Post by: PA BEN on November 16, 2017, 01:29:58 PM
Post by: bearpaw on November 16, 2017, 02:14:29 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 16, 2017, 02:19:16 PM
Post by: bearpaw on November 16, 2017, 02:26:01 PM
Post by: lamrith on November 16, 2017, 02:42:28 PM
To their credit, WDFW has been trying to protect ranchers who have been already financially hurt by wolf damage from being flooded with death threats.That was my 1st thought also about this lawsuit.
It could be a way for the eco-terrorists to get private party information so that they can harass them and generally ruin their lives. A sob story on local TV about how "John Doe (who lives at 123 Main St, Seattle WA) murdered an innocent wolf" with videos of a wolf pack in captivity playing in the snow etc...
Next morning John wakes up to have his house vandalised and picket waving people in front of his house shouting wolf killer, etc. Following him to work and doing the same. That is the sort of tactics these groups will resort too and should not be taken lightly.
Post by: CGDucksandDeer on November 16, 2017, 04:45:58 PM
As for protecting the ranchers' identities, particularly in the case of the ranchhands who lawfully shot wolves caught-in-the-act of attacking cattle, thankfully WDFW has a slightly stronger legal shield to do so after last session: http://www.capitalpress.com/Washington/20170410/washington-lawmakers-seek-to-shield-wolf-plagued-ranchers-from-threats (http://www.capitalpress.com/Washington/20170410/washington-lawmakers-seek-to-shield-wolf-plagued-ranchers-from-threats)
For background, Sen. Short and Rep. Kretz, hunting and ranching groups, and the more pragmatic conservation groups on the WAG supported HB 1465 as appropriate and necessary. It was opposed by the hardline groups who do not have a seat on the WAG, including those now suing WDFW. This case could end up being a test, though it's not specifically focused on that legislation.
Government transparency is important, but so is protecting law-abiding citizens and important wildlife stakeholders from out-of-state trolls and uncompromising extremists.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on November 16, 2017, 05:18:35 PM
Government transparency is important, but so is protecting law-abiding citizens and important wildlife stakeholders from out-of-state trolls and uncompromising extremists.
[/quote]
...................and instate trolls and uncompromising instate extremists.
Post by: ribka on November 17, 2017, 08:13:29 AM
Are any of you your paid staff members at CNW anti hunting and want to end sport hunting?
As a paid spokesman for CNW what is your official stance on anti hunting groups like "howling for Wolves" filing frivilous lawsuits to shut down hunting?
Can you post your response on here and on CNW's FB for all to see?
Thanks
A bit more detail, including some of my perspectives, in this one: http://nwsportsmanmag.com/another-ferry-co-wolf-depredation-another-cbd-lawsuit/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.com/another-ferry-co-wolf-depredation-another-cbd-lawsuit/)
As for protecting the ranchers' identities, particularly in the case of the ranchhands who lawfully shot wolves caught-in-the-act of attacking cattle, thankfully WDFW has a slightly stronger legal shield to do so after last session: http://www.capitalpress.com/Washington/20170410/washington-lawmakers-seek-to-shield-wolf-plagued-ranchers-from-threats (http://www.capitalpress.com/Washington/20170410/washington-lawmakers-seek-to-shield-wolf-plagued-ranchers-from-threats)
For background, Sen. Short and Rep. Kretz, hunting and ranching groups, and the more pragmatic conservation groups on the WAG supported HB 1465 as appropriate and necessary. It was opposed by the hardline groups who do not have a seat on the WAG, including those now suing WDFW. This case could end up being a test, though it's not specifically focused on that legislation.
Government transparency is important, but so is protecting law-abiding citizens and important wildlife stakeholders from out-of-state trolls and uncompromising extremists.