Post by: JDHasty on April 12, 2016, 08:49:30 AM
In order to meet wolf-recovery goals agreed upon under the Washington Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (Wolf Plan), and for the long term viability of the species in our state, it’s important that wolves recolonize the high-quality habitat in the Olympic Peninsula and Washington’s South Cascades.
How about we also include Greenlake Park?
Post by: bigtex on April 12, 2016, 08:53:54 AM
Several years go as part of a larger wolf bill WDFW asked the legislature to include wolves in the criminal wildlife penalty assessment which is the mandatory civil fine for the illegal take of big game animals, some protected birds, wild salmon/steelhead, and sturgeon. The legislature did not pass the bill.
Post by: WAPatriot on April 12, 2016, 09:00:56 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 12, 2016, 09:11:53 AM
"Your organization is looking for a solution without a problem and you knew it when you wrote this misinformation hack piece. The penalties for poaching a wolf are very strict. There is no evidence that wolf poaching is a rampant problem in the N. Cascades. The problem is that the outrageous wolf plan, with your organization's help, was purposely designed to take a very long time to meet delisting criteria, if at all. The geographical requirements in at least two areas will be all but impossible to meet. This was done by design by CNW, the DOW, Cascadia Wildlands, and other so-called environmental groups in hopes that these eaters would never be delisted. Now that your plan is working, you're creating a non-existing problem and stirring up trouble among people who don't know any better and are uneducated about what has actually happened in wolf recovery. Could you be any more disingenuous? Likely, you'll find a way."
Post by: idahohuntr on April 12, 2016, 01:21:44 PM
It doesn’t matter whether it’s a bull elk or a wolf, poaching is never acceptable.
We know that some are looking forward to the day when wolf-recovery goals are met and more flexible wolf management is allowed. Illegal poaching does nothing but delay that day and cast a shadow on the otherwise responsible hunting and ranching communities.
Various stakeholders are supporting research by our state’s universities to monitor the impact of the wolf’s return on deer, elk and other ungulate populations — animals cherished by wildlife watchers and hunters alike, myself included.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 12, 2016, 01:44:50 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on April 12, 2016, 01:54:07 PM
Post by: mfswallace on April 12, 2016, 02:01:38 PM
Yeah right. First of all, it's a one-sided article written by a pro-wolfer about a problem which doesn't even exist. He talks about a couple of poaching incidents and then speculates the reasons for the slow growth of the wolf packs in the N. Cascades is poaching. He says one poaching incident is "unprosecuted". How are stiffer penalties going to change that? Could it be that hydatid disease or maybe echinococcus granulosus that's keeping their numbers low? Maybe some other disease that the USFWS ignored when they allowed them to fan out from the GYA. Or could it be that wolves are reproducing at a healthy rate, a rate predetermined by the scientists who designed the recovery from the start? There's not a bit of evidence that either shows their so-called slow pack growth is due any more to poaching than anything else, or that there's a problem with the population growth at all. It quite obvious to anyone who knows how to look at a map that the areas of fastest pack growth are also areas where poaching would be a greater issue (were it an issue at all) - the NE section of the state, where there are more people and more public land open to grazing. But there has been very little poaching in that area over the almost decade since they started moving in over there.
What else would u expect from a recent induction to the leftist biologists club, it doesn't matter what anyone says, idonthunter would find the best way to paint it as no big deal to ungulates or hunters....
Post by: Buzz2401 on April 12, 2016, 02:07:56 PM
Post by: Duckslayer89 on April 12, 2016, 02:08:55 PM
Post by: huntnphool on April 12, 2016, 02:13:14 PM
Various stakeholders are supporting research by our state’s universities to monitor the impact of the wolf’s return
The same researchers supporting our "increased cougar encounters is direct impact of over harvesting" cougar plan?
"To reduce encounters, increase their numbers" :chuckle:
No thanks, I'll be happy to see them NEVER reach the 15BP threshold. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 12, 2016, 02:15:19 PM
Status of the Gray Wolf in Washington Under Federal Law
The gray wolf is federally listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the western two-thirds of Washington. Within this area, it is fully protected by the ESA, which is administered and enforced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). On May 5, 2011, wolves were federally delisted in the eastern one-third of Washington (east of State Route 97 from the Canadian border to Highway 17, east of Highway 17 to State Route 395, and east of State Route 395 to the Oregon border). This means that the USFWS has the lead responsibility for wolf management in the western two-thirds of Washington.
For species listed under the federal ESA, activities that may result in “take” of endangered species are generally prohibited. The definition of “take” includes to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Penalties for violations of the ESA include fines of up to $100,000, with a maximum prison term of one year in jail.
For more information see: US Fish and Wildlife 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation - Lower 48-State and Mexico Gray wolf (Canis lupus), February 2012.
Status of the Gray Wolf Under Washington State Law
The gray wolf was listed as endangered by the State of Washington (WAC 232.12.014) in 1980 and receives protection under state law (RCW 77.15.120) from hunting, possession, malicious harassment, and killing. It was listed because of its historical occurrence in the state, near elimination from the state, and existing status as endangered under the federal ESA. State law specifies that when species are federally listed, the WDFW will recommend that they be added to the state’s list. Penalties for illegally killing a state endangered species range up to $5,000 and/or one year in jail. Because wolves have been federally delisted in the eastern one-third of Washington, WDFW has management authority over the species in this part of the state.
Wolf-dog hybrids have no federal or state legal status.
Post by: Bob33 on April 12, 2016, 02:46:16 PM
Post by: Jason on April 12, 2016, 03:18:48 PM
I think you should get 10 bonus points for killing a wolf in Washington!!:yeah:
Post by: villageidiot on April 12, 2016, 09:14:17 PM
Post by: JDHasty on April 13, 2016, 05:23:40 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on April 13, 2016, 05:38:49 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 13, 2016, 05:48:03 AM
Maybe Chase Gunnell should jump on here and make a comment. Very doubtful that he would or is just another of the lurkers. Probably too busy writing articles like this.
He's got enough supporters commenting already. :twocents:
Post by: JDHasty on April 13, 2016, 08:44:50 AM
Maybe Chase Gunnell should jump on here and make a comment. Very doubtful that he would or is just another of the lurkers. Probably too busy writing articles like this.
Chase is as much a hunter as this doofus is a hunter: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2004/10/22/kerry_thinks_midwesterners_are_idiots_can_i_get_me_a_hunting_license_here
Post by: Bango skank on April 13, 2016, 08:52:41 AM
I think you should get 10 bonus points for killing a wolf in Washington!!
Or a complimentary second deer or elk tag for the unit you killed the wolf in.
Post by: idahohuntr on April 13, 2016, 08:57:44 AM
Yeah right. First of all, it's a one-sided article written by a pro-wolfer about a problem which doesn't even exist. He talks about a couple of poaching incidents and then speculates the reasons for the slow growth of the wolf packs in the N. Cascades is poaching. He says one poaching incident is "unprosecuted". How are stiffer penalties going to change that? Could it be that hydatid disease or maybe echinococcus granulosus that's keeping their numbers low? Maybe some other disease that the USFWS ignored when they allowed them to fan out from the GYA. Or could it be that wolves are reproducing at a healthy rate, a rate predetermined by the scientists who designed the recovery from the start? There's not a bit of evidence that either shows their so-called slow pack growth is due any more to poaching than anything else, or that there's a problem with the population growth at all. It quite obvious to anyone who knows how to look at a map that the areas of fastest pack growth are also areas where poaching would be a greater issue (were it an issue at all) - the NE section of the state, where there are more people and more public land open to grazing. But there has been very little poaching in that area over the almost decade since they started moving in over there.I agree with most of what you wrote above. However, the author in this article largely presented hunters/hunting in a positive light to what is probably a huge non-hunting audience - and distinguished them from poachers.
Post by: JDHasty on April 13, 2016, 09:05:50 AM
Yeah right. First of all, it's a one-sided article written by a pro-wolfer about a problem which doesn't even exist. He talks about a couple of poaching incidents and then speculates the reasons for the slow growth of the wolf packs in the N. Cascades is poaching. He says one poaching incident is "unprosecuted". How are stiffer penalties going to change that? Could it be that hydatid disease or maybe echinococcus granulosus that's keeping their numbers low? Maybe some other disease that the USFWS ignored when they allowed them to fan out from the GYA. Or could it be that wolves are reproducing at a healthy rate, a rate predetermined by the scientists who designed the recovery from the start? There's not a bit of evidence that either shows their so-called slow pack growth is due any more to poaching than anything else, or that there's a problem with the population growth at all. It quite obvious to anyone who knows how to look at a map that the areas of fastest pack growth are also areas where poaching would be a greater issue (were it an issue at all) - the NE section of the state, where there are more people and more public land open to grazing. But there has been very little poaching in that area over the almost decade since they started moving in over there.I agree with most of what you wrote above. However, the author in this article largely presented hunters/hunting in a positive light to what is probably a huge non-hunting audience - and distinguished them from poachers.
He is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 13, 2016, 10:11:49 AM
Yeah right. First of all, it's a one-sided article written by a pro-wolfer about a problem which doesn't even exist. He talks about a couple of poaching incidents and then speculates the reasons for the slow growth of the wolf packs in the N. Cascades is poaching. He says one poaching incident is "unprosecuted". How are stiffer penalties going to change that? Could it be that hydatid disease or maybe echinococcus granulosus that's keeping their numbers low? Maybe some other disease that the USFWS ignored when they allowed them to fan out from the GYA. Or could it be that wolves are reproducing at a healthy rate, a rate predetermined by the scientists who designed the recovery from the start? There's not a bit of evidence that either shows their so-called slow pack growth is due any more to poaching than anything else, or that there's a problem with the population growth at all. It quite obvious to anyone who knows how to look at a map that the areas of fastest pack growth are also areas where poaching would be a greater issue (were it an issue at all) - the NE section of the state, where there are more people and more public land open to grazing. But there has been very little poaching in that area over the almost decade since they started moving in over there.I agree with most of what you wrote above. However, the author in this article largely presented hunters/hunting in a positive light to what is probably a huge non-hunting audience - and distinguished them from poachers.
The article has nothing to do with hunting. It doesn't matter whether the author mentions hunting in a good light or not. The anti-hunters will continue to associate poaching with hunting and the author has a solution for a problem which doesn't exist. He's just stirring up emotions for nothing.
Post by: JDHasty on April 13, 2016, 10:37:14 AM
Yeah right. First of all, it's a one-sided article written by a pro-wolfer about a problem which doesn't even exist. He talks about a couple of poaching incidents and then speculates the reasons for the slow growth of the wolf packs in the N. Cascades is poaching. He says one poaching incident is "unprosecuted". How are stiffer penalties going to change that? Could it be that hydatid disease or maybe echinococcus granulosus that's keeping their numbers low? Maybe some other disease that the USFWS ignored when they allowed them to fan out from the GYA. Or could it be that wolves are reproducing at a healthy rate, a rate predetermined by the scientists who designed the recovery from the start? There's not a bit of evidence that either shows their so-called slow pack growth is due any more to poaching than anything else, or that there's a problem with the population growth at all. It quite obvious to anyone who knows how to look at a map that the areas of fastest pack growth are also areas where poaching would be a greater issue (were it an issue at all) - the NE section of the state, where there are more people and more public land open to grazing. But there has been very little poaching in that area over the almost decade since they started moving in over there.I agree with most of what you wrote above. However, the author in this article largely presented hunters/hunting in a positive light to what is probably a huge non-hunting audience - and distinguished them from poachers.
The article has nothing to do with hunting. It doesn't matter whether the author mentions hunting in a good light or not. The anti-hunters will continue to associate poaching with hunting and the author has a solution for a problem which doesn't exist. He's just stirring up emotions for nothing.
:yeah:
The last thing anyone ever should do is concede "good intentions" to those within advancing the agenda of the progressive movement. Doing so is never warranted and only serves their interests.
Post by: Humptulips on April 13, 2016, 10:59:21 AM
Post by: jasnt on April 13, 2016, 07:20:50 PM
Post by: wolfbait on April 15, 2016, 10:03:33 AM
Dosent matter if it's a million $ fine and life in prison. Very few people would turn it a wolf killer where there are wolves. If you live with them you don't see them as needing protection
:yeah:
ID, MT, and Wyoming went through the same bogus wolf introduction, with the USFWS and their state game agencies refusing to confirm wolf pack etc.. It doesn't take too long for the glorified wolves to lose their shine in rural areas when state game agencies refuse to be honest.
David Mech said years ago, what would hurt the wolf the most would be the lack of control, he was correct. Look at the damage that is done while waiting for any control.
It has come down to the fact that calling WDFW for wolf problems will only prolong the killing of livestock while WDFW play patty cake with their environmental friends. And just like other states that have had wolves shoved on them, it is the public that is forced to protect their own interests by whatever means possible.
Post by: ribka on April 17, 2016, 05:33:02 PM
Ever notice how common it is for anti-hunters/trappers to identify themselves as hunters when writing these type editorials? It is just a way to make themselves sound reasonable and they know there is no way someone can out them.
I thought the same after reading the article
It was obvious to me this uneducated goober never hunted a day in his life. This tactic is very common with the anti hunting anti gun libs
Post by: jeffro on April 17, 2016, 05:57:03 PM
Best solution
SSS
Post by: jstone on April 17, 2016, 06:01:12 PM
Post by: JohnnyJohnson on June 04, 2016, 07:19:57 AM
Post by: 257 Wby Mag on June 04, 2016, 10:53:48 AM
I think you should get 10 bonus points for killing a wolf in Washington!!
That is a very liberal comment jerry!! Maybe we're both liberals?? Lmao
Post by: bearpaw on June 04, 2016, 11:13:02 AM
Ever notice how common it is for anti-hunters/trappers to identify themselves as hunters when writing these type editorials? It is just a way to make themselves sound reasonable and they know there is no way someone can out them.
:yeah: EXACTLY, That is one of their favorite tactics!
Bottom Line:
Wolves are delisted in the eastern third of Washington, if WDFW was as responsible as the other NRM states we would have a wolf season. If wolf groups weren't stopping the process wolves would be entirely delisted as the original goal was not to establish wolves statewide as WDFW and the wolf groups have chosen to do.