Post by: wolfbait on December 22, 2015, 08:20:50 AM
http://www.king5.com/story/tech/science/environment/2015/12/21/federal-judge-rejects-wolf-kills-state/77725338/
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 22, 2015, 08:31:01 AM
Post by: wolfbait on December 22, 2015, 08:52:27 AM
"Hedrick noted that since 2012 wolves have been attacking livestock operations in Eastern Washington, with severe activity in the summer months ranging from cattle attacks near the Canadian Border, cattle kills near the Colville Valley, in grazing areas near Chewelah and at a sheep operation near Springdale. In 2015, wolves from the Dirty Shirt pack killed cattle near Chewelah; the Huckleberry Pack mauled a guard dog near Hunters and the Smackout Pack killed a calf, despite years of non-lethal deterrents and “range riders.”
In response, WDFW hired an $850,000 consultant to work with the pro-wolf heavy Wolf Advisory Group and is trying to form an advisory group to decide which ranchers should receive compensation. WDFW has also stopped making any lethal management decisions, demurring to the Wolf Advisory Group to decide when wolves should be removed. Governor Inslee also recently killed a provision from the Fish and Wildlife Commission that would have allowed for more cougar tags to be issued in 14 areas of the state to help alleviate pressure from predators."
Post by: grundy53 on December 22, 2015, 09:11:38 AM
Interesting that at least one of the parties named on the suit are also members of the WAG. Who would have thought that a member of the WAG would end up suing the WDFW over killing wolves? Oh that's right, it was I and a few others. The Wildlife Commission has appointed several animal rights groups to the WAG and will spend our hunter and fisher dollars to defend their plans in federal court against groups which have advance warning of those plans from sitting on the advisory group which recommends them. At the very least, this is negligence in the operation of the department. At worst, this is collusion with anti-hunting groups to subvert hunting in our state. If you didn't see this coming, you're blind as a bat.Come on now. I don't believe it. We were told they wouldn't undermine the WAG... we're all going to work together...
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 22, 2015, 09:43:49 AM
Post by: wolfbait on December 22, 2015, 10:14:36 AM
The topic now is wolf predation on livestock, what will be the determining factor for predation upon ungulates, how far will the game herds have to drop before the WAG "WDFW" decide on wolf control?
Post by: Curly on December 22, 2015, 11:23:11 AM
........ how far will the game herds have to drop before the WAG "WDFW" decide on wolf control?
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
\ /
\ /
|
Way, way, way down. Actually........never. :twocents:
Post by: MuleDeer on December 22, 2015, 01:29:43 PM
Federal judge rejects wolf kills in statePlease include all facts when you post items like this to fire people up. For example, the fact that lethal actions can and will still be taken on wolves in WA state. Just not by Wildlife Services. Lethal action will be done by WDFW.
http://www.king5.com/story/tech/science/environment/2015/12/21/federal-judge-rejects-wolf-kills-state/77725338/
Post by: MuleDeer on December 22, 2015, 01:34:33 PM
Interesting that at least one of the parties named on the suit are also members of the WAG. Who would have thought that a member of the WAG would end up suing the WDFW over killing wolves? Oh that's right, it was I and a few others. The Wildlife Commission has appointed several animal rights groups to the WAG and will spend our hunter and fisher dollars to defend their plans in federal court against groups which have advance warning of those plans from sitting on the advisory group which recommends them. At the very least, this is negligence in the operation of the department. At worst, this is collusion with anti-hunting groups to subvert hunting in our state. If you didn't see this coming, you're blind as a bat.Anther fact check:
1. The wildlife Commission did not appoint the members to WAG. They had nothing to do with it.
2. Our "Hunter and Fisher" dollars, or Pittman-Robertson funds, cannot be used by the animal rights groups or WAG or the Wildlife Commission.
3. There are 14 other members on the WAG, other than the animal rights groups you mention, so it's not like they are getting information that isn't also known by the other interests represented, namely livestock producers and hunters.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Post by: grundy53 on December 22, 2015, 01:40:05 PM
Interesting that at least one of the parties named on the suit are also members of the WAG. Who would have thought that a member of the WAG would end up suing the WDFW over killing wolves? Oh that's right, it was I and a few others. The Wildlife Commission has appointed several animal rights groups to the WAG and will spend our hunter and fisher dollars to defend their plans in federal court against groups which have advance warning of those plans from sitting on the advisory group which recommends them. At the very least, this is negligence in the operation of the department. At worst, this is collusion with anti-hunting groups to subvert hunting in our state. If you didn't see this coming, you're blind as a bat.Anther fact check:
1. The wildlife Commission did not appoint the members to WAG. They had nothing to do with it.
2. Our "Hunter and Fisher" dollars, or Pittman-Robertson funds, cannot be used by the animal rights groups or WAG or the Wildlife Commission.
3. There are 14 other members on the WAG, other than the animal rights groups you mention, so it's not like they are getting information that isn't also known by the other interests represented, namely livestock producers and hunters.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Those 14 other representatives won't be using that information against us.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 22, 2015, 01:44:48 PM
2. PR funds have already been used for the wolf program. As WDFW representatives work on "solutions" in the field for wolf depredations, more will be used.
3. My problem with this comment is outlined in my answer to #1.
Respectfully, I think you're on the wrong side of this issue, especially as a representative of an association which is supposed to support a population of animals which is already in trouble. Not acknowledging the incestuous nature of the relationship between our WDFW and the animal rights groups is dangerous for all of our wildlife. We've had the ability to delist these eaters in the E. 1/3 of the state for two years now. Their population has grown to such an extent that the ranchers and citizens of the NE are suffering greatly. The response from the people who are supposed to help them with human/wildlife conflict, the WDFW, is to pet the cute cuddly wolfies on the head and say "bad boy". They should be handing out tags and killing entire packs when these depredation problems occur. The influence of the animal rights groups and the fear they put into the WDFW is painfully obvious.
Post by: MuleDeer on December 22, 2015, 01:48:47 PM
http://stevenscountycattlemen.com/2015/11/13/oregon-delists-wolf-washington-should-follow-suit/Wow. Comical the way you leave out facts to make it sound so much worse...are you a journalist?
"Hedrick noted that since 2012 wolves have been attacking livestock operations in Eastern Washington, with severe activity in the summer months ranging from cattle attacks near the Canadian Border, cattle kills near the Colville Valley, in grazing areas near Chewelah and at a sheep operation near Springdale. In 2015, wolves from the Dirty Shirt pack killed cattle near Chewelah; the Huckleberry Pack mauled a guard dog near Hunters and the Smackout Pack killed a calf, despite years of non-lethal deterrents and “range riders.”
In response, WDFW hired an $850,000 consultant to work with the pro-wolf heavy Wolf Advisory Group and is trying to form an advisory group to decide which ranchers should receive compensation. WDFW has also stopped making any lethal management decisions, demurring to the Wolf Advisory Group to decide when wolves should be removed. Governor Inslee also recently killed a provision from the Fish and Wildlife Commission that would have allowed for more cougar tags to be issued in 14 areas of the state to help alleviate pressure from predators."
Fact: WDFW did not hire the facilitator in response to your posted quote above. They hired her because the first two years of the WAG were a complete disaster and nothing was ever accomplished or agreed upon: the format didn't work, and it was obvious.
Fact: The WAG is far from "pro-wolf heavy". Have you looked at who the WAG members are and who or what they represent there? Less than a 1/3 of the members are what you could even remotely call "wolf advocates".
Fact: There is no sub-committee to decide which ranchers will get compensated. ALL producers can receive compensation for losses, period. The WAG was and is working on the DCPA-L, which defines which produces can receive cost-share for putting pre-emptive actions into play. Has nothing to do with compensation.
Fact: WDFW has NOT stopped making lethal removal decisions. That is still as it was written in the original wolf mgmt. plan and protocol. What the WAG has been doing is making that protocol more specific in it's wording, so that when that protocol is met, there is no opportunity for dissention by the wolf advocates. So far, this has all been unanimously agreed upon by EVERY member of WAG, and it continues to be improved upon.
Fact: The WAG CANNOT dictate when lethal removal is necessary. The WAG is an advisory group, not a policy setting board or commission.
Fact: The governor did in fact kill the proposal by the Wildlife Commission, but let's reveal the entire truth of the story. It was killed because proper procedure was not followed, much like a lot of you complain about when something is "dumped" on the hunting community. The gov. also told the commission to not let this proposal sit, and to bring it back up at the next commission meeting, following all proper steps. Once that is done, he will not kill it, and it will be official.
Correct me if I'm wrong on any of these points. I know I'm not, because I know the facts and use them instead of half-truths.
Post by: MuleDeer on December 22, 2015, 01:57:59 PM
1. Whether it was the commission or the director who appointed them, they're in bed with people who will cost us money on both ends - They'll sue the department or the state to stop lethal control using taxpayer dollars to pay their attorneys. We're giving them advance notice to get ready for those suits.Yes, PR dollars have been used, in the intended form: management. They haven't been used to curtail mgmt. or undermine anything else. Just because the mgmt. being done doesn't suit you perfectly, doesn't mean they are misappropriating funds. There's lots of mgmt. that is done that I and many others don't agree with, so our option is to try and make a difference somehow, maybe by getting involved.
2. PR funds have already been used for the wolf program. As WDFW representatives work on "solutions" in the field for wolf depredations, more will be used.
3. My problem with this comment is outlined in my answer to #1.
Respectfully, I think you're on the wrong side of this issue, especially as a representative of an association which is supposed to support a population of animals which is already in trouble. Not acknowledging the incestuous nature of the relationship between our WDFW and the animal rights groups is dangerous for all of our wildlife. We've had the ability to delist these eaters in the E. 1/3 of the state for two years now. Their population has grown to such an extent that the ranchers and citizens of the NE are suffering greatly. The response from the people who are supposed to help them with human/wildlife conflict, the WDFW, is to pet the cute cuddly wolfies on the head and say "bad boy". They should be handing out tags and killing entire packs when these depredation problems occur. The influence of the animal rights groups and the fear they put into the WDFW is painfully obvious.
I'm far from the wrong side of this issue, but I also know the facts. We have NOT had the ability to delist wolves in any part of WA yet. You should read the Wolf Management Plan so you know all the facts. Is the Plan written the best it could have been? Not by a long shot, and they see the shortcomings of it now as things have gotten out of hand in the eastern 1/3 of the state.
Please explain to me how I'm on the wrong side of this issue......because I speak the facts and am working with the other members who want to see wolves managed to protect our wildlife along with livestock and producers? Would you rather see me throw a tantrum and speak 1/2 truths just to get people mad? I'd rather speak the whole truth and try to educate people on what is going on, and the ways we are trying to make some changes.
Attend a meeting of the WAG and I think you'd be surprised.
Post by: MuleDeer on December 22, 2015, 02:01:48 PM
According to WDFW wolves started "migrating" into WA in 2002, now 13 years later WDFW has confirmed 16 wolf packs, WA must have a wolf breeding problem compared to other states.Wolf Control, and specifically lethal controls have been written into the mgmt. plan since the beginning...nothing has changed. Ungulate mgmt. is also written into the plan. Read the Wolf Management Plan, then use the new knowledge to continue fighting for what we need to see change.
The topic now is wolf predation on livestock, what will be the determining factor for predation upon ungulates, how far will the game herds have to drop before the WAG "WDFW" decide on wolf control?
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 22, 2015, 02:05:39 PM
Post by: MuleDeer on December 22, 2015, 02:52:09 PM
I was happy to see some comments from a couple people that attended the WAG meeting. Not all their comments were completely accurate, but they were trying to convey some of what went on. I appreciate that. But I'd ask all of you, "Other than posting on this forum, what are you doing to try and make a difference?" Typing your thoughts, tantrums, rants, complaints, whatever you want to call them on this forum aren't doing much, as you are speaking to the choir. Maybe you're doing more; I hope so. In another year or so when they ask for new members for the WAG to apply, why not try that? Get right into the middle of the debate with the group that can have some impact on things. Or attend every WDFW meeting you can to make your voice heard. The one thing I ask everyone to do on this forum is to attend a WAG meeting and see for yourself. Most of what you all are posting here is far from what is happening at those meetings. Use the opportunity to get a clearer picture of what is going on. It does no good to spread rumors or assumptions. Read the minutes from the meeting first, at least, so you get some idea of what is really going on in the WAG meetings.
Post by: Bob33 on December 22, 2015, 02:58:45 PM
I've been around since the plan was written, too, and no, I don't agree with how it was written either. But, I also know the best way to get things done isn't to throw tantrums, but to work diligently through the process to get the system changed. We had someone throw a tantrum on Monday at the WAG meeting, and he was quickly escorted out of the room. And he was an extreme wolf advocate, not a hunter.Thank you for your comments and perspective.
I was happy to see some comments from a couple people that attended the WAG meeting. Not all their comments were completely accurate, but they were trying to convey some of what went on. I appreciate that. But I'd ask all of you, "Other than posting on this forum, what are you doing to try and make a difference?" Typing your thoughts, tantrums, rants, complaints, whatever you want to call them on this forum aren't doing much, as you are speaking to the choir. Maybe you're doing more; I hope so. In another year or so when they ask for new members for the WAG to apply, why not try that? Get right into the middle of the debate with the group that can have some impact on things. Or attend every WDFW meeting you can to make your voice heard. The one thing I ask everyone to do on this forum is to attend a WAG meeting and see for yourself. Most of what you all are posting here is far from what is happening at those meetings. Use the opportunity to get a clearer picture of what is going on. It does no good to spread rumors or assumptions. Read the minutes from the meeting first, at least, so you get some idea of what is really going on in the WAG meetings.
Post by: MuleDeer on December 22, 2015, 02:59:35 PM
I know the wolf plan backwards and forwards. I've been involved in this from nearly the start in WA It was devised in such a way as to take the longest possible time to accomplish. A great many of us recognized this a long time ago and have protested its components. It needs to be amended or scrapped and re-written so the people of the NE and the wildlife get some relief. I would like to see you and others throw tantrums and get this plan changed because it is disastrous in its consequences. You don't have to speak half truths to be ticked off about what's going on.By the way, all the things you mentioned here are and have been brought up and discussed by the WAG, including all members. Every member recognizes that it is not working, and we have discussions constantly to try and figure out the solution. It's not as easy as scrapping it and re-writing, but it is an option. Just not as easy as some would think it is. That's where the process comes in. And in the meantime, because that process IS going to take a while, we are looking at the best options for helping those most affected in the NE corner of the state. That does include lethal controls, better tools to use in preventing any wolf interactions, and anything else we have at our disposal to offer. And I know you think I'm on the "wrong side of this issue" by saying this, but EVERY member of the group is working right now towards those common goals to help not only our livestock producers, but hunters and our wildlife as well. Isn't cooperation between all members what we should be hoping for, instead of assuming all members are suddenly wolf advocates because we are finding a way to work together?
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 22, 2015, 03:02:28 PM
Post by: huntnphool on December 22, 2015, 03:04:46 PM
Interesting that at least one of the parties named on the suit are also members of the WAG. Who would have thought that a member of the WAG would end up suing the WDFW over killing wolves? Oh that's right, it was I and a few others. The Wildlife Commission has appointed several animal rights groups to the WAG and will spend our hunter and fisher dollars to defend their plans in federal court against groups which have advance warning of those plans from sitting on the advisory group which recommends them. At the very least, this is negligence in the operation of the department. At worst, this is collusion with anti-hunting groups to subvert hunting in our state. If you didn't see this coming, you're blind as a bat.Anther fact check:
1. The wildlife Commission did not appoint the members to WAG. They had nothing to do with it.
2. Our "Hunter and Fisher" dollars, or Pittman-Robertson funds, cannot be used by the animal rights groups or WAG or the Wildlife Commission.
3. There are 14 other members on the WAG, other than the animal rights groups you mention, so it's not like they are getting information that isn't also known by the other interests represented, namely livestock producers and hunters.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Maybe you can answer the simple question that nobody else seems to know the answer to? Who appoints the WAG members that are supposed to be speaking for me?
Post by: MuleDeer on December 22, 2015, 03:10:18 PM
All I'm trying to do is encourage people to make the time to be heard, like you do. Yes, it's hard for many, but there is opportunity, and it makes a difference. To all those who wonder why WDFW doesn't give enough credit for all that we as sportsmen provide to them? In my opinion, it's because we don't demand it, and we should! We are being drowned out in public opinion by those who are zealots for their beliefs, because they are trying to earn their rights, many times for the first time. We should fight just as hard to earn the privilege to hunt and not treat it as if it is a right. If we don't mount an offensive and make ourselves heard soon, we will lose what we all love so much. The sooner we all take that as a serious threat, the sooner we can organize and start to make a difference.
Post by: Bob33 on December 22, 2015, 03:13:08 PM
Interesting that at least one of the parties named on the suit are also members of the WAG. Who would have thought that a member of the WAG would end up suing the WDFW over killing wolves? Oh that's right, it was I and a few others. The Wildlife Commission has appointed several animal rights groups to the WAG and will spend our hunter and fisher dollars to defend their plans in federal court against groups which have advance warning of those plans from sitting on the advisory group which recommends them. At the very least, this is negligence in the operation of the department. At worst, this is collusion with anti-hunting groups to subvert hunting in our state. If you didn't see this coming, you're blind as a bat.Anther fact check:
1. The wildlife Commission did not appoint the members to WAG. They had nothing to do with it.
2. Our "Hunter and Fisher" dollars, or Pittman-Robertson funds, cannot be used by the animal rights groups or WAG or the Wildlife Commission.
3. There are 14 other members on the WAG, other than the animal rights groups you mention, so it's not like they are getting information that isn't also known by the other interests represented, namely livestock producers and hunters.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Maybe you can answer the simple question that nobody else seems to know the answer to? Who appoints the WAG members that are supposed to be speaking for me?
Wolf Advisory Group (WAG) Guidelines
Version 1
• Appointment: Wolf Advisory Group Members will be appointed by the Director. All members’ first term will expire on December 31, 2014; subsequent appointments will be for a period of two calendar years; members are eligible for reappointment.
• Membership Composition: The group will have 9 members, drawn from each of the following: livestock industry, environmental, and hunting organizations. WDFW personnel participating during meetings are not WAG members.
• Alternate Members: Each Advisory Group member may identify one individual to serve as an alternate when the appointed member cannot attend meetings.
• Lead: WDFW Game Division Manager will lead the group and develop the meeting agendas, which will be shared with and approved by the Advisory Group. The Advisory Group will determine meeting dates. Whenever possible, the Department will provide a facilitator for the meetings.
• Meeting Attendance: Meetings will be open to the general public. Time will be allocated at the end of meetings for the public to address WAG.
• Meeting Breaks: Members may request a recess during meetings to consult with others in attendance.
• Meeting Record Keeping: Minutes of each meeting will be taken and posted on the web page.
• Meeting Location: The meeting place will rotate around the state, unless weather conditions or other factors dictate an alternate location or the use of teleconference or phone conference technology. All scheduled Advisory Group meetings will be held at locations that provide reasonable accommodations for members of the public and persons-of-disability to attend.
• Minimum Number of Meetings: There will be a minimum of four Advisory Group business meetings held annually. Group business will be conducted at these meetings, regardless of the number of members present.
• Decision Making: The Department will carefully consider information provided by WAG members in its decision making, including any recommendations it may make to the Fish and Wildlife Commission concerning wolf conservation and management. WDFW will make final decision regarding all products and final outcomes. Members are expected to express whether or not their represented group can accept what is being proposed and to explain why they can or cannot accept the proposed action. The Department will provide feedback regarding decisions the Department makes; this feedback shall articulate all views provided and how the Department determined their action, final decision, or outcome.
Post by: MuleDeer on December 22, 2015, 03:15:39 PM
Simple answer. The appointments were made by the Director. Input was given by dept leads in WDFW, such as game managers, but the appointment is at the Director's discretion. It's outlined in the first directive of the WAG Guidelines on the WDFW website.Interesting that at least one of the parties named on the suit are also members of the WAG. Who would have thought that a member of the WAG would end up suing the WDFW over killing wolves? Oh that's right, it was I and a few others. The Wildlife Commission has appointed several animal rights groups to the WAG and will spend our hunter and fisher dollars to defend their plans in federal court against groups which have advance warning of those plans from sitting on the advisory group which recommends them. At the very least, this is negligence in the operation of the department. At worst, this is collusion with anti-hunting groups to subvert hunting in our state. If you didn't see this coming, you're blind as a bat.Anther fact check:
1. The wildlife Commission did not appoint the members to WAG. They had nothing to do with it.
2. Our "Hunter and Fisher" dollars, or Pittman-Robertson funds, cannot be used by the animal rights groups or WAG or the Wildlife Commission.
3. There are 14 other members on the WAG, other than the animal rights groups you mention, so it's not like they are getting information that isn't also known by the other interests represented, namely livestock producers and hunters.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Maybe you can answer the simple question that nobody else seems to know the answer to? Who appoints the WAG members that are supposed to be speaking for me?
Post by: wolfbait on December 22, 2015, 11:10:52 PM
Federal judge rejects wolf kills in statePlease include all facts when you post items like this to fire people up. For example, the fact that lethal actions can and will still be taken on wolves in WA state. Just not by Wildlife Services. Lethal action will be done by WDFW.
http://www.king5.com/story/tech/science/environment/2015/12/21/federal-judge-rejects-wolf-kills-state/77725338/
I posted a link to an article, after this would you like me to get with you first, maybe find out how you want things posted? :dunno: Hate the thought of firing people up.
I think I would rather have the USFWS taking care of the problem wolves as they have been doing it far longer then WDFW. And as far as WDFW handling problem wolves to date, they have been terrible, heck they can't even find wolf packs under their nose that need confirming.
Wolf history and WDFW go back 13+ years, and as you probably know history tells quite a bit about those we are dealing with. Do you think the WAG and the $850,000 consultant are going to change how WDFW manage wolves?
Post by: Curly on December 23, 2015, 04:23:47 AM
Federal judge rejects wolf kills in state"Wolves were hunted to extinction in Washington at the turn of the last century. But they started migrating into Washington from neighboring areas in the early 2000s and there are an estimated 16 wolf packs in the state, all in Eastern Washington. There have been conflicts between wolves and ranchers."
http://www.king5.com/story/tech/science/environment/2015/12/21/federal-judge-rejects-wolf-kills-state/77725338/
I guess if they tell the lies enough it becomes truth....
I don't think they have ever been completely gone in the state. If they were exterminated, they've been coming back a lot longer than since the 2000's.
I guess it just bugs me whenever I read the above statements.
Post by: JDHasty on December 23, 2015, 10:42:53 AM
That is all you need to know. I have been actively involved in advocacy work for disabled persons e.g. ADA
There are Disability Task Forces, ADA Advisory Committees, Barrier Free Working Groups or what ever the heck name they decide on in every decent size town and county and at the State level. Each and every time one of these is set up it is the Mayor, County Executive, Governor etc etc etc who gets final say on who sits in those chairs. The people from the disabled community who are selected are selected because they are easily manipulated and controlled and are likable and they will never say anything regarding the fact that the whole damnable thing is a sham from Alpha to Omega. These phony baloney Advisory Committees are there for one purpose and one purpose alone, and that purpose is NOT to make certain that the people who are most affected by policies and programs are not given short shrift.
Post by: MuleDeer on December 23, 2015, 10:20:45 PM
Do I think the WAG can change the way WDFW manages wolves? Yes, I do. That's why I applied for a position, and why I am still there fighting for "our side". And no, don't bother contacting me to make sure you post the way I want, just post all the facts, instead of trying to stir the pot like the press does with their "partial headlines" to get a rise out of people. If your goal is to educate people, then educate them with everything we can, not just the 1/2 truths to go for the most shock possible.Federal judge rejects wolf kills in statePlease include all facts when you post items like this to fire people up. For example, the fact that lethal actions can and will still be taken on wolves in WA state. Just not by Wildlife Services. Lethal action will be done by WDFW.
http://www.king5.com/story/tech/science/environment/2015/12/21/federal-judge-rejects-wolf-kills-state/77725338/
I posted a link to an article, after this would you like me to get with you first, maybe find out how you want things posted? :dunno: Hate the thought of firing people up.
I think I would rather have the USFWS taking care of the problem wolves as they have been doing it far longer then WDFW. And as far as WDFW handling problem wolves to date, they have been terrible, heck they can't even find wolf packs under their nose that need confirming.
Wolf history and WDFW go back 13+ years, and as you probably know history tells quite a bit about those we are dealing with. Do you think the WAG and the $850,000 consultant are going to change how WDFW manage wolves?
Post by: MuleDeer on December 23, 2015, 10:25:43 PM
Appointment: Wolf Advisory Group Members will be appointed by the Director.It's a shame you're so jaded. If you don't want to attend a WAG meeting to find out for yourself, why don't you ask any of the people in that room, on the WAG, or in the dept. if they consider me "easily manipulated or controlled". And the part about not speaking up and calling out the parties that should be? Attend a meeting...you will see that not only I, but many on the WAG are calling out WDFW and the wolf advocates. You guys and your opinions about the WAG, when you obviously know nothing about this group, are part of the problem with hunters not getting involved. You sit there and say it's all a sham, nothing matters, our voice isn't heard, they don't care if we show up at meetings......on and on. Imagine one of the MANY new hunters that come to these forums to learn and meet people. What are they supposed to think when all they read from so many of you is hatred and defeatism towards WDFW, our state, and the state of our wildlife? We should be encouraging every single hunter to be part of the process, not cutting them down and saying they are wasting their time by caring.
That is all you need to know. I have been actively involved in advocacy work for disabled persons e.g. ADA
There are Disability Task Forces, ADA Advisory Committees, Barrier Free Working Groups or what ever the heck name they decide on in every decent size town and county and at the State level. Each and every time one of these is set up it is the Mayor, County Executive, Governor etc etc etc who gets final say on who sits in those chairs. The people from the disabled community who are selected are selected because they are easily manipulated and controlled and are likable and they will never say anything regarding the fact that the whole damnable thing is a sham from Alpha to Omega. These phony baloney Advisory Committees are there for one purpose and one purpose alone, and that purpose is NOT to make certain that the people who are most affected by policies and programs are not given short shrift.
Anyone that wants to talk further with me about any of this, all my personal info is in my profile and in my first few posts. Call or email anytime you want.
Post by: wolfbait on December 24, 2015, 06:37:34 PM
Do I think the WAG can change the way WDFW manages wolves? Yes, I do. That's why I applied for a position, and why I am still there fighting for "our side". And no, don't bother contacting me to make sure you post the way I want, just post all the facts, instead of trying to stir the pot like the press does with their "partial headlines" to get a rise out of people. If your goal is to educate people, then educate them with everything we can, not just the 1/2 truths to go for the most shock possible.Federal judge rejects wolf kills in statePlease include all facts when you post items like this to fire people up. For example, the fact that lethal actions can and will still be taken on wolves in WA state. Just not by Wildlife Services. Lethal action will be done by WDFW.
http://www.king5.com/story/tech/science/environment/2015/12/21/federal-judge-rejects-wolf-kills-state/77725338/
I posted a link to an article, after this would you like me to get with you first, maybe find out how you want things posted? :dunno: Hate the thought of firing people up.
I think I would rather have the USFWS taking care of the problem wolves as they have been doing it far longer then WDFW. And as far as WDFW handling problem wolves to date, they have been terrible, heck they can't even find wolf packs under their nose that need confirming.
Wolf history and WDFW go back 13+ years, and as you probably know history tells quite a bit about those we are dealing with. Do you think the WAG and the $850,000 consultant are going to change how WDFW manage wolves?
I seem to be having a bit of trouble getting all the facts like you wanted MD, maybe you can help me out with the info. below.
Where did WA's wolves come from?
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northern Rocky Mountain Recovery Program Update
2008-Until 2008, no wild wolves had been confirmed west of the DPS boundary in Washington or Oregon. However, in July 2008, a wolf pack (2 adults and 6 pups) was discovered near Twisp, WA (just east of the North Cascades and west of the DPS boundary). Genetic testing showed these wolves did not originate from the NRM DPS; instead they apparently dispersed southward from the wolf population in southcentral British Columbia
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf
July 24, 2008
DNA tests showed that the wolves originated from a population in the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada.
“This is a natural colonization,” said Fitkin. “The wolves are naturally immigrating.”http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley
Jun 25, 2013-“DNA obtained from Lookout Pack wolves has shown they are descendents of wolves living in coastal British Columbia”, who lived separately from inland wolves for many generations, “Conservation Northwest” said in a press release. http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/
Post by: CAMPMEAT on December 24, 2015, 07:30:50 PM
Post by: wolfbait on December 24, 2015, 08:21:19 PM
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20021101&slug=graywolves01m
Jul 23, 2008-The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has convened a diverse group of stakeholders, including Conservation Northwest, to develop a state conservation and management plan for wolves.
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-releases/wolf-pack-confirmed-in-washington-state
Wolf Advisory Group
Conservation Northwest
Defenders of Wildlife
Humane Society of the United States
Sierra Club
Post by: CAMPMEAT on December 24, 2015, 09:58:17 PM
I don't know why these pictures are flipped ? Please turn it for me, thanks !
Post by: JDHasty on December 24, 2015, 10:15:27 PM
Friday, November 1, 2002-Defenders of Wildlife and the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance said yesterday they have sent a petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, requesting that the agency restore and protect gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act. "Northwest Ecosystem Alliance (now Conservation Northwest)"
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20021101&slug=graywolves01m
Jul 23, 2008-The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has convened a diverse group of stakeholders, including Conservation Northwest, to develop a state conservation and management plan for wolves.
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-releases/wolf-pack-confirmed-in-washington-state
Wolf Advisory Group
Conservation Northwest
Defenders of Wildlife
Humane Society of the United States
Sierra Club
This has a lot to do with me being "so jaded.". That and I have been on too many of these commissions when they had been deliberately packed with knotheads and know nothings who did nothing to educate themselves and we're obviously put there to make certain that nothing was accomplished.
Post by: MuleDeer on December 24, 2015, 11:02:39 PM
I can't tell you where they came from, and neither can you. To speculate the conspiracy theories doesn't make them true or false. I won't speculate, and I'll admit when I don't know something, like their origin in WA. Do I have ideas? Sure, like everyone else does. But I don't deal in guesses or speculation.Do I think the WAG can change the way WDFW manages wolves? Yes, I do. That's why I applied for a position, and why I am still there fighting for "our side". And no, don't bother contacting me to make sure you post the way I want, just post all the facts, instead of trying to stir the pot like the press does with their "partial headlines" to get a rise out of people. If your goal is to educate people, then educate them with everything we can, not just the 1/2 truths to go for the most shock possible.Federal judge rejects wolf kills in statePlease include all facts when you post items like this to fire people up. For example, the fact that lethal actions can and will still be taken on wolves in WA state. Just not by Wildlife Services. Lethal action will be done by WDFW.
http://www.king5.com/story/tech/science/environment/2015/12/21/federal-judge-rejects-wolf-kills-state/77725338/
I posted a link to an article, after this would you like me to get with you first, maybe find out how you want things posted? :dunno: Hate the thought of firing people up.
I think I would rather have the USFWS taking care of the problem wolves as they have been doing it far longer then WDFW. And as far as WDFW handling problem wolves to date, they have been terrible, heck they can't even find wolf packs under their nose that need confirming.
Wolf history and WDFW go back 13+ years, and as you probably know history tells quite a bit about those we are dealing with. Do you think the WAG and the $850,000 consultant are going to change how WDFW manage wolves?
I seem to be having a bit of trouble getting all the facts like you wanted MD, maybe you can help me out with the info. below.
Where did WA's wolves come from?
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northern Rocky Mountain Recovery Program Update
2008-Until 2008, no wild wolves had been confirmed west of the DPS boundary in Washington or Oregon. However, in July 2008, a wolf pack (2 adults and 6 pups) was discovered near Twisp, WA (just east of the North Cascades and west of the DPS boundary). Genetic testing showed these wolves did not originate from the NRM DPS; instead they apparently dispersed southward from the wolf population in southcentral British Columbia
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf
July 24, 2008
DNA tests showed that the wolves originated from a population in the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada.
“This is a natural colonization,” said Fitkin. “The wolves are naturally immigrating.”http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley
Jun 25, 2013-“DNA obtained from Lookout Pack wolves has shown they are descendents of wolves living in coastal British Columbia”, who lived separately from inland wolves for many generations, “Conservation Northwest” said in a press release. http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/
Post by: MuleDeer on December 24, 2015, 11:10:28 PM
How much money does the average hunters association have, to fight the billionaires, that dish out millions upon millions to save the wolves ? That's the reason why going to meetings is worthless..Name ANY animal rights group that looses to the average hunting groups, MuleDeer ?I guess it depends on what you call an average hunters association. If you count 5 of the top national groups (RMEF, NWTF, MDF, DU, and SCI), they had revenues in 2014 of just under $300 million. Can't really give you the answers you want if I'm not sure what you're asking.
What animal rights groups are you talking about, specifically? Because as I keep trying to tell many of you, some of the groups you consider "animal rights" actually work with the local and national hunters associations to do a lot of good work. So I guess, again, I need to know who you're talking about specifically.
Post by: MuleDeer on December 24, 2015, 11:13:23 PM
Friday, November 1, 2002-Defenders of Wildlife and the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance said yesterday they have sent a petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, requesting that the agency restore and protect gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act. "Northwest Ecosystem Alliance (now Conservation Northwest)"Yeah, those last 5 groups you listed are on the WAG. Can you name the other 13? You know, the ones that outnumber the wolf advocates more than 2 to 1? If you can, then why don't you list them all?
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20021101&slug=graywolves01m
Jul 23, 2008-The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has convened a diverse group of stakeholders, including Conservation Northwest, to develop a state conservation and management plan for wolves.
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-releases/wolf-pack-confirmed-in-washington-state
Wolf Advisory Group
Conservation Northwest
Defenders of Wildlife
Humane Society of the United States
Sierra Club
Post by: MuleDeer on December 24, 2015, 11:20:02 PM
What do you do for a living Muledeer ?I work for a national non-profit conservation group.
I don't know why these pictures are flipped ? Please turn it for me, thanks !
I put a post on here when I first joined to appease all the ones who thought I was some kind of spy. I haven't kept anything secret on here, including my job, cell phone number and home address. Ask many of the people on this forum whom I've worked with for wildlife over the last nearly 20 years to hear from them who I am and what I do. That way you don't have to take my word for it. Lots of guys on here have known me for a long time and been on many projects, events, releases, trappings, etc, etc. with me.
And what do you do for a living?
Post by: wolfbait on December 25, 2015, 09:35:13 AM
I can't tell you where they came from, and neither can you. To speculate the conspiracy theories doesn't make them true or false. I won't speculate, and I'll admit when I don't know something, like their origin in WA. Do I have ideas? Sure, like everyone else does. But I don't deal in guesses or speculation.Do I think the WAG can change the way WDFW manages wolves? Yes, I do. That's why I applied for a position, and why I am still there fighting for "our side". And no, don't bother contacting me to make sure you post the way I want, just post all the facts, instead of trying to stir the pot like the press does with their "partial headlines" to get a rise out of people. If your goal is to educate people, then educate them with everything we can, not just the 1/2 truths to go for the most shock possible.Federal judge rejects wolf kills in statePlease include all facts when you post items like this to fire people up. For example, the fact that lethal actions can and will still be taken on wolves in WA state. Just not by Wildlife Services. Lethal action will be done by WDFW.
http://www.king5.com/story/tech/science/environment/2015/12/21/federal-judge-rejects-wolf-kills-state/77725338/
I posted a link to an article, after this would you like me to get with you first, maybe find out how you want things posted? :dunno: Hate the thought of firing people up.
I think I would rather have the USFWS taking care of the problem wolves as they have been doing it far longer then WDFW. And as far as WDFW handling problem wolves to date, they have been terrible, heck they can't even find wolf packs under their nose that need confirming.
Wolf history and WDFW go back 13+ years, and as you probably know history tells quite a bit about those we are dealing with. Do you think the WAG and the $850,000 consultant are going to change how WDFW manage wolves?
I seem to be having a bit of trouble getting all the facts like you wanted MD, maybe you can help me out with the info. below.
Where did WA's wolves come from?
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northern Rocky Mountain Recovery Program Update
2008-Until 2008, no wild wolves had been confirmed west of the DPS boundary in Washington or Oregon. However, in July 2008, a wolf pack (2 adults and 6 pups) was discovered near Twisp, WA (just east of the North Cascades and west of the DPS boundary). Genetic testing showed these wolves did not originate from the NRM DPS; instead they apparently dispersed southward from the wolf population in southcentral British Columbia
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf
July 24, 2008
DNA tests showed that the wolves originated from a population in the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada.
“This is a natural colonization,” said Fitkin. “The wolves are naturally immigrating.”http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley
Jun 25, 2013-“DNA obtained from Lookout Pack wolves has shown they are descendents of wolves living in coastal British Columbia”, who lived separately from inland wolves for many generations, “Conservation Northwest” said in a press release. http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/
What happened to your spiel about firing people up or half truths, how about any truth at all? In the links above the USFWS, WDFW and CNW state that the Lookout pack wolves all came from different areas according to their DNA testing. Which outfit should we believe, the USFWS, WDFW, or CNW?
Post by: CAMPMEAT on December 25, 2015, 10:29:39 AM
What do you do for a living Muledeer ?I work for a national non-profit conservation group.
I don't know why these pictures are flipped ? Please turn it for me, thanks !
I put a post on here when I first joined to appease all the ones who thought I was some kind of spy. I haven't kept anything secret on here, including my job, cell phone number and home address. Ask many of the people on this forum whom I've worked with for wildlife over the last nearly 20 years to hear from them who I am and what I do. That way you don't have to take my word for it. Lots of guys on here have known me for a long time and been on many projects, events, releases, trappings, etc, etc. with me.
And what do you do for a living?
I'm retired, been retired since 2010.
Post by: wolfbait on December 26, 2015, 05:15:48 PM
IDFG played the same game for many years, and now WA is going to have to go through the same BS. The only difference is wolves started "migrating" to Washington long before the public realized it, while the USFWS advertised their wolf introduction.
In 2008 WDFW was finally forced to confirm one of the wolf packs in the Methow, seven years later WDFW have only confirmed 16 wolf packs in the whole state, despite many reports from the public. Instead of doing their job, they appoint groups to the wag they know will push for non-leathal wolf control for livestock predation, while they sit on their thumbs pretending wolves are slow at recovering in WA. And like happened in the original wolf introductions, the environmentalist will sue at every little loop hole left in for them, and the USFWS, WDFW will plead stupidity or something along those lines.
Remember the wolf working group? That was our one and only chance at a fair deal, we ended up getting the worst wolf plan in any state to date.
Remember the Idaho Wildlife summit? http://idahoforwildlife.com/index.php/idfg-wildlife-summit - Go look at WDFW's thirty year plan, see who their partners are.
Read the info below, then look at the actions by WDFW with their wolf recovery program, do you see the similarities?
What they Didn't Tell You About Wolf Recovery
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf
The USFWS, WDFW and the environmentalists are all on the same team, slow playing the people of WA. I have a hard time believing you don't know this yet MD. Maybe you just want everyone to see the environmentalists in a more favorable light.
Muledeer wrote: Looking for the "LIKE" button! Congrats on what was obviously a great day!
I spoke with Mitch, the CEO of CNW, about his donation for a Mule Deer Foundation project staying as "anonymous" It bothered me that he wouldn't have CNW take credit for doing a good thing. His response to me was "We wanted to stay anonymous for the benefit of MDF.", not wanting to potentially hurt our reputation by "consorting" with an organization who isn't perceived the best by the hunting community. While I conveyed that I appreciate that, from here forward, MDF insist we share credit where it is due. It is time for hunters to start learning the truth about some of what is completely misunderstood by some. It is time for hunters to realize that CNW is an organization which welcomes, and in fact practices hunting to a large degree, including the CEO. Thanks for the post and great pic! http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,182445.25.html
Friday, November 1, 2002-Defenders of Wildlife and the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance said yesterday they have sent a petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, requesting that the agency restore and protect gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act. "Northwest Ecosystem Alliance (now Conservation Northwest)"
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20021101&slug=graywolves01m
Hitler really was a great guy, many people just misunderstood him.
Post by: EmeraldBullet on December 26, 2015, 05:54:59 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on December 26, 2015, 06:28:10 PM
I remember as a child, my aunt adopted a gray wolf for me with 'wolf-haven' that used to be in Olympia. Unfortunately they went bankrupt and was ordered to release their wolves into the wild. This is hard to say because I'm sure most here disagree, but I like that WA has wolves. One of only a few states that do. Coyotes on the other hand, go to town reducing their population....Just my opinion.
You'll fit right in with the wolf lovers on here.
Welcome to the site and the ride you'll get...
Post by: csaaphill on December 27, 2015, 01:29:21 AM
>:(WHATS This say?Federal judge rejects wolf kills in statePlease include all facts when you post items like this to fire people up. For example, the fact that lethal actions can and will still be taken on wolves in WA state. Just not by Wildlife Services. Lethal action will be done by WDFW.
http://www.king5.com/story/tech/science/environment/2015/12/21/federal-judge-rejects-wolf-kills-state/77725338/
In response, WDFW hired an $850,000 consultant to work with the pro-wolf heavy Wolf Advisory Group and is trying to form an advisory group to decide which ranchers should receive compensation. WDFW has also stopped making any lethal management decisions, demurring to the Wolf Advisory Group to decide when wolves should be removed. Governor Inslee also recently killed a provision from the Fish and Wildlife Commission that would have allowed for more cougar tags to be issued in 14 areas of the state to help alleviate pressure from predators.
As with your other statement as well you sound as if you believe that. Just like those that say "OH were not after your guns" BS. >:(
Post by: EmeraldBullet on December 27, 2015, 02:25:22 AM
I remember as a child, my aunt adopted a gray wolf for me with 'wolf-haven' that used to be in Olympia. Unfortunately they went bankrupt and was ordered to release their wolves into the wild. This is hard to say because I'm sure most here disagree, but I like that WA has wolves. One of only a few states that do. Coyotes on the other hand, go to town reducing their population....Just my opinion.You'll fit right in with the wolf lovers on here.
Welcome to the site and the ride you'll get...
HA, Even I admit my rationale is mostly emotional rather than logical. I know wolves cause a lot of damage in this state but I still like their presence. Thank you for the welcome to the site, it's good to be here. Already my favorite forum just given the topics and knowledge here.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 27, 2015, 06:32:17 AM
Here you go CAMPMEATI remember as a child, my aunt adopted a gray wolf for me with 'wolf-haven' that used to be in Olympia. Unfortunately they went bankrupt and was ordered to release their wolves into the wild. This is hard to say because I'm sure most here disagree, but I like that WA has wolves. One of only a few states that do. Coyotes on the other hand, go to town reducing their population....Just my opinion.
You'll fit right in with the wolf lovers on here.
Welcome to the site and the ride you'll get...
Post by: CAMPMEAT on December 27, 2015, 07:23:16 AM
Post by: Curly on December 27, 2015, 08:19:49 AM
I remember as a child, my aunt adopted a gray wolf for me with 'wolf-haven' that used to be in Olympia. Unfortunately they went bankrupt and was ordered to release their wolves into the wild. This is hard to say because I'm sure most here disagree, but I like that WA has wolves. One of only a few states that do. Coyotes on the other hand, go to town reducing their population....Just my opinion.
Wolf haven still exists and there is no way they would have been ordered to release wolves into the wild. Your adopted wolf probably died so your aunt made up a story to let you down easy. Also Washington is just one of many states that has wolves. There are a lot more than "a few" states with wolves.
You of course are entitled to your opinion. Personally, I think wolves have always existed in this state, just not in the big numbers like we have today. I wish wolf numbers were more like it was 25 years ago. I saw a pack 25 years ago so even with a small number of wolves existing you still had opportunity to see them.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on December 27, 2015, 08:44:33 AM
I remember as a child, my aunt adopted a gray wolf for me with 'wolf-haven' that used to be in Olympia. Unfortunately they went bankrupt and was ordered to release their wolves into the wild. This is hard to say because I'm sure most here disagree, but I like that WA has wolves. One of only a few states that do. Coyotes on the other hand, go to town reducing their population....Just my opinion.
You really believe that they did that with habituated wolf cross breeds. :chuckle:
That would cause so many problems. :bash:
Post by: MuleDeer on January 03, 2016, 06:42:25 PM
What's your question here? Looks like you quoted a few of the recent headlines, all of which have been talked about a lot lately, including a lot of facts and other info to put them into perspective.>:(WHATS This say?Federal judge rejects wolf kills in statePlease include all facts when you post items like this to fire people up. For example, the fact that lethal actions can and will still be taken on wolves in WA state. Just not by Wildlife Services. Lethal action will be done by WDFW.
http://www.king5.com/story/tech/science/environment/2015/12/21/federal-judge-rejects-wolf-kills-state/77725338/
In response, WDFW hired an $850,000 consultant to work with the pro-wolf heavy Wolf Advisory Group and is trying to form an advisory group to decide which ranchers should receive compensation. WDFW has also stopped making any lethal management decisions, demurring to the Wolf Advisory Group to decide when wolves should be removed. Governor Inslee also recently killed a provision from the Fish and Wildlife Commission that would have allowed for more cougar tags to be issued in 14 areas of the state to help alleviate pressure from predators.
As with your other statement as well you sound as if you believe that. Just like those that say "OH were not after your guns" BS. >:(
Look up the WAG and what they are asked to do: they don't decide when lethal actions are taken, that is written into the protocols already. The WAG is an Advisory Group, not a policy-setting group, therefore, all they can do is make suggestions and help WDFW in sometimes re-wording agreements. WAG doesn't decide which ranchers will get compensation: any producer experiencing verified wolf loss is eligible, period.
Look at the post about the cougar quota. I explained in there exactly why the governor killed that proposal from the commission.
If you have a question, ask it. I'll do my best to provide the facts or corroborating evidence if I can. Or, just keep listing the "shock" headlines with no context if that makes you feel better. If you want to learn, research or ask questions and this forum will provide facts. If not, that's your choice.
Post by: wolfbait on January 10, 2016, 12:32:33 PM
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19970714&slug=2549520
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 10, 2016, 12:35:56 PM
Here you go CAMPMEATI remember as a child, my aunt adopted a gray wolf for me with 'wolf-haven' that used to be in Olympia. Unfortunately they went bankrupt and was ordered to release their wolves into the wild. This is hard to say because I'm sure most here disagree, but I like that WA has wolves. One of only a few states that do. Coyotes on the other hand, go to town reducing their population....Just my opinion.I would love to see one like that so I could take a photo !
You'll fit right in with the wolf lovers on here.
Welcome to the site and the ride you'll get...
Post by: Dan-o on January 10, 2016, 12:48:52 PM
It's a shame that some are really so jaded as to not want hunters in the fight.