NW is no friend to hunters. If wolf numbers explode in Washington, like they have in WI, MI, MN MT ID WY - will CNW support trapping and poisoning as a method to control their population?
What is CNW's stand on wolf packs impact on deer, moose and elk populations in NW MT, N ID?
Would CNW support closing down hunting seasons when deer and elk and moose numbers diminish after the introduction of wolves in Washington? Or would they support lethal means ( trapping, helicopter, plane shooting, poisoning) to reduce the wolf populations in order to maintain viable game populations for sportsmen?
Inquiring minds want to know :chuckle:
Yes, hunter's interests are represented well in the group. I spoke with every member there, and spent extra time talking to the members from CNW, DofW, Sierra Club, and HSUS. 3 of these members grew up in and understand our hunting heritage, and are not opposed to hunting personally or as a representative of their group. The other member has never been exposed to hunting, but is not against hunting at all. We are currently working on a time to hit the woods, so he can see what we do and why we do it. I was very pleased to find that there is not one "anti hunter" in this group. Of all groups represented, only one has ever had an anti-hunting agenda published, and it was HSUS. But that statement was made over 20 years ago, and not all members, including their rep on the WAG, are anti hunting. I spent time personally with all of these members, and I have no doubt this group can have one voice, and it will be for management of wolves. Everyone there agrees that mgmt. needs to happen; it is when and how we will get there that we need to get changed now. As for the folks who say we won't ever get anything done because of "one bad apple", I brought that up at the meeting. I suggested that there be a way to remove a person from the WAG if their aim there is to be a barrier to any progress. The resulting solution was for us to always seek a "majority consensus". That means, if there is one or two people (or groups) holding up progress on a vote or issue, their input can be discarded, based on what the majority desires. With that in mind, we as hunters have a ton of support in this group, and I feel confident that we actually will have many unanimous decisions, and they won't be "pro-wolf" ones. Rather, they will be in the interest of managing the wolves as well as we are allowed by state law, until those laws change allowing for more mgmt. practices, including lethal means.
I would suggest that all of you interested look up the audio of the meeting. I believe they are also putting together notes of the whole meeting. Before you decide your judgment, I would encourage you to hear it straight from the meeting instead of conjecture and rumors from authors of articles. As for Director Unsworth, I spoke with him, too, and all he wanted to do was talk about hunting, especially mule deer. He does share concern about managing wolves, as was evident by his statements at our meeting. I look forward to sharing some time with him talking about the concerns of hunters in WA. Feel free to bend my ear about those, as long as they are respectful, sincere ideas to share. We will have his ear; we must take advantage of that.
I am from a "science based" mgmt. philosophy, as many hunters are. He and others no longer have the luxury of thinking that way. What I mean by that is the social impacts are going to be the biggest challenge of wolves in WA. Are they "special"? Absolutely not, wolfbait; they are the same wolves as in ID, WY, and MT. The difference isn't our wolves, it's our population and demographics. Do we need to manage wolves with lethal measures? Absolutely, but not in all cases, as some want. Fact is, the population sector that has had the most impact on mgmt. issues in the past 10-15 years hasn't been hunters, and that's the sad truth. If we had been as organized and outspoken in positive ways than other "user groups", we may have seen things move faster. But the fact is, we don't speak as one voice...just look at the baiting issue for deer and elk. On the chopping block because of hunters, not any anti hunting groups.
It's time we unite and speak with a unified voice if we want to make a difference....
Well said MuleDeer. It's good to have you on the WAG.
A little more info on Conservation Northwest (CNW)'s current stance on hunting for those that are interested:
http://www.conservationnw.org/what-we-do/predators-and-prey/
Say what you like about the organizations past efforts or stances regarding wolves, cougars or other issues. But don't lump CNW in with the PETA and HSUS types when it comes to being anti-hunting. And many of those extreme pro-wolfers hate CNW as much as they do hunters because CNW signed off on the Wedge Pack removal and has supported lethal wolf management as a necessary tool for managing problem wolves or packs if other options fail.
[/quote]
Post by: mfswallace on May 26, 2015, 01:21:49 PM
Post by: huntnphool on May 26, 2015, 01:24:30 PM
From CNW website[/quote]
"For the most part, wolf recovery is proceeding very well here in the state. We’ve gone from our first pack in 2008 to having likely between 8 and 12 today. All but one of those packs has been largely trouble free."
"Conservation Northwest spoke out in August against the state wildlife agency deciding to kill wolves in northeast Washington’s Wedge Pack."
Sounds like conservation NW is no friend to hunters. If wolf numbers explode in Washington, like they have in WI, MI, MN MT ID WY - will CNW support trapping and poisoning as a method to control their population?
What is CNW's stand on wolf packs impact on deer, moose and elk populations in NW MT, N ID?
Would CNW support closing down hunting seasons when deer and elk and moose numbers diminish after the introduction of wolves in Washington? Or would they support lethal means ( trapping, helicopter, plane shooting, poisoning) to reduce the wolf populations in order to maintain viable game populations for sportsmen?
Inquiring minds want to know :chuckle:Yes, hunter's interests are represented well in the group. I spoke with every member there, and spent extra time talking to the members from CNW, DofW, Sierra Club, and HSUS. 3 of these members grew up in and understand our hunting heritage, and are not opposed to hunting personally or as a representative of their group. The other member has never been exposed to hunting, but is not against hunting at all. We are currently working on a time to hit the woods, so he can see what we do and why we do it. I was very pleased to find that there is not one "anti hunter" in this group. Of all groups represented, only one has ever had an anti-hunting agenda published, and it was HSUS. But that statement was made over 20 years ago, and not all members, including their rep on the WAG, are anti hunting. I spent time personally with all of these members, and I have no doubt this group can have one voice, and it will be for management of wolves. Everyone there agrees that mgmt. needs to happen; it is when and how we will get there that we need to get changed now. As for the folks who say we won't ever get anything done because of "one bad apple", I brought that up at the meeting. I suggested that there be a way to remove a person from the WAG if their aim there is to be a barrier to any progress. The resulting solution was for us to always seek a "majority consensus". That means, if there is one or two people (or groups) holding up progress on a vote or issue, their input can be discarded, based on what the majority desires. With that in mind, we as hunters have a ton of support in this group, and I feel confident that we actually will have many unanimous decisions, and they won't be "pro-wolf" ones. Rather, they will be in the interest of managing the wolves as well as we are allowed by state law, until those laws change allowing for more mgmt. practices, including lethal means.
I would suggest that all of you interested look up the audio of the meeting. I believe they are also putting together notes of the whole meeting. Before you decide your judgment, I would encourage you to hear it straight from the meeting instead of conjecture and rumors from authors of articles. As for Director Unsworth, I spoke with him, too, and all he wanted to do was talk about hunting, especially mule deer. He does share concern about managing wolves, as was evident by his statements at our meeting. I look forward to sharing some time with him talking about the concerns of hunters in WA. Feel free to bend my ear about those, as long as they are respectful, sincere ideas to share. We will have his ear; we must take advantage of that.
I am from a "science based" mgmt. philosophy, as many hunters are. He and others no longer have the luxury of thinking that way. What I mean by that is the social impacts are going to be the biggest challenge of wolves in WA. Are they "special"? Absolutely not, wolfbait; they are the same wolves as in ID, WY, and MT. The difference isn't our wolves, it's our population and demographics. Do we need to manage wolves with lethal measures? Absolutely, but not in all cases, as some want. Fact is, the population sector that has had the most impact on mgmt. issues in the past 10-15 years hasn't been hunters, and that's the sad truth. If we had been as organized and outspoken in positive ways than other "user groups", we may have seen things move faster. But the fact is, we don't speak as one voice...just look at the baiting issue for deer and elk. On the chopping block because of hunters, not any anti hunting groups.
It's time we unite and speak with a unified voice if we want to make a difference....
Relax Ribka, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, move yourself along.....there is nothing to see here. :rolleyes:
I'm still waiting for the answers to my questions too
Quote
I am interested to know specifically who are speaking for hunters and who appointed them to speak for us?but am very much interested in answers for these as well!
Quote
Would CNW support closing down hunting seasons when deer and elk and moose numbers diminish after the introduction of wolves in Washington? Or would they support lethal means ( trapping, helicopter, plane shooting, poisoning) to reduce the wolf populations in order to maintain viable game populations for sportsmen?
Post by: CAMPMEAT on May 26, 2015, 05:31:14 PM
Post by: ribka on May 26, 2015, 06:14:28 PM
WDFW must think that hunters in this state are naive and clueless :tup:
From CNW website
"For the most part, wolf recovery is proceeding very well here in the state. We’ve gone from our first pack in 2008 to having likely between 8 and 12 today. All but one of those packs has been largely trouble free."
"Conservation Northwest spoke out in August against the state wildlife agency deciding to kill wolves in northeast Washington’s Wedge Pack."
Sounds like conservation NW is no friend to hunters. If wolf numbers explode in Washington, like they have in WI, MI, MN MT ID WY - will CNW support trapping and poisoning as a method to control their population?
What is CNW's stand on wolf packs impact on deer, moose and elk populations in NW MT, N ID?
Would CNW support closing down hunting seasons when deer and elk and moose numbers diminish after the introduction of wolves in Washington? Or would they support lethal means ( trapping, helicopter, plane shooting, poisoning) to reduce the wolf populations in order to maintain viable game populations for sportsmen?
Inquiring minds want to know :chuckle:Yes, hunter's interests are represented well in the group. I spoke with every member there, and spent extra time talking to the members from CNW, DofW, Sierra Club, and HSUS. 3 of these members grew up in and understand our hunting heritage, and are not opposed to hunting personally or as a representative of their group. The other member has never been exposed to hunting, but is not against hunting at all. We are currently working on a time to hit the woods, so he can see what we do and why we do it. I was very pleased to find that there is not one "anti hunter" in this group. Of all groups represented, only one has ever had an anti-hunting agenda published, and it was HSUS. But that statement was made over 20 years ago, and not all members, including their rep on the WAG, are anti hunting. I spent time personally with all of these members, and I have no doubt this group can have one voice, and it will be for management of wolves. Everyone there agrees that mgmt. needs to happen; it is when and how we will get there that we need to get changed now. As for the folks who say we won't ever get anything done because of "one bad apple", I brought that up at the meeting. I suggested that there be a way to remove a person from the WAG if their aim there is to be a barrier to any progress. The resulting solution was for us to always seek a "majority consensus". That means, if there is one or two people (or groups) holding up progress on a vote or issue, their input can be discarded, based on what the majority desires. With that in mind, we as hunters have a ton of support in this group, and I feel confident that we actually will have many unanimous decisions, and they won't be "pro-wolf" ones. Rather, they will be in the interest of managing the wolves as well as we are allowed by state law, until those laws change allowing for more mgmt. practices, including lethal means.
I would suggest that all of you interested look up the audio of the meeting. I believe they are also putting together notes of the whole meeting. Before you decide your judgment, I would encourage you to hear it straight from the meeting instead of conjecture and rumors from authors of articles. As for Director Unsworth, I spoke with him, too, and all he wanted to do was talk about hunting, especially mule deer. He does share concern about managing wolves, as was evident by his statements at our meeting. I look forward to sharing some time with him talking about the concerns of hunters in WA. Feel free to bend my ear about those, as long as they are respectful, sincere ideas to share. We will have his ear; we must take advantage of that.
I am from a "science based" mgmt. philosophy, as many hunters are. He and others no longer have the luxury of thinking that way. What I mean by that is the social impacts are going to be the biggest challenge of wolves in WA. Are they "special"? Absolutely not, wolfbait; they are the same wolves as in ID, WY, and MT. The difference isn't our wolves, it's our population and demographics. Do we need to manage wolves with lethal measures? Absolutely, but not in all cases, as some want. Fact is, the population sector that has had the most impact on mgmt. issues in the past 10-15 years hasn't been hunters, and that's the sad truth. If we had been as organized and outspoken in positive ways than other "user groups", we may have seen things move faster. But the fact is, we don't speak as one voice...just look at the baiting issue for deer and elk. On the chopping block because of hunters, not any anti hunting groups.
It's time we unite and speak with a unified voice if we want to make a difference....
Relax Ribka, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, move yourself along.....there is nothing to see here. :rolleyes:
I'm still waiting for the answers to my questions too
Quote
I am interested to know specifically who are speaking for hunters and who appointed them to speak for us?but am very much interested in answers for these as well!
Quote
Would CNW support closing down hunting seasons when deer and elk and moose numbers diminish after the introduction of wolves in Washington? Or would they support lethal means ( trapping, helicopter, plane shooting, poisoning) to reduce the wolf populations in order to maintain viable game populations for sportsmen?[/quote]
Post by: idahohuntr on May 26, 2015, 06:30:08 PM
Based on your responses I think we have at least 2 great folks on this WAG. We need intelligent, diplomatic hunters to represent us on these controversial matters and you guys seem to be a perfect fit. The more you can do to present hunters in a positive light, the better. There will always be disagreement...but there just might be more common ground than folks here realize. Time will tell :dunno: And yes, Unsworth is a very avid hunter...those who suggest otherwise are either ignorant or lying, possibly both.
Post by: mfswallace on May 26, 2015, 07:26:17 PM
MuleDeer and CGDucksandDeer :tup:
Based on your responses I think we have at least 2 great folks on this WAG. We need intelligent, diplomatic hunters to represent us on these controversial matters and you guys seem to be a perfect fit. The more you can do to present hunters in a positive light, the better. There will always be disagreement...but there just might be more common ground than folks here realize. Time will tell :dunno: And yes, Unsworth is a very avid hunter...those who suggest otherwise are either ignorant or lying, possibly both.
:puke:
Post by: jasnt on May 26, 2015, 08:56:05 PM
This is where I ment to post this so I reposted
Post by: Special T on May 26, 2015, 09:35:02 PM
Yes, hunter's interests are represented well in the group. I spoke with every member there, and spent extra time talking to the members from CNW, DofW, Sierra Club, and HSUS. 3 of these members grew up in and understand our hunting heritage, and are not opposed to hunting personally or as a representative of their group. The other member has never been exposed to hunting, but is not against hunting at all.
Unfortunately it does not matter if the people themselves dont have disdain for our hunting heritage. The groups they represent do. I am less concernted with words than actions. History has shown us the true colors of the 4 organisations you referenced. What they have said in the past does NOT match thier actions. The actions show that they are not operating in good faith.
We are currently working on a time to hit the woods, so he can see what we do and why we do it. I was very pleased to find that there is not one "anti hunter" in this group. Of all groups represented, only one has ever had an anti-hunting agenda published, and it was HSUS. But that statement was made over 20 years ago, and not all members, including their rep on the WAG, are anti hunting. I spent time personally with all of these members, and I have no doubt this group can have one voice, and it will be for management of wolves. Everyone there agrees that mgmt. needs to happen; it is when and how we will get there that we need to get changed now.
Sportsmen disagree greatly on what the definition of "Management" is with these groups. Management= documentation and Lethal measures to sportsmen. Things like Fladdery, rangeriders, etc = Management to the Orgs you spoke of
As for the folks who say we won't ever get anything done because of "one bad apple", I brought that up at the meeting. I suggested that there be a way to remove a person from the WAG if their aim there is to be a barrier to any progress. The resulting solution was for us to always seek a "majority consensus". That means, if there is one or two people (or groups) holding up progress on a vote or issue, their input can be discarded, based on what the majority desires. With that in mind, we as hunters have a ton of support in this group, and I feel confident that we actually will have many unanimous decisions, and they won't be "pro-wolf" ones. Rather, they will be in the interest of managing the wolves as well as we are allowed by state law, until those laws change allowing for more mgmt. practices, including lethal means.
I would suggest that all of you interested look up the audio of the meeting. I believe they are also putting together notes of the whole meeting. Before you decide your judgment, I would encourage you to hear it straight from the meeting instead of conjecture and rumors from authors of articles. As for Director Unsworth, I spoke with him, too, and all he wanted to do was talk about hunting, especially mule deer. He does share concern about managing wolves, as was evident by his statements at our meeting. I look forward to sharing some time with him talking about the concerns of hunters in WA. Feel free to bend my ear about those, as long as they are respectful, sincere ideas to share. We will have his ear; we must take advantage of that.
I am from a "science based" mgmt. philosophy, as many hunters are. He and others no longer have the luxury of thinking that way. What I mean by that is the social impacts are going to be the biggest challenge of wolves in WA. Are they "special"? Absolutely not, wolfbait; they are the same wolves as in ID, WY, and MT. The difference isn't our wolves, it's our population and demographics.
I have to agree with you there. I look forward to there being several large packs in the Snoqualmie NorthBend Area. There is a HUGE societal disconnect between what wolves actually are, what they mean and what city dwellers think they are.The sooner the great Puget Sound Area gets a taste the better.
Do we need to manage wolves with lethal measures? Absolutely, but not in all cases, as some want. Fact is, the population sector that has had the most impact on mgmt. issues in the past 10-15 years hasn't been hunters, and that's the sad truth. If we had been as organized and outspoken in positive ways than other "user groups", we may have seen things move faster. But the fact is, we don't speak as one voice...just look at the baiting issue for deer and elk. On the chopping block because of hunters, not any anti hunting groups.
It's time we unite and speak with a unified voice if we want to make a difference....
Well said MuleDeer. It's good to have you on the WAG.
A little more info on Conservation Northwest (CNW)'s current stance on hunting for those that are interested:
http://www.conservationnw.org/what-we-do/predators-and-prey/
Say what you like about the organizations past efforts or stances regarding wolves, cougars or other issues. But don't lump CNW in with the PETA and HSUS types when it comes to being anti-hunting. And many of those extreme pro-wolfers hate CNW as much as they do hunters because CNW signed off on the Wedge Pack removal and has supported lethal wolf management as a necessary tool for managing problem wolves or packs if other options fail.
[/quote]
Unfortunately my personal feelings (in addition to many other sportsmen) have very little bearing on the outcome on this issue. As long as DOCUMENTATION is not the first and foremost priority, the strategies of the Anti hunting crowd succeed. DELAY is a tactic. It has been used in ALL the other states with wolves to great effect. CNW, DofW, Sierra Club, and HSUS are not sportsmens friends.
Post by: huntnphool on May 26, 2015, 09:59:46 PM
There will always be disagreement...but there just might be more common ground than folks here realize.
You have done a pretty consistent job of saying this but have yet to give examples of possible common ground.
Still waiting.... ;)
Post by: idahohuntr on May 26, 2015, 10:16:56 PM
Can we get unanimous consent that a pack of wolves which makes a habit of preying on livestock/pets and/or poses a significant human safety threat should be lethally removed?There will always be disagreement...but there just might be more common ground than folks here realize.
You have done a pretty consistent job of saying this but have yet to give examples of possible common ground.
Still waiting.... ;)
Can we get unanimous consent from the group that wolves are here to stay and nobody wants them hunted to extinction or near extinction?
Can we get unanimous consent to classify wolves as a game animal? This is where those intelligent, diplomatic hunters should be selling the centuries of conservation work by hunters...there is no better way to conserve/restore/ensure a species existence than to make it a prized game animal...hunters will pour millions into ensuring their success.
Can we get agreement that areas where wolves are definitively causing declines in other species of native wildlife that some management/lethal control actions are taken?
The list could go on and on, bottom line - Everybody probably recognizes that no management, no control, is no more an option than trapping and poisoning every last wolf in the state. We need to start at the most extreme edges and work inwards. It is in our best interest for getting more reasonable management implemented to have as many of these user groups supporting the action/management plan as possible. I will also say (again), this is as much an opportunity for WDFW to educate all of these groups as it is for them to provide perspectives on wolf management to WDFW.
Post by: Special T on May 26, 2015, 10:37:28 PM
Can we get unanimous consent that a pack of wolves which makes a habit of preying on livestock/pets and/or poses a significant human safety threat should be lethally removed?There will always be disagreement...but there just might be more common ground than folks here realize.
You have done a pretty consistent job of saying this but have yet to give examples of possible common ground.
Still waiting.... ;)
yes
Can we get unanimous consent from the group that wolves are here to stay and nobody wants them hunted to extinction or near extinction?
Depends on the Definiton of " near extinction" is. There are currently PLENTY of wolves around both in Canada, AK and the lower 48.
Can we get unanimous consent to classify wolves as a game animal? This is where those intelligent, diplomatic hunters should be selling the centuries of conservation work by hunters...there is no better way to conserve/restore/ensure a species existence than to make it a prized game animal...hunters will pour millions into ensuring their success.
Since hunters in other states have done this and had very little effect I think they should be classified as a Varmint
Can we get agreement that areas where wolves are definitively causing declines in other species of native wildlife that some management/lethal control actions are taken?
Yes if Management= hunting
The list could go on and on, bottom line - Everybody probably recognizes that no management, no control, is no more an option than trapping and poisoning every last wolf in the state. We need to start at the most extreme edges and work inwards. It is in our best interest for getting more reasonable management implemented to have as many of these user groups supporting the action/management plan as possible. I will also say (again), this is as much an opportunity for WDFW to educate all of these groups as it is for them to provide perspectives on wolf management to WDFW.
Very Aggressive "Management" (Shooting with a rifle like Varmints) will likely have a small effect on the numbers. MOSTLY because there is no real trapping in this state and poison has been outlawed for quite some time...
Post by: huntnphool on May 27, 2015, 12:07:00 AM
Can we get unanimous consent that a pack of wolves which makes a habit of preying on livestock/pets and/or poses a significant human safety threat should be lethally removed?These pro wolf groups were against lethal removal of the problem wolves in the NE corner, even after the state proved they were preying on livestock, so NO!!There will always be disagreement...but there just might be more common ground than folks here realize.
You have done a pretty consistent job of saying this but have yet to give examples of possible common ground.
Still waiting.... ;)
Can we get unanimous consent from the group that wolves are here to stay and nobody wants them hunted to extinction or near extinction? Ridiculous question, both sides already understand that.
Can we get unanimous consent to classify wolves as a game animal? This is where those intelligent, diplomatic hunters should be selling the centuries of conservation work by hunters...there is no better way to conserve/restore/ensure a species existence than to make it a prized game animal...hunters will pour millions into ensuring their success.NO!! precedent has already been set in other states, pro wolf advocates will never agree to allowing wolves to be hunted, yes they have been hunted, but never agreed to by pro wolfers.
Can we get agreement that areas where wolves are definitively causing declines in other species of native wildlife that some management/lethal control actions are taken?NO!! once again the precedent has been set in several other states, words and actions by pro wolf groups are completely different, they have never agreed to lethal control and followed any attempt at it with litigation.
The list could go on and on, bottom line - Everybody probably recognizes that no management, no control, is no more an option than trapping and poisoning every last wolf in the state. We need to start at the most extreme edges and work inwards. It is in our best interest for getting more reasonable management implemented to have as many of these user groups supporting the action/management plan as possible. I will also say (again), this is as much an opportunity for WDFW to educate all of these groups as it is for them to provide perspectives on wolf management to WDFW. Could go on and on? You have not come up with a single piece of "common ground" or option that the pro wolf people will be flexible with. The only way to "manage" predators is by lethal means, and groups like HSUS have never and never will agree to it. So please Idaho, enlighten us all how this is in hunters best interest!
Post by: grundy53 on May 27, 2015, 04:56:08 AM
Do you actually believe you'll get those animal rights groups to go along with any of that?Can we get unanimous consent that a pack of wolves which makes a habit of preying on livestock/pets and/or poses a significant human safety threat should be lethally removed?There will always be disagreement...but there just might be more common ground than folks here realize.
You have done a pretty consistent job of saying this but have yet to give examples of possible common ground.
Still waiting.... ;)
Can we get unanimous consent from the group that wolves are here to stay and nobody wants them hunted to extinction or near extinction?
Can we get unanimous consent to classify wolves as a game animal? This is where those intelligent, diplomatic hunters should be selling the centuries of conservation work by hunters...there is no better way to conserve/restore/ensure a species existence than to make it a prized game animal...hunters will pour millions into ensuring their success.
Can we get agreement that areas where wolves are definitively causing declines in other species of native wildlife that some management/lethal control actions are taken?
The list could go on and on, bottom line - Everybody probably recognizes that no management, no control, is no more an option than trapping and poisoning every last wolf in the state. We need to start at the most extreme edges and work inwards. It is in our best interest for getting more reasonable management implemented to have as many of these user groups supporting the action/management plan as possible. I will also say (again), this is as much an opportunity for WDFW to educate all of these groups as it is for them to provide perspectives on wolf management to WDFW.
Post by: jasnt on May 27, 2015, 05:46:04 AM
Post by: wolfbait on May 27, 2015, 05:51:22 AM
Can we get unanimous consent that a pack of wolves which makes a habit of preying on livestock/pets and/or poses a significant human safety threat should be lethally removed?These pro wolf groups were against lethal removal of the problem wolves in the NE corner, even after the state proved they were preying on livestock, so NO!!There will always be disagreement...but there just might be more common ground than folks here realize.
You have done a pretty consistent job of saying this but have yet to give examples of possible common ground.
Still waiting.... ;)
Can we get unanimous consent from the group that wolves are here to stay and nobody wants them hunted to extinction or near extinction? Ridiculous question, both sides already understand that.
Can we get unanimous consent to classify wolves as a game animal? This is where those intelligent, diplomatic hunters should be selling the centuries of conservation work by hunters...there is no better way to conserve/restore/ensure a species existence than to make it a prized game animal...hunters will pour millions into ensuring their success.NO!! precedent has already been set in other states, pro wolf advocates will never agree to allowing wolves to be hunted, yes they have been hunted, but never agreed to by pro wolfers.
Can we get agreement that areas where wolves are definitively causing declines in other species of native wildlife that some management/lethal control actions are taken?NO!! once again the precedent has been set in several other states, words and actions by pro wolf groups are completely different, they have never agreed to lethal control and followed any attempt at it with litigation.
The list could go on and on, bottom line - Everybody probably recognizes that no management, no control, is no more an option than trapping and poisoning every last wolf in the state. We need to start at the most extreme edges and work inwards. It is in our best interest for getting more reasonable management implemented to have as many of these user groups supporting the action/management plan as possible. I will also say (again), this is as much an opportunity for WDFW to educate all of these groups as it is for them to provide perspectives on wolf management to WDFW. Could go on and on? You have not come up with a single piece of "common ground" or option that the pro wolf people will be flexible with. The only way to "manage" predators is by lethal means, and groups like HSUS have never and never will agree to it. So please Idaho, enlighten us all how this is in hunters best interest!
:yeah:
Refusing to confirm wolf packs/breeding pairs has/is also lessoning chances for any kind of serious wolf management before undue damage is done to WA's game herds.
Post by: jasnt on May 27, 2015, 05:57:20 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on May 27, 2015, 07:04:47 AM
I've already stated...this isn't the only way to communicate wolf management desires so not having these groups involved actually gives them more power. I don't know if we can find any common ground, but it's worth trying as we have nothing to lose. Reports from WAG members seem positive so far.Can we get unanimous consent that a pack of wolves which makes a habit of preying on livestock/pets and/or poses a significant human safety threat should be lethally removed?These pro wolf groups were against lethal removal of the problem wolves in the NE corner, even after the state proved they were preying on livestock, so NO!!There will always be disagreement...but there just might be more common ground than folks here realize.
You have done a pretty consistent job of saying this but have yet to give examples of possible common ground.
Still waiting.... ;)
Can we get unanimous consent from the group that wolves are here to stay and nobody wants them hunted to extinction or near extinction? Ridiculous question, both sides already understand that.
Can we get unanimous consent to classify wolves as a game animal? This is where those intelligent, diplomatic hunters should be selling the centuries of conservation work by hunters...there is no better way to conserve/restore/ensure a species existence than to make it a prized game animal...hunters will pour millions into ensuring their success.NO!! precedent has already been set in other states, pro wolf advocates will never agree to allowing wolves to be hunted, yes they have been hunted, but never agreed to by pro wolfers.
Can we get agreement that areas where wolves are definitively causing declines in other species of native wildlife that some management/lethal control actions are taken?NO!! once again the precedent has been set in several other states, words and actions by pro wolf groups are completely different, they have never agreed to lethal control and followed any attempt at it with litigation.
The list could go on and on, bottom line - Everybody probably recognizes that no management, no control, is no more an option than trapping and poisoning every last wolf in the state. We need to start at the most extreme edges and work inwards. It is in our best interest for getting more reasonable management implemented to have as many of these user groups supporting the action/management plan as possible. I will also say (again), this is as much an opportunity for WDFW to educate all of these groups as it is for them to provide perspectives on wolf management to WDFW. Could go on and on? You have not come up with a single piece of "common ground" or option that the pro wolf people will be flexible with. The only way to "manage" predators is by lethal means, and groups like HSUS have never and never will agree to it. So please Idaho, enlighten us all how this is in hunters best interest!
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 27, 2015, 07:48:47 AM
Post by: huntnphool on May 27, 2015, 08:21:59 AM
I've already stated...this isn't the only way to communicate wolf management desires so not having these groups involved actually gives them more power. I don't know if we can find any common groundCan we get unanimous consent that a pack of wolves which makes a habit of preying on livestock/pets and/or poses a significant human safety threat should be lethally removed?These pro wolf groups were against lethal removal of the problem wolves in the NE corner, even after the state proved they were preying on livestock, so NO!!There will always be disagreement...but there just might be more common ground than folks here realize.
You have done a pretty consistent job of saying this but have yet to give examples of possible common ground.
Still waiting.... ;)
Can we get unanimous consent from the group that wolves are here to stay and nobody wants them hunted to extinction or near extinction? Ridiculous question, both sides already understand that.
Can we get unanimous consent to classify wolves as a game animal? This is where those intelligent, diplomatic hunters should be selling the centuries of conservation work by hunters...there is no better way to conserve/restore/ensure a species existence than to make it a prized game animal...hunters will pour millions into ensuring their success.NO!! precedent has already been set in other states, pro wolf advocates will never agree to allowing wolves to be hunted, yes they have been hunted, but never agreed to by pro wolfers.
Can we get agreement that areas where wolves are definitively causing declines in other species of native wildlife that some management/lethal control actions are taken?NO!! once again the precedent has been set in several other states, words and actions by pro wolf groups are completely different, they have never agreed to lethal control and followed any attempt at it with litigation.
The list could go on and on, bottom line - Everybody probably recognizes that no management, no control, is no more an option than trapping and poisoning every last wolf in the state. We need to start at the most extreme edges and work inwards. It is in our best interest for getting more reasonable management implemented to have as many of these user groups supporting the action/management plan as possible. I will also say (again), this is as much an opportunity for WDFW to educate all of these groups as it is for them to provide perspectives on wolf management to WDFW. Could go on and on? You have not come up with a single piece of "common ground" or option that the pro wolf people will be flexible with. The only way to "manage" predators is by lethal means, and groups like HSUS have never and never will agree to it. So please Idaho, enlighten us all how this is in hunters best interest!
Thank you, then please stop repeating this "feel good" common ground propaganda, nobody here is buying it except the other pro wolfers.
On another note, how can NOT buying into this BS "give them more power"? Wasn't it stated that this group would NOT have any decision making abilities regarding wolf management?
I'm STILL waiting for you or muledeer to tell us who is representing the hunters in this group, and who magically appointed them, and by what authority?
Post by: Curly on May 27, 2015, 08:31:26 AM
Post by: ribka on May 27, 2015, 08:44:34 AM
These self important self proclaimed ego driven intellectual superiors will keep embracing this even when hunting seasons close down in WA due to wolves like it did in ID and MT.
A big loss for sportsmen in the US.
MuleDeer and CGDucksandDeer :tup:
Based on your responses I think we have at least 2 great folks on this WAG. We need intelligent, diplomatic hunters to represent us on these controversial matters and you guys seem to be a perfect fit. The more you can do to present hunters in a positive light, the better. There will always be disagreement...but there just might be more common ground than folks here realize. Time will tell :dunno: And yes, Unsworth is a very avid hunter...those who suggest otherwise are either ignorant or lying, possibly both.
Post by: grundy53 on May 27, 2015, 09:41:41 AM
"Intelligent hunters" and "common ground" - passive aggressive Orwellian speak directed at us on here insinuating that we're idiots because we don't want hunting seasons shut down. Aren't you guys embracing CGducksand Deer and ID huntr's "fundamental transformation" of new and improved game management in the US?Definitely feels this way...
These self important self proclaimed ego driven intellectual superiors will keep embracing this even when hunting seasons close down in WA due to wolves like it did in ID and MT.
A big loss for sportsmen in the US.MuleDeer and CGDucksandDeer :tup:
Based on your responses I think we have at least 2 great folks on this WAG. We need intelligent, diplomatic hunters to represent us on these controversial matters and you guys seem to be a perfect fit. The more you can do to present hunters in a positive light, the better. There will always be disagreement...but there just might be more common ground than folks here realize. Time will tell :dunno: And yes, Unsworth is a very avid hunter...those who suggest otherwise are either ignorant or lying, possibly both.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 27, 2015, 05:17:22 PM
"Intelligent hunters" and "common ground" - passive aggressive Orwellian speak directed at us on here insinuating that we're idiots because we don't want hunting seasons shut down. Aren't you guys embracing CGducksand Deer and ID huntr's "fundamental transformation" of new and improved game management in the US?:rolleyes: Yes, by highlighting the value in having intelligent, diplomatic hunters represent the hunting community to non-hunters I am really just trying to secretly insult you in some sort of vague, indirect way as I seek opportunities to end hunting in Wa. Let's find the dumbest most abrasive hunter out there to represent us...that will definitely make it so the anti's don't succeed in shutting hunting seasons down won't it? :bash:
These self important self proclaimed ego driven intellectual superiors will keep embracing this even when hunting seasons close down in WA due to wolves like it did in ID and MT.
A big loss for sportsmen in the US.MuleDeer and CGDucksandDeer :tup:
Based on your responses I think we have at least 2 great folks on this WAG. We need intelligent, diplomatic hunters to represent us on these controversial matters and you guys seem to be a perfect fit. The more you can do to present hunters in a positive light, the better. There will always be disagreement...but there just might be more common ground than folks here realize. Time will tell :dunno: And yes, Unsworth is a very avid hunter...those who suggest otherwise are either ignorant or lying, possibly both.
Post by: ribka on May 27, 2015, 09:06:05 PM
bookmark this discussion and check back in 10 years fellow sportsmen
makes perfect sense to me. Your true colors are really beginning to show :chuckle:
"Intelligent hunters" and "common ground" - passive aggressive Orwellian speak directed at us on here insinuating that we're idiots because we don't want hunting seasons shut down. Aren't you guys embracing CGducksand Deer and ID huntr's "fundamental transformation" of new and improved game management in the US?:rolleyes: Yes, by highlighting the value in having intelligent, diplomatic hunters represent the hunting community to non-hunters I am really just trying to secretly insult you in some sort of vague, indirect way as I seek opportunities to end hunting in Wa. Let's find the dumbest most abrasive hunter out there to represent us...that will definitely make it so the anti's don't succeed in shutting hunting seasons down won't it? :bash:
These self important self proclaimed ego driven intellectual superiors will keep embracing this even when hunting seasons close down in WA due to wolves like it did in ID and MT.
A big loss for sportsmen in the US.MuleDeer and CGDucksandDeer :tup:
Based on your responses I think we have at least 2 great folks on this WAG. We need intelligent, diplomatic hunters to represent us on these controversial matters and you guys seem to be a perfect fit. The more you can do to present hunters in a positive light, the better. There will always be disagreement...but there just might be more common ground than folks here realize. Time will tell :dunno: And yes, Unsworth is a very avid hunter...those who suggest otherwise are either ignorant or lying, possibly both.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 27, 2015, 09:14:27 PM
Post by: MuleDeer on May 27, 2015, 09:51:08 PM
Who is representing hunters on the WAG? Look back at the posts where the new members were announced. Do you think that list is a lie and there are folks listed there as hunters but really are secret agents for the "other side"? If so, you have bigger problems than a hunting issue. Who appointed them? The director with assistance from WDFW. Don't like the members or the system? Apply next time or do something to try and fix the system.
AS for the individuals on the WAG that represent an organization. Yes they may speak for the user group, but maybe not all of them, especially the extreme ones. I hope to represent hunters on the WAG, not MDF. But I will not be representing a few of you who insist on being the extremist on the hunting side. Just as I would expect some of the "enviro's" to not represent their more extreme counterparts.
Last time I'll bother any of you with this; if you are passionate about something and want to see change, get involved. If you won't even bother to do anything other than complain, you aren't part of the solution...
Post by: huntnphool on May 27, 2015, 10:20:29 PM
Seems like lots of questions about what CNW or other groups think or will do in this situation or that...I don't know, and I can't speak for them anyway. You need to ask them, I guess.
Who is representing hunters on the WAG? Look back at the posts where the new members were announced. Do you think that list is a lie and there are folks listed there as hunters but really are secret agents for the "other side"? Lets try to keep it real and slow the spin a bit. Nobody is saying those that are "supposedly" representing the hunting community are "secret agents" for pro wolfers. What I want to know is why there wasn't a process for hunters to nominate someone that the majority approved of speaking for them?
If so, you have bigger problems than a hunting issue. Who appointed them? The director with assistance from WDFW. Don't like the members or the system? Apply next time or do something to try and fix the system. Apply? I'm not aware of any announcement that representatives for the hunting community were needed to help address future wolf policy.
AS for the individuals on the WAG that represent an organization. Yes they may speak for the user group, but maybe not all of them, especially the extreme ones. I hope to represent hunters on the WAG, not MDF. But I will not be representing a few of you who insist on being the extremist on the hunting side. LOL, is it really extremism to fight for our privilege to hunt? Is it really extremism to not trust agencies or groups that have shown absolutely zero respect or regard for hunters and their tradition?
Just as I would expect some of the "enviro's" to not represent their more extreme counterparts.
Last time I'll bother any of you with this; if you are passionate about something and want to see change, get involved. If you won't even bother to do anything other than complain, you aren't part of the solution...
Perhaps hunters on this site would be more supportive if they felt their best interests were being looked after. You may preach from your soap box on this site, but the truth is we have no way of knowing your stance or intentions. Surely you must see the concern and understand the apprehension. :twocents:
Post by: MuleDeer on May 27, 2015, 10:34:49 PM
Totally agree, you don't know me or my "agenda". Although I did post a biography when I joined this forum, gave my home address, email, telephone, etc. Have you???? I have nothing to hide, and if you bother to read my first posts here, that's all I can offer you. Oh, and take the time to ask any of the MANY people on this forum who know me and have known me for many years what my intentions are. Let them speak for me, since you don't believe me.Seems like lots of questions about what CNW or other groups think or will do in this situation or that...I don't know, and I can't speak for them anyway. You need to ask them, I guess.
Who is representing hunters on the WAG? Look back at the posts where the new members were announced. Do you think that list is a lie and there are folks listed there as hunters but really are secret agents for the "other side"? Lets try to keep it real and slow the spin a bit. Nobody is saying those that are "supposedly" representing the hunting community are "secret agents" for pro wolfers. What I want to know is why there wasn't a process for hunters to nominate someone that the majority approved of speaking for them?
The wasn't a process for anyone to be nominated, unless the hunting community would have set that up themselves, which they didn't.
If so, you have bigger problems than a hunting issue. Who appointed them? The director with assistance from WDFW. Don't like the members or the system? Apply next time or do something to try and fix the system. Apply? I'm not aware of any announcement that representatives for the hunting community were needed to help address future wolf policy.
Look back on the threads and announcements WDFW made asking for ANYONE interested in helping on the WAG...it was made very public, and wasn't hidden from anyone.
AS for the individuals on the WAG that represent an organization. Yes they may speak for the user group, but maybe not all of them, especially the extreme ones. I hope to represent hunters on the WAG, not MDF. But I will not be representing a few of you who insist on being the extremist on the hunting side. LOL, is it really extremism to fight for our privilege to hunt? Is it really extremism to not trust agencies or groups that have shown absolutely zero respect or regard for hunters and their tradition?
No, not extreme at all to fight for what you love and believe in. But I do consider the constant bashing and spreading of rumors without any verification extreme. And quoting someone else's opinion, isn't verification; it's just spreading rumor and opinion. There's plenty on here that simply agree or support someone else's opinion and treat it as fact. Extreme to me is making accusations without proof, spewing opinion as fact. If it's your opinion and you say it is, that's great. Too many just grab it and treat is as gospel without bothering to learn the truth, or care to, in my opinion.
Just as I would expect some of the "enviro's" to not represent their more extreme counterparts.
Last time I'll bother any of you with this; if you are passionate about something and want to see change, get involved. If you won't even bother to do anything other than complain, you aren't part of the solution...
Perhaps hunters on this site would be more supportive if they felt their best interests were being looked after. You may preach from your soap box on this site, but the truth is we have no way of knowing your stance or intentions. Surely you must see the concern and understand the apprehension. :twocents:
I don't know who you are either, or quite a few others here. Even the ones who insist on bashing every post I make, while they do nothing to get involved. So how do I trust you? Guess I have to take your word for it, and I will until proven otherwise. I'm not preaching from a soap box; I'm just tired of the ones who do nothing but complain, while I've worked in conservation for the past 20+ years for hunters, habitat and management. I guess it's called "putting your money where your mouth is", and I don't mean just buying a hunting license.
Post by: huntnphool on May 27, 2015, 11:05:13 PM
Totally agree, you don't know me or my "agenda". Although I did post a biography when I joined this forum, gave my home address, email, telephone, etc. Have you???? I have nothing to hide, and if you bother to read my first posts here, that's all I can offer you. Oh, and take the time to ask any of the MANY people on this forum who know me and have known me for many years what my intentions are. Let them speak for me, since you don't believe me.Seems like lots of questions about what CNW or other groups think or will do in this situation or that...I don't know, and I can't speak for them anyway. You need to ask them, I guess.
Who is representing hunters on the WAG? Look back at the posts where the new members were announced. Do you think that list is a lie and there are folks listed there as hunters but really are secret agents for the "other side"? Lets try to keep it real and slow the spin a bit. Nobody is saying those that are "supposedly" representing the hunting community are "secret agents" for pro wolfers. What I want to know is why there wasn't a process for hunters to nominate someone that the majority approved of speaking for them?
The wasn't a process for anyone to be nominated, unless the hunting community would have set that up themselves, which they didn't.
If so, you have bigger problems than a hunting issue. Who appointed them? The director with assistance from WDFW. Don't like the members or the system? Apply next time or do something to try and fix the system. Apply? I'm not aware of any announcement that representatives for the hunting community were needed to help address future wolf policy.
Look back on the threads and announcements WDFW made asking for ANYONE interested in helping on the WAG...it was made very public, and wasn't hidden from anyone.
AS for the individuals on the WAG that represent an organization. Yes they may speak for the user group, but maybe not all of them, especially the extreme ones. I hope to represent hunters on the WAG, not MDF. But I will not be representing a few of you who insist on being the extremist on the hunting side. LOL, is it really extremism to fight for our privilege to hunt? Is it really extremism to not trust agencies or groups that have shown absolutely zero respect or regard for hunters and their tradition?
No, not extreme at all to fight for what you love and believe in. But I do consider the constant bashing and spreading of rumors without any verification extreme. And quoting someone else's opinion, isn't verification; it's just spreading rumor and opinion. There's plenty on here that simply agree or support someone else's opinion and treat it as fact. Extreme to me is making accusations without proof, spewing opinion as fact. If it's your opinion and you say it is, that's great. Too many just grab it and treat is as gospel without bothering to learn the truth, or care to, in my opinion.
Just as I would expect some of the "enviro's" to not represent their more extreme counterparts.
Last time I'll bother any of you with this; if you are passionate about something and want to see change, get involved. If you won't even bother to do anything other than complain, you aren't part of the solution...
Perhaps hunters on this site would be more supportive if they felt their best interests were being looked after. You may preach from your soap box on this site, but the truth is we have no way of knowing your stance or intentions. Surely you must see the concern and understand the apprehension. :twocents:
I don't know who you are either, or quite a few others here. Even the ones who insist on bashing every post I make, while they do nothing to get involved. So how do I trust you? Guess I have to take your word for it, and I will until proven otherwise. I'm not preaching from a soap box; I'm just tired of the ones who do nothing but complain, while I've worked in conservation for the past 20+ years for hunters, habitat and management. I guess it's called "putting your money where your mouth is", and I don't mean just buying a hunting license.
I didn't use the word "agenda" and did not say I didn't believe you, I said we have no way of knowing your stance or intentions......it shouldn't surprise you a lot of us are uneasy.
It's difficult to blindly step out on faith when dealing with WDFW or anything they are involved in. Its my opinion that the entire department, with the exception of most of the field officers, have a complete disconnect from the hunting/fishing community and pander to special interests with the deepest pockets and liberal voting base. Politics should have nothing to do with hunting/fishing policy, but sadly it seems like politics are what dictate every aspect of it these days, that and revenue.......enter the WAG! :o
So in a nutshell, until the hunting community bands together and can collectively agree on a couple people to represent us and our interests, it's going to be difficult to feel comfortable sitting back, watching, and wondering how and when we get collectively screwed again. :twocents:
Post by: wolfbait on May 28, 2015, 05:49:14 AM
Idaho’s conservative policies, people and leadership continue to protect Sportsmen and Ranchers:
Many Idahoans do not realize how truly fortunate they are to live in a state that is led primarily by conservative lawmakers and policy makers who value our 2nd amendment along with our right to hunt and fish. Unfortunately In many progressive states, radical environmental policies prevail because environmental groups were allowed a “seat at the table” inside their own Fish and Game Departments. Many politically progressive states like WA, OR and CA who have been infiltrated by anti-hunting and environmental groups, are witnessing radical wildlife management policies such as emphasizing “predator preservation” over traditional big game harvest for sustenance.
Even though Idaho has a conservative history politically, Idaho Lawmakers, Governors, and Fish and game commissioners continually have to be vigilant in keeping the more progressive IDFG managers in check within our own Idaho Fish and Game department. For the last 40+ years our Fish and Game has become increasingly convoluted with radical extreme pro predator wildlife managers. The problem originates from leftist academia that indoctrinates most of our new biologists who later become wildlife managers throughout the state. As an example, a few years ago I interviewed a young biologist who had just graduated with a PHD in Wildlife biology. He had just started working for Idaho Fish and Game at the time. He admitted to me that in 8 years of college, he never met another student who HAD NOT been brainwashed with radical environmental academia that his leftist professors taught regarding the religion of balanced and native ecosystems and the need for more predators. The reason this graduate was saved from this radical indoctrination was because he was raised on a small farm in Southern Idaho where he grew up hunting and fishing where his father taught and instilled in him common sense principles that he never forgot. He also told me that that very few of his classmates had ever hunted. Unfortunately IDFG forced him out within months after hiring him. He believed this decision came as a result of a discreet new policy within IDFG to hire predominantly non-hunters and applicants that met a certain environmental mindset criteria. In the 2013, IDFG Wildlife Diversity meetings, it was revealed by sportsmen that Idaho’s right wing conservative legislators were blamed as Idaho Fish and Game’s biggest threat to thwart their progressive environmental agendas within the dept.
Fortunately Governor Otter and his commission selection team have appointed some very capable and vigilant Fish and game commissioners the last 7+ years. These men are currently attempting to put IDFG back on course after decades of a department pursuing a progressive non-hunting agenda. Previous governors had appointed commissioners utilizing different criteria and unfortunately many of these commissioners had become “Duped” by very intelligent and sophisticated IDFG leaders who specialize in Social engineering skills. These IDFG employees receive this specialized training through their membership and participation in national organizations of Fish and Game employees. Many of these past commissioners allowed the “Tail to wag the dog” which allowed IDFG to realize their progressive Wildlife management policies. Examples of these radical environmental policies are emphasizing non consumptive management over consumptive, Pre-Columbian native ecosystem obsession and extreme pro predator policies.
Witnessing the results and fruition of these radical bankrupt wildlife policies resulting in less big game harvest opportunity, is the primary reason sportsmen and Idaho lawmakers are so frustrated with Idaho Fish and Game in general. Experts claim that the only tools to change this bankrupt direction is to change leadership and or use the "Power of the Purse" to stop their funding.
http://idahoforwildlife.com/index.php/idfg-wildlife-summit#Unholy%20Alliances
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 28, 2015, 05:59:05 AM
Totally agree, you don't know me or my "agenda". Although I did post a biography when I joined this forum, gave my home address, email, telephone, etc. Have you???? I have nothing to hide, and if you bother to read my first posts here, that's all I can offer you. Oh, and take the time to ask any of the MANY people on this forum who know me and have known me for many years what my intentions are. Let them speak for me, since you don't believe me.Seems like lots of questions about what CNW or other groups think or will do in this situation or that...I don't know, and I can't speak for them anyway. You need to ask them, I guess.
Who is representing hunters on the WAG? Look back at the posts where the new members were announced. Do you think that list is a lie and there are folks listed there as hunters but really are secret agents for the "other side"? Lets try to keep it real and slow the spin a bit. Nobody is saying those that are "supposedly" representing the hunting community are "secret agents" for pro wolfers. What I want to know is why there wasn't a process for hunters to nominate someone that the majority approved of speaking for them?
The wasn't a process for anyone to be nominated, unless the hunting community would have set that up themselves, which they didn't.
If so, you have bigger problems than a hunting issue. Who appointed them? The director with assistance from WDFW. Don't like the members or the system? Apply next time or do something to try and fix the system. Apply? I'm not aware of any announcement that representatives for the hunting community were needed to help address future wolf policy.
Look back on the threads and announcements WDFW made asking for ANYONE interested in helping on the WAG...it was made very public, and wasn't hidden from anyone.
AS for the individuals on the WAG that represent an organization. Yes they may speak for the user group, but maybe not all of them, especially the extreme ones. I hope to represent hunters on the WAG, not MDF. But I will not be representing a few of you who insist on being the extremist on the hunting side. LOL, is it really extremism to fight for our privilege to hunt? Is it really extremism to not trust agencies or groups that have shown absolutely zero respect or regard for hunters and their tradition?
No, not extreme at all to fight for what you love and believe in. But I do consider the constant bashing and spreading of rumors without any verification extreme. And quoting someone else's opinion, isn't verification; it's just spreading rumor and opinion. There's plenty on here that simply agree or support someone else's opinion and treat it as fact. Extreme to me is making accusations without proof, spewing opinion as fact. If it's your opinion and you say it is, that's great. Too many just grab it and treat is as gospel without bothering to learn the truth, or care to, in my opinion.
Just as I would expect some of the "enviro's" to not represent their more extreme counterparts.
Last time I'll bother any of you with this; if you are passionate about something and want to see change, get involved. If you won't even bother to do anything other than complain, you aren't part of the solution...
Perhaps hunters on this site would be more supportive if they felt their best interests were being looked after. You may preach from your soap box on this site, but the truth is we have no way of knowing your stance or intentions. Surely you must see the concern and understand the apprehension. :twocents:
I don't know who you are either, or quite a few others here. Even the ones who insist on bashing every post I make, while they do nothing to get involved. So how do I trust you? Guess I have to take your word for it, and I will until proven otherwise. I'm not preaching from a soap box; I'm just tired of the ones who do nothing but complain, while I've worked in conservation for the past 20+ years for hunters, habitat and management. I guess it's called "putting your money where your mouth is", and I don't mean just buying a hunting license.
A lot of us have put our money where our mouth is. We've attended wolf sessions, especially during the period up to and including the acceptance of the outrageous wolf plan. We've done conservation work as you have. Some of us do other things which support hunting like mentoring, hunter education, and activism on things we see which can negatively affect our rights and our hunting, as I'm sure you do. To those of us who do those things, and there are many of us on this forum, we have seen the WDFW take the 75% of their budget that we provide (license fees and PR funds combined), and use a good deal of it to support those who would see our heritage ended. From appointments to the Commission to the appointments to the wolf advisory group, we see a tendency of moving away from hunting to something else - all with our money. So, if you're surprised that many of us are pushing back at the agency appointing these members to the WAG, you shouldn't be. We've dealt with these groups. We've watched them attack hunting and our heritage with all they have. They're not going to change their spots because of a place at the table. They're going to use it to further their goals.
Post by: mfswallace on May 28, 2015, 07:15:54 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 28, 2015, 07:50:41 AM
"Intelligent hunters" and "common ground" - passive aggressive Orwellian speak directed at us on here insinuating that we're idiots because we don't want hunting seasons shut down. Aren't you guys embracing CGducksand Deer and ID huntr's "fundamental transformation" of new and improved game management in the US?:rolleyes: Yes, by highlighting the value in having intelligent, diplomatic hunters represent the hunting community to non-hunters I am really just trying to secretly insult you in some sort of vague, indirect way as I seek opportunities to end hunting in Wa. Let's find the dumbest most abrasive hunter out there to represent us...that will definitely make it so the anti's don't succeed in shutting hunting seasons down won't it? :bash:
These self important self proclaimed ego driven intellectual superiors will keep embracing this even when hunting seasons close down in WA due to wolves like it did in ID and MT.
A big loss for sportsmen in the US.MuleDeer and CGDucksandDeer :tup:
Based on your responses I think we have at least 2 great folks on this WAG. We need intelligent, diplomatic hunters to represent us on these controversial matters and you guys seem to be a perfect fit. The more you can do to present hunters in a positive light, the better. There will always be disagreement...but there just might be more common ground than folks here realize. Time will tell :dunno: And yes, Unsworth is a very avid hunter...those who suggest otherwise are either ignorant or lying, possibly both.
Are you seeking nominations?? :)
Post by: MuleDeer on May 28, 2015, 10:36:57 AM
It's difficult to blindly step out on faith when dealing with WDFW or anything they are involved in. Its my opinion that the entire department, with the exception of most of the field officers, have a complete disconnect from the hunting/fishing community and pander to special interests with the deepest pockets and liberal voting base. Politics should have nothing to do with hunting/fishing policy, but sadly it seems like politics are what dictate every aspect of it these days, that and revenue.......enter the WAG! :o
So in a nutshell, until the hunting community bands together and can collectively agree on a couple people to represent us and our interests, it's going to be difficult to feel comfortable sitting back, watching, and wondering how and when we get collectively screwed again. :twocents:
I could not possibly agree with you more in what you just said! That's what I've been trying to tell people, in order to hopefully stir more to get involved! The main reason we are losing ground to other groups and interests, is because we are not organized; actually just the opposite. Hunters fight and argue publicly over what they think is right, ethical, etc, when we should keep our opinions on those things to ourselves and show unity. Do I have opinions on different aspects of hunting? Absolutely. But do I make them public in a divisive way for the public to see? I try not to, and if I do, I hope someone will call me out on it.
We are on the same track here, and if this community wants to endorse/nominate people to represent them, I think it's a great idea.
Post by: MuleDeer on May 28, 2015, 10:57:02 AM
Muledeer-- Can you fill us in on the field trip portion of the meeting???
The field trip Friday was to visit, talk with, and see three different Livestock Producers and their operations.
First was with a sheep rancher that lost over 300 sheep last year over a very short period of time. Hearing his stories about the events made a strong impression on how much damage a pack of wolves can do in a matter of days, and how he, his ranch hands, and WDFW on site we unable to do anything about it. That visit showed the worst-case scenario.
The second visit was with a couple who raise cattle in and around Colville, and on leases on the Colville NF. They have seen the wolves, but have not had issues with them, yet. They work closely with WDFW on different strategies, as well as documentation of wolves. They do not ask WDFW for any financial help with the deterrents, but work with them and want to see wolf management come into use before things get more out of control. They admit they have been lucky so far.
The third visit was with the couple who had the Ruby pack around them, the two female wolves who started hanging out with the dogs. Actually, it was their "guardian dogs" who ran away to hang out with the wolves! They eventually caught the dogs, had them neutered, and the problem was solved. The one wolf got hit by a car, and the other was hanging around until WDFW trapped and moved it to Wolf Haven. During the time it was hanging around, the wolf would lay down amongst the cattle and sheep, and there was never any problems with their livestock. This occasion, in my mind, showed that wolves are more adaptable than most think, and that doesn't bode well for what could happen again in the near future. The couple never had any issue with the two wolves, but they admit that if the pack had been bigger, they would probably have had many problems. They are for management, and are cautiously grateful that they haven't had any problems yet. Currently, there is another pack of wolves on the ridge SW of them, less than a couple miles away.
The other beneficial part of the trip was the actual drive time, allowing us to speak and get to know the other people and their views. From the hunting side, wolf side, whatever, it is better to "know your enemy" than to be stuck assuming what they think. Like it or not, it is easier to work with someone you have some sort of relationship with, rather than the preconceived notions of their intentions. I work with lots of people I'm not friends with, but having that working relationship enables some cooperation there. I think that was the basic goal of this first meeting of the WAG, and I'm glad I got to meet the members one-on-one, both good and bad.
Overall, I feel like the trip was very informative to all there, but I can't speak for them. I did hear a lot of comments from people who say they got a better perspective, seeing the ground and hearing the losses that have happened. Some of the "West Siders" admitted that it shed some new light on their perspective of wolves. It was a good trip, in my opinion. They are going to try and get each user group to show their side in a trip like this in the future....I don't know how the antis would represent their side, and it may be difficult for the hunters to do the same. Any suggestions from the forum on how and what hunters could or should show during a field trip? It would be our best, single chance to show things specifically from our side, but we need ideas that we could pursue. Thoughts?
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 28, 2015, 11:13:34 AM
I didn't use the word "agenda" and did not say I didn't believe you, I said we have no way of knowing your stance or intentions......it shouldn't surprise you a lot of us are uneasy.Those were both great posts MuleDeer.... Lack of organization comment is spot on. Hunters are too easily splintered
It's difficult to blindly step out on faith when dealing with WDFW or anything they are involved in. Its my opinion that the entire department, with the exception of most of the field officers, have a complete disconnect from the hunting/fishing community and pander to special interests with the deepest pockets and liberal voting base. Politics should have nothing to do with hunting/fishing policy, but sadly it seems like politics are what dictate every aspect of it these days, that and revenue.......enter the WAG! :o
So in a nutshell, until the hunting community bands together and can collectively agree on a couple people to represent us and our interests, it's going to be difficult to feel comfortable sitting back, watching, and wondering how and when we get collectively screwed again. :twocents:
I could not possibly agree with you more in what you just said! That's what I've been trying to tell people, in order to hopefully stir more to get involved! The main reason we are losing ground to other groups and interests, is because we are not organized; actually just the opposite. Hunters fight and argue publicly over what they think is right, ethical, etc, when we should keep our opinions on those things to ourselves and show unity. Do I have opinions on different aspects of hunting? Absolutely. But do I make them public in a divisive way for the public to see? I try not to, and if I do, I hope someone will call me out on it.
We are on the same track here, and if this community wants to endorse/nominate people to represent them, I think it's a great idea.
Post by: mfswallace on May 28, 2015, 11:49:32 AM
Push for more detailed ungulate studies and petition for the states records to show trends, not harvest data but real on the ground surveys that match the effort they"claim" to put into counting wolves.
Take them into towns around the northeast that are severely impacted by reduced hunting numbers or invite those impacted to speak to what that is doing to there communities.
In the northeast show them the significant amount of deer in very close proximity to humans due to the vast amount of predators. wolves, cats and bears
I'll have more.....
Post by: MuleDeer on May 28, 2015, 11:29:37 PM
Somehow showing the antis wintering grounds with significantly impacted herds today compared to numbers from 10, 15, 20 years ago...
Push for more detailed ungulate studies and petition for the states records to show trends, not harvest data but real on the ground surveys that match the effort they"claim" to put into counting wolves.
Take them into towns around the northeast that are severely impacted by reduced hunting numbers or invite those impacted to speak to what that is doing to there communities.
In the northeast show them the significant amount of deer in very close proximity to humans sure to the vast amount of predators. wolves, cats and bears
Thanks! Some good ideas to start with and build something that all could see as to how predators are affecting not only our neighborhoods, but the $$ raised to continue conservation of all species. A good start....
I'll have more.....
Post by: mfswallace on May 29, 2015, 07:30:28 AM
Somehow showing the antis wintering grounds with significantly impacted herds today compared to numbers from 10, 15, 20 years ago...
Push for more detailed ungulate studies and petition for the states records to show trends, not harvest data but real on the ground surveys that match the effort they"claim" to put into counting wolves.
Take them into towns around the northeast that are severely impacted by reduced hunting numbers or invite those impacted to speak to what that is doing to there communities.
In the northeast show them the significant amount of deer in very close proximity to humans sure to the vast amount of predators. wolves, cats and bears
Thanks! Some good ideas to start with and build something that all could see as to how predators are affecting not only our neighborhoods, but the $$ raised to continue conservation of all species. A good start....
I'll have more.....
Make it very clear with stats just how much money hunters put into conservation through different organizations and the wdfw by way of license, tags and such. Also include P&R act funds that help fed and state agencies.
Find the amount of taxpayer and sportsmen's money fed and state agencies are forced to waste on lawsuits brought against them by anti-hunting/pro-wolf groups. Pointing out the hypocrisy that these groups have shown by supporting management plans and then suing once goals in plans are met and control measures are implemented! Some of which are on the WAG :bash:
However you feel about master hunters, the 20hrs of conservation type volunteer activities they are required to complete ads up and is an easily referenced point to our side.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 29, 2015, 07:46:52 AM
Post by: wolfbait on May 29, 2015, 09:01:50 AM
Somehow showing the antis wintering grounds with significantly impacted herds today compared to numbers from 10, 15, 20 years ago...
Push for more detailed ungulate studies and petition for the states records to show trends, not harvest data but real on the ground surveys that match the effort they"claim" to put into counting wolves.
Take them into towns around the northeast that are severely impacted by reduced hunting numbers or invite those impacted to speak to what that is doing to there communities.
In the northeast show them the significant amount of deer in very close proximity to humans sure to the vast amount of predators. wolves, cats and bears
Thanks! Some good ideas to start with and build something that all could see as to how predators are affecting not only our neighborhoods, but the $$ raised to continue conservation of all species. A good start....
I'll have more.....
Make it very clear with stats just how much money hunters put into conservation through different organizations and the wdfw by way of license, tags and such. Also include P&R act funds that help fed and state agencies.
Find the amount of taxpayer and sportsmen's money fed and state agencies are forced to waste on lawsuits brought against them by anti-hunting/pro-wolf groups. Pointing out the hypocrisy that these groups have shown by supporting management plans and then suing once goals in plans are met! Some of which are on the WAG :bash:
However you feel about master hunters, the 20hrs of conservation type volunteer activities they are required to complete ads up and is an easily referenced point to our side.
Don't worry everything is good!
"Yes, hunter's interests are represented well in the group. I spoke with every member there, and spent extra time talking to the members from CNW, DofW, Sierra Club, and HSUS. 3 of these members grew up in and understand our hunting heritage, and are not opposed to hunting personally or as a representative of their group. The other member has never been exposed to hunting, but is not against hunting at all."
"I would suggest that all of you interested look up the audio of the meeting. I believe they are also putting together notes of the whole meeting. Before you decide your judgment, I would encourage you to hear it straight from the meeting instead of conjecture and rumors from authors of articles. As for Director Unsworth, I spoke with him, too, and all he wanted to do was talk about hunting, especially mule deer. "
"I am from a "science based" mgmt. philosophy, as many hunters are. He and others no longer have the luxury of thinking that way. What I mean by that is the social impacts are going to be the biggest challenge of wolves in WA. Are they "special"? Absolutely not, wolfbait; they are the same wolves as in ID, WY, and MT. The difference isn't our wolves, it's our population and demographics."
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,174866.125.html
And knowing this WDFW came out with their 15 BP wolf plan. So instead of managing wolves it sounds more like they are going to manage people.
When were the most recent deer and elk survey done by wdfw? Not hunter harvest, actual survey's like there wolf studies. Anyone have stats for the last 10-20 years? http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,175130.0.html
Post by: Humptulips on May 31, 2015, 10:09:41 PM
Muledeer and anyone else in the group care to share your notes and thoughts??? Are hunters interest represented ???????????Yes, hunter's interests are represented well in the group. I spoke with every member there, and spent extra time talking to the members from CNW, DofW, Sierra Club, and HSUS. 3 of these members grew up in and understand our hunting heritage, and are not opposed to hunting personally or as a representative of their group. The other member has never been exposed to hunting, but is not against hunting at all. We are currently working on a time to hit the woods, so he can see what we do and why we do it. I was very pleased to find that there is not one "anti hunter" in this group. Of all groups represented, only one has ever had an anti-hunting agenda published, and it was HSUS. But that statement was made over 20 years ago, and not all members, including their rep on the WAG, are anti hunting.
"Department director Jim Unsworth told the advisory group it will take time to see how wolves affect different aspects of the Washington landscape compared to previous wolf introductions in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming."
What a load of 💩 :bash: :bash:
A wolf is a wolf I a MF wolf :bash:
Honestly do you not realize you are being fed a line of BS? I mean look at HSUS. They are always against hunting when ever they are involved with any wildlife management issue.
Here's a few quotes from their President and CEO Wayne Pacelle,
“If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would.” —Wayne Pacelle, Associated Press, Dec 30, 1991
“Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and dog fighting.” —Wayne Pacelle, (Bozeman (MT) Daily Chronicle, October 8, 1991
“We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States … We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state. —Wayne Pacelle, Full Cry Magazine, October 1, 1990.
Do you really think he changed his core philosophy or maybe decided to cool the rhetoric so he would be considered a little more mainstream?
HSUS is an animal rights organization and if animal have rights that pretty much rules out hunting or animal agriculture as seen by this quote from J P Goodwin HSUS United States Manager,
“My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture.” —JP Goodwin, employed at the Humane Society of the US, formerly at Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade, as quoted on AR-Views, an animal rights Internet discussion group in 1996.
Post by: jasnt on June 01, 2015, 10:26:34 AM
:yeah:Muledeer and anyone else in the group care to share your notes and thoughts??? Are hunters interest represented ???????????Yes, hunter's interests are represented well in the group. I spoke with every member there, and spent extra time talking to the members from CNW, DofW, Sierra Club, and HSUS. 3 of these members grew up in and understand our hunting heritage, and are not opposed to hunting personally or as a representative of their group. The other member has never been exposed to hunting, but is not against hunting at all. We are currently working on a time to hit the woods, so he can see what we do and why we do it. I was very pleased to find that there is not one "anti hunter" in this group. Of all groups represented, only one has ever had an anti-hunting agenda published, and it was HSUS. But that statement was made over 20 years ago, and not all members, including their rep on the WAG, are anti hunting.
"Department director Jim Unsworth told the advisory group it will take time to see how wolves affect different aspects of the Washington landscape compared to previous wolf introductions in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming."
What a load of 💩 :bash: :bash:
A wolf is a wolf I a MF wolf :bash:
Honestly do you not realize you are being fed a line of BS? I mean look at HSUS. They are always against hunting when ever they are involved with any wildlife management issue.
Here's a few quotes from their President and CEO Wayne Pacelle,
“If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would.” —Wayne Pacelle, Associated Press, Dec 30, 1991
“Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and dog fighting.” —Wayne Pacelle, (Bozeman (MT) Daily Chronicle, October 8, 1991
“We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States … We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state. —Wayne Pacelle, Full Cry Magazine, October 1, 1990.
Do you really think he changed his core philosophy or maybe decided to cool the rhetoric so he would be considered a little more mainstream?
HSUS is an animal rights organization and if animal have rights that pretty much rules out hunting or animal agriculture as seen by this quote from J P Goodwin HSUS United States Manager,
“My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture.” —JP Goodwin, employed at the Humane Society of the US, formerly at Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade, as quoted on AR-Views, an animal rights Internet discussion group in 1996.
Post by: Special T on June 01, 2015, 11:54:50 AM
What I hear Muledeer saying is he/we need to make the best of the hand we are delt. That said SPORTSMEN need to organsize and make sure these anti hunting groups are not at the table, and if they are they should be a small minority. The Only way for this to happen is for US to do something about it.
Ive talked a little about this before but it needs repeating. Fishery Orgs have made some headway because they have organised. Coastal Conservation Associaiton http://www.joincca.org/about Is one of those Orgs that has done a bunch of banding different Nonprofits together for the benifit of all. While I dont necessarily think Wa has to have its onwn non profit to organise on this issue HOW CCA goes about bringing groups together is important to understand and duplicate. ( I am not a member nor do i fish). Fishing has done a better job of showing its economic benifit, and getting groups like Trout unlimited Federation of Fly Fishers and others to come together as one voice so that Gov can see the ammount of agreement across the board all the Orgs have. As sportsmen we can have the discussions and arguments about the kind of style of hunting we enjoy, but we have focused too much on the differnces that divide Rifle, Muzzy& Archery methods instead of the MAIN points that bind us together. Local stake holders need to band together and hash out points of agreement THEN take them to the state. One of the complaints the WDFW has said in the past is "why should we do X Y or Z when the sportsmen aren't even on the same page?"
I dont like HSUS DoW, or CNW. They dont represent me, my views, or act in sportmens best intrest like so many other HUNTING orgs. Traditional Bowhunters of Washington, Washington State Achery Associaiton or Washington state Bowhunters Do a much better job of representing ME an archery hunter even if I dont suscribe to all of thier points of emphesis. These 3 Groups have meet together to meet the state with a unified message on several archery related topics including crossbows. This Organisation of Organisations needs expanding to include groups like Washington Muzzlelaoders Assocation, Washingotn state Rifle and Pistol assocation and Others who a vested interest in our hunting heritage.
If you belong to a sportsmens Org make it KNOWN that you think your Org should be Ralleying with others who generally agree on issues. As a Archer I KNOW I agree more with Rifle hunters on certain issues much more than I do with HSUS or DoW!
Post by: jasnt on June 01, 2015, 12:09:40 PM
Post by: Humptulips on June 01, 2015, 10:38:59 PM
http://huntersheritagecouncil.org/
All you have to do is get your organization to join.
Post by: huntnphool on June 01, 2015, 10:46:23 PM
Im gona go out on a limb and make a few assumptions.
What I hear Muledeer saying is he/we need to make the best of the hand we are delt. That said SPORTSMEN need to organsize and make sure these anti hunting groups are not at the table, and if they are they should be a small minority. The Only way for this to happen is for US to do something about it.
Ive talked a little about this before but it needs repeating. Fishery Orgs have made some headway because they have organised. Coastal Conservation Associaiton http://www.joincca.org/about Is one of those Orgs that has done a bunch of banding different Nonprofits together for the benifit of all. While I dont necessarily think Wa has to have its onwn non profit to organise on this issue HOW CCA goes about bringing groups together is important to understand and duplicate. ( I am not a member nor do i fish). Fishing has done a better job of showing its economic benifit, and getting groups like Trout unlimited Federation of Fly Fishers and others to come together as one voice so that Gov can see the ammount of agreement across the board all the Orgs have. As sportsmen we can have the discussions and arguments about the kind of style of hunting we enjoy, but we have focused too much on the differnces that divide Rifle, Muzzy& Archery methods instead of the MAIN points that bind us together. Local stake holders need to band together and hash out points of agreement THEN take them to the state. One of the complaints the WDFW has said in the past is "why should we do X Y or Z when the sportsmen aren't even on the same page?"
I dont like HSUS DoW, or CNW. They dont represent me, my views, or act in sportmens best intrest like so many other HUNTING orgs. Traditional Bowhunters of Washington, Washington State Achery Associaiton or Washington state Bowhunters Do a much better job of representing ME an archery hunter even if I dont suscribe to all of thier points of emphesis. These 3 Groups have meet together to meet the state with a unified message on several archery related topics including crossbows. This Organisation of Organisations needs expanding to include groups like Washington Muzzlelaoders Assocation, Washingotn state Rifle and Pistol assocation and Others who a vested interest in our hunting heritage.
If you belong to a sportsmens Org make it KNOWN that you think your Org should be Ralleying with others who generally agree on issues. As a Archer I KNOW I agree more with Rifle hunters on certain issues much more than I do with HSUS or DoW!
I agree with a lot of this T, but not completely in regards to the archery orgs you mentioned. Yes they get a voice in a lot of the GMAC meetings and bend the ear of WDFW, but a couple of them do not speak for the majority of archery hunters. That's a discussion we can have later so as to not get off topic though.
Bottom line, we need to organize a group that can participate in these meetings with WDFW, one that will actually speak for the group as whole, after getting a majority consensus from participating hunters, not just the opinion of those that will be appointed to represent them. :twocents:
Post by: Special T on June 02, 2015, 07:44:49 AM
Im gona go out on a limb and make a few assumptions.
What I hear Muledeer saying is he/we need to make the best of the hand we are delt. That said SPORTSMEN need to organsize and make sure these anti hunting groups are not at the table, and if they are they should be a small minority. The Only way for this to happen is for US to do something about it.
Ive talked a little about this before but it needs repeating. Fishery Orgs have made some headway because they have organised. Coastal Conservation Associaiton http://www.joincca.org/about Is one of those Orgs that has done a bunch of banding different Nonprofits together for the benifit of all. While I dont necessarily think Wa has to have its onwn non profit to organise on this issue HOW CCA goes about bringing groups together is important to understand and duplicate. ( I am not a member nor do i fish). Fishing has done a better job of showing its economic benifit, and getting groups like Trout unlimited Federation of Fly Fishers and others to come together as one voice so that Gov can see the ammount of agreement across the board all the Orgs have. As sportsmen we can have the discussions and arguments about the kind of style of hunting we enjoy, but we have focused too much on the differnces that divide Rifle, Muzzy& Archery methods instead of the MAIN points that bind us together. Local stake holders need to band together and hash out points of agreement THEN take them to the state. One of the complaints the WDFW has said in the past is "why should we do X Y or Z when the sportsmen aren't even on the same page?"
I dont like HSUS DoW, or CNW. They dont represent me, my views, or act in sportmens best intrest like so many other HUNTING orgs. Traditional Bowhunters of Washington, Washington State Achery Associaiton or Washington state Bowhunters Do a much better job of representing ME an archery hunter even if I dont suscribe to all of thier points of emphesis. These 3 Groups have meet together to meet the state with a unified message on several archery related topics including crossbows. This Organisation of Organisations needs expanding to include groups like Washington Muzzlelaoders Assocation, Washingotn state Rifle and Pistol assocation and Others who a vested interest in our hunting heritage.
If you belong to a sportsmens Org make it KNOWN that you think your Org should be Ralleying with others who generally agree on issues. As a Archer I KNOW I agree more with Rifle hunters on certain issues much more than I do with HSUS or DoW!
I agree with a lot of this T, but not completely in regards to the archery orgs you mentioned. Yes they get a voice in a lot of the GMAC meetings and bend the ear of WDFW, but a couple of them do not speak for the majority of archery hunters. That's a discussion we can have later so as to not get off topic though.
Bottom line, we need to organize a group that can participate in these meetings with WDFW, one that will actually speak for the group as whole, after getting a majority consensus from participating hunters, not just the opinion of those that will be appointed to represent them. :twocents:
You bring up a great point. There are 3 different Archery Orgs because each has its own emphasis. Despite their differences they have come together on points of mutual interest to bend the states ear. We get plenty of which is better Ford Vs Chevy on here and it makes for interesting discussion, however it does not focus on our common needs or goals.
Post by: Special T on June 02, 2015, 07:52:56 AM
You guys are trying to reinvent the wheel.
http://huntersheritagecouncil.org/
All you have to do is get your organization to join.
Interesting, had never heard of them before.
One of the problems We sportsmen have is that we are sooo strong willed the solution has to be our way or no way. Perhaps this Org can, has done some outreach in the that could help facilitate us organizing.
Post by: jasnt on June 02, 2015, 08:14:49 AM
You guys are trying to reinvent the wheel.thanks for the link. I had not heard of them either
http://huntersheritagecouncil.org/
All you have to do is get your organization to join.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 02, 2015, 04:05:36 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/wag/audio/20150521.mp3
Here's the WAG page where you can get the handouts and meeting notes, as well.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/wag/
Post by: Humptulips on June 03, 2015, 02:20:42 PM
You guys are trying to reinvent the wheel.
http://huntersheritagecouncil.org/
All you have to do is get your organization to join.
Interesting, had never heard of them before.
One of the problems We sportsmen have is that we are sooo strong willed the solution has to be our way or no way. Perhaps this Org can, has done some outreach in the that could help facilitate us organizing.
HHC does have a lobbyist in Olympia. They do a lot for us legislatively. They could do more if more organizations were involved. They don't solicit individuals for membership. Get your organization to join.
Post by: bearpaw on June 04, 2015, 10:26:14 AM
I have some concerns about this discussion. There are thousands of members on this forum and an even greater number of hunters and non-hunters who read this forum but do not belong to the forum. The forum had over 85,000 unique visitors (different IP addresses) during the last 30 days. We all have a little different view on what we believe, but as hunters we need to find common ground to support each other and to further our sport of hunting.
This discussion has only had 5353 views, but my concern is that a few members are going too far with personal insults, name calling, and/or condescending remarks. I know it's hard to control emotions and comments when we are worried about the future of hunting, but rather than agitate, please model your comments in a respectful and constructive manner so that you do not drive other members away from the discussion. We will be monitoring this discussion, we will take action when rules are violated, (there are some borderline comments) so please let's keep this a respectful constructive discussion.
THANK YOU
Post by: Netminder01 on June 04, 2015, 11:14:20 AM
PLEASE READ:
I have some concerns about this discussion. There are thousands of members on this forum and an even greater number of hunters and non-hunters who read this forum but do not belong to the forum. The forum had over 85,000 unique visitors (different IP addresses) during the last 30 days. We all have a little different view on what we believe, but as hunters we need to find common ground to support each other and to further our sport of hunting.
This discussion has only had 5353 views, but my concern is that a few members are going too far with personal insults, name calling, and/or condescending remarks. I know it's hard to control emotions and comments when we are worried about the future of hunting, but rather than agitate, please model your comments in a respectful and constructive manner so that you do not drive other members away from the discussion. We will be monitoring this discussion, we will take action when rules are violated, (there are some borderline comments) so please let's keep this a respectful constructive discussion.
THANK YOU
:yeah: